Is it blue-pilled to only have an anthropological/historical interest in Greek and Eastern mysticism? I love reading Plotinus, Plato (his cosmology), Aristotle, as well as medieval commentaries on their works, although when I come here, I find it strange how users talk without detachment about the Greek system of thought, attaching themselves entirely to their doctrines and intellectual mandates. You saw this a lot in the old /platonism/ general threads which were moved to IQfy.
That's the modern and academic viewpoint. Most posters probably believe that to truly understand a system you have to try to -- on some level -- believe in that system. Also, since we're anonymous it's easy to create personas to play out concepts like this.
Anyone who thinks Plotinus was a mystic is bluepilled
Who?
t. hasn't read the Enneads
then why do I have 10000 words of notes on the enneads you stupid Black person?
From quickly skimming it, because you're a moronic Hegelian who tried to read German moronation into a work where it doesn't belong.
he was like the third real philosopher i ever read so shut up
Also lots of errors
If you have an intellectual interest in something you have to be somewhat connected to it and accept its centrifugal benefits. Academics generally read classics as self-contained verbal structures rather than commentaries on "life".
I do have an intellectual interest in Greek thought. The interest is deeply secular though. I don't feel connected to their cosmological and metaphysical systems at all, although I believe they have cerebral virility and imaginative dexterity.
>medieval commentaries on their works
Got any recommendations?
Ibn Rushd's commentary on De Anima and Ficino's commentary on the dialogues for starters. The works of commentary from both the Islamic side as well as the Latin West are voluminous.
Ficino is not medieval
>Is it blue-pilled to only have an anthropological/historical interest in Greek and Eastern mysticism?
Not at all. It's bluepill to take everything and believe it all.
Western interest in mysticism is a LARP
You're probably not cut out for actual philosophy.
What is actual philosophy? What is fake philosophy?
/thread
OP, you're an anthropologist (bugman), embrace it and live out the npc life with no shame.
Anthropologists and Historians are morons. I don't take any of their opinions seriously.
Blew pilled desolatio
Plato is the most correct, smartest and most important person of the 4th century BC. There was no smarter, deeper, clearer, absolute Plato and probably could not be. It is no coincidence that a Athenian philosopher in one collection dedicated to Plato compared Plato with Protagoras. It would seem that there are completely different, opposite figures. Plato is a conservative hyper-traditionalist. Protagoras is a revolutionary innovator, a radical overthrower of traditions. But Aristoteles rightly guessed the revolutionary message of each of Plato's statements, the extreme, cruel noncomformity of his position, which turns everything and everything upside down, the radical nature of his thought.
The fact is that Plato is the only author, the only thinker of the 4th century, and maybe many, many centuries before that, who not only identified and confronted with each other secondary language paradigms, but also put into question the very essence of language. The language of sophism was methodologically very interesting, subtly reducing the historical existence of mankind to a clear and convincing formula for confronting opinion and belief. Being a great paradigmatic success, sophism was so popular and won the minds of the best intellectuals of the 4th century. But Plato is an even more fundamental generalization, an even more radical removal of masks, an even broader worldview contestation, putting everything into question.
- Plotinus
Plato undermined and then; with uncompromising intellectual rigour, demolished all the assumptions taken for granted by Hellenic man, that is to say Western or westernised man. Many others had been critical of the direction taken by European civilization since the so-called 'bronze age', but none had dared to be as radical as he was or to re-assert with such force the principles and values which Hellenic culture had consigned to the rubbish tip of history. His theme was the 'primordial tradition' or Philo Sophia, expressed-so he maintained-both in ancient mythologies and in the metaphysical doctrine at the root of the great religions. The language of this Philosophy was the language of symbolism, and he had no equal in his interpretation of this symbolism. Moreover he turned the idea of human progress upside down, replacing it with the belief almost universal before Athenian democracy, that humanity declines in spiritual excellence with the passage of time and that we are now in the democratic age which precedes the tyrannical age, an age in which all the possibilities rejected by earlier cultures have been spewed out into the world, quantity replaces quality and decadence approaches its final limit. No one who read him and understood him could ever be quite the same again.
- Julian
PBUH
Is it blue-pilled to//
Chicken dinner (he's had too many)
>Is it blue-pilled to have an interest
Yeah you fricking nerd lmao