Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Sculptor1]

I asked you to site.
Do you know what "cite" means?

Sure, but there's nothing to cite.

It's too basic, you're just this dumb.

I asked you to site a claim you made about the content of John.
It's very simple

[FrankSophia]

I asked you to site a claim you made about the content of John.
It's very simple

Read the text dude.

[FrankSophia]

I asked you to site a claim you made about the content of John.
It's very simple

Seriously, why would I even want to engage you further?

[ad hominem cheap shot removed]

Read literally any explanation of the Demiurge not from Gnosticism and compare to John 1 and it is plain they're talking on the same.

Fixating on this instead of my actual point is annoying.

[FrankSophia]

There's also the common assertion that logos is an aspect of nous.

Which comes first intellect or reason? The Stoics made logos an aspect of each of psyche, nous, and monad but this is problematic because the monad only makes sense if it's wholly attributeless... never the less this was the most popular philosophy for 300 years either side of Jesus so they just took this and applied it to their construction.

Even people like Plotinus make nous the demiurge along with Pythagoras' dyad...

It is also the pneuma, which is translated as Spirit...

Thus we can understand this isn't supernatural, it is a way of understanding reality.

This really represents the mind aligned with the one, which is the point of philosophy...

It is precisely what the original post is requesting, but today there is no wisdom among so called philosophers.

This forum is an example of that, but everything about academic philosophy is wrong.

When the Christians took over all intelligence was stamped out, now we think people like Kant, Decartes, and Hume are the highest pillars.

They aren't even related, they have no idea what philosophy was intended to be.

The Catholic Church killed those who spoke the truth, so everything became superficial and stupid.

[FrankSophia]

During that time it went into the Muslim world and created the Golden Age...

This concept became the light of Muhammad and a function of ruh allah...

While the West was accomplishes basically nothing but misery Baghdad was thriving...

Then they decided only the Quran is valid and their civilization collapsed...

It was brought back to the West and started the Renaissance, but the Catholics announced Hermes Trismegistus was a fraud so the society lost any heart and the Enlightenment began.

Now we have a meaning crisis, and you want to perpetuate its cause.

[FrankSophia]

Imagine if we'd stuck to philosophy, our world would be so much more beautiful.

Instead it is dry and dull.

[FrankSophia]

Not to mention the Christians still want to kill everyone who doesn't uphold their delusions.

Philosophers always engaged with new traditions, they genuinely loved wisdom wherever it could be found.

Divorcing it from that original inquiry is hugely problematic.

A different name should be used because modern western philosophers have nothing in common with anything called philosophy world wide.

We need to stop pretending it's the same thing.

[Belindi]

Frank, why would an ancient myth positing that its hero is a demiurge be philosophically important? How does that differ from, say, the Aboriginal rainbow serpent that created the world?

I enjoy anthropological enquiries and my objection is he didn't relate it explicitly to anthropology and hence to philosophy

[Belindi]

Imagine if we'd stuck to philosophy, our world would be so much more beautiful.

Instead it is dry and dull.

Who separates philosophy from other academic disciplines?

[FrankSophia]

Who separates philosophy from other academic disciplines?

I already said that Plato first defined the term...

Pythagoras is the first to be called one...

Plotinus spells out how they relate and is their peak...

If it isn't related to what he calls "henosis" then it's something else.

Today we don't even know what wisdom is so anything passes.

[FrankSophia]

What is interesting is Plato defines philosophy as the recognized lack of wisdom, and thus engagement in finding it.

It is thus accurately transliterated "seeker" because again they went to every tradition they could to find a common truth through them all.

Today there is nothing like that, you're just fed information you're supposed to regurgitate later.

No philosopher agreed with their teacher entirely, because the point was the expression of wisdom in your unique way.

They didn't distinguish between schools like we do, they disputed conclusions.

They each engaged from henosis.

[FrankSophia]

You simply had no basis for speaking if henosis hadn't happened to you.

No one would listen because you had nothing to share.

Opinions just waste time.

[FrankSophia]

I like to use henosis because it covers notions like unity, union, and oneness... it is a direct experience, and among the most popular terms in classical philosophy... because it's the point of all of it.

[FrankSophia]

Academic philosophy is just a course on literature, no transformation is presented.

Henosis specifically denotes a transformation... every time you see "osis" it denotes a process of change.

Hen means "one" so it's the process of moving from division and apparent separation to a complete unity of all reality.

It is not the gathering of useless information so that you can impress your buddies.

It certainly isn't a useful degree in the work force.

We need to get back to what philosophy actually is because other expressions are causing too much harm.

Every time philosophy is there properly humanity prospers.

The more science is being accepted the higher the suicide rates.

[chewybrian]

I asked you to site a claim you made about the content of John.
It's very simple

Seriously, why would I even want to engage you further?

That is the point of this place and the reason most of us are here.

Even if I quoted a million sources on this you simply lack the mental capacity to comprehend what is being said.

When did I read something similar from Socrates? Oh, now I remember-- never!