Is he worth reading?

>>24510956 (OP)
He writes good plot

>>24510956 (OP)
Yes. Very much so. Better than most.
>>24511058
Kek.

>>24510956 (OP)
See his broken nose? I did that after reading his shit writing

>>24510956 (OP)
Yes but he’ll be incomprehensible without a foundation in Aristotle. His philosophy is as weak as any other form of Platonism - first, he hypostasizes concepts, he has no mature response to Aristotle on these issues, partly because he reads him through Alexander who was already engaged in Platonizing him. Second, he’s obviously “philosophizing” mystical insights. But philosophy isn’t really about transforming mystical intuitions into propositions and arguments. He’s still very interesting, I spent a few months reading the enneads over and over. There are many good ideas mixed in with the Platonic wankery (haecceity, contra Alexander; unconscious memories; God’s omnipresence; concrete advice on the spiritual path and meditation/prayer; fate and free will; some very beautiful passages inbetween the autism too).

>>24510956 (OP)
His thoughts on the Good are good.

>>24512634
>haecceity good
>Platonism bad
what the hell are these zoomers smoking? it's like they all got random opinions that don't make any sense

>>24512672
I’m in my 40s, I have a degree in Classics, I’ve probably been reading philosophy about as long as you’ve been alive. Plato says nothing about haecceity, he actually consistently denigrates the particular. Ofc for Plotinus haecceity is part of a theory of Ideas but it’s still a step in the right direction and his arguments against Alexander on this point work just as well against Aquinas. Why does premodern philosophy draw out so many foolish posters? In these threads, more than any other, I can post something true and at least moderately insightful and have someone call me a pseud. I’ve had posters gang up on me who think Aristotle was definitely a realist, that it’s obvious he thinks the soul is immortal, etc. I guess it’s because religious fanatics and chuds are into ancient philosophy. You don’t know wtf you’re talking about. You might fool your mom but I see right through you.

>>24510956 (OP)
he's an atheist and an annihilationist, if you're into that then yea he's really cool

>>24512825
It's because you insist on dropping shit tier opinions while insulting everyone using the same insults so that we can all recognize you that you get "ganged up on," and reduced to just repeating "retard" and "jeet" over and over again. Which is pretty sad for a forty year old man.

>>24513174
Fuck off jeet retard.

>>24512825
6/10 pasta, needs some basic reading on the topic

>>24510956 (OP)
yes, he's good, albeit incoherent at times. he was hardly literate and kinda blind, so his writing is abstruse. otherwise he's good for understanding neoplatonism and mysticism; proclus will condense his messy work into a more coherent whole, so that's worth reading too

>>24512634
>His philosophy is as weak as any other form of Platonism - first, he hypostasizes concepts

>>24512825
everything exists in some way, there is nothing without "haeccity". Everything is a particular (i.e. an individual something, not 'particular' as in participant of some universal.) Otherwise words have no meaning.

>>24512825
>that it’s obvious he thinks the soul is immortal

ἀλλ' ὁ νοῦς ὅταν τι νοήσῃ σφόδρα νοητόν, οὐχ ἧττον νοεῖ τὰ ὑποδεέστερα, ἀλλὰ καὶ μᾶλλον· τὸ μὲν γὰρ αἰσθητικὸν οὐκ ἄνευ σώματος, ὁ δὲ χωριστός.

χωρισθεὶς δ' ἐστὶ μόνον τοῦθ' ὅπερ ἐστί, καὶ τοῦτο μόνον ἀθάνατον καὶ ἀΐδιον

>>24510956 (OP)
Heraclitus?

>>24510956 (OP)
Yes, but only after reading a lot of Plato.