Talk:Demiurge/Archive 2

Greek Creation Myth Version 2
In the beginning there was chaos. Then, out of a "black hole" came Mother Earth, out of her came Father sky. Mother Earth then had children, the Olympians and the Titans. Father sky saw an evil in the Titans, and he pushed them back into Mother Earth. Mother Earth was mad, and moved from Father sky. She released the Titans. Then Zeus created the heavens and land, and Earth emerged from the heavens. -Ariel Mordoch —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.104.203.89 (talk) 16:14, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Huh? MPA 02:47, 12 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MPA (talk • contribs)

This kind of religious philosophy is by nature, very thick and difficult to understand. It makes sense to me, and I hope anyone who is involved with this particular article will take that [appreciation] into account. What one person might not immediately understand, may well be of great significance to another. Desolvent (talk) 16:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I think not. I believe the article is just messy, since it confuses the Demiurge, an imagined handiworker creator of all in Platonism, with Ialdabaoth, an imagined evil creator of this universe in Gnostic world views. Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 07:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * BTW, I think the article should be split. Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 07:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * But as Plotinus pointed out, the Gnostic Demiurge is an elaboration of the Platonic Demiurge. And Plotinus' identification of the Demiurge as the conscious Self is entirely in line with the identification (if you wish to subscribe to Jung's theories) of the Demiurge as Ego, which can be seen as foreshadowed in the psychological interpretation given to the Old Testament by Philo. So I believe they should be kept together and the relationship between the two be clarified. Kramden (talk) 06:55, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, I agree completely with Kramden. It seems like use of the term "demiurge" is a means to an end, in describing the concept of a creator entity that is dissimilar from a unified godhead. BTW/FYI - Ialdabaoth directs to this page Desolvent (talk) 00:32, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Note, also, Valentinus' assertion that the Demiurge rules the psychic (animal) realm, and compare this to Paul's distinction between the soma psychikon, which was the soul breathed into Adam, and the soma pneumatikon, which is the spiritual body of incorruption generated in the resurrection. Kramden (talk) 21:27, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Recent edit warring by anonymous editor
Anonymous editor removed sourced material and replaced with un-sourced material. Anonymous editor not providing sourcing and instead is deleting material and engaging in ad hominem attacks.LoveMonkey (talk) 00:00, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * without concerning myself about the quality of the edits, the edit summaries are not acceptable, and the ed. has been warned.   DGG ( talk ) 02:37, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Recent sourcing request for Numenius and Justin statement.. I am digging to find my old copy of Dillon's Middle Platonists which appears to be what this page is using as sourcing.LoveMonkey (talk) 20:34, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, that source is probably sufficient, as long as it gets cited properly. I even went and checked the Guthrie book and couldn't find any mention of it, so it seems obvious that the original reference was misplaced from above. But the real problem is that this entire section on Platonism is difficult to follow and does not read like it was written by a native English speaker. The subject matter is extremely technical, and it is not helped by the haphazard writing. The material is difficult to edit without knowing exactly what was in the mind of the person who wrote it. Kramden (talk)

The Guthrie was missing the passage on what is Mose from his translation of Numenius. pg2 I have it electronically I can email it to you. I still can't find my copy of Middle Platonism by Dillon. Have you read through the Bazan? it is indespensible to this.LoveMonkey (talk) 04:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Recent revert by editor Yworo
The removal of the request for primary sourcing is a step in the right direction shame that Yworo did not caught that policy before I pointed it out. And I really did not write the section or sections in the article on gnosticism so, I really don't care there. Now the Neoplatonism section. This was one that went to Jimbo. If this editor could be more specific on what they find wrong with the section so that it can be addressed, fixed or explained this would be helpful. Right now their merely reverting and making excuses. I will copy this to the editors talkpage.LoveMonkey (talk) 18:53, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Revert request for more sourcing
Is it that time of year again where this whole Neoplatonism and Gnosticism thing starts over again? Why is the International Society for Neoplatonic Studies still not enough? I used Bazen, Armstrong, Dillon. Why is this not acceptable? As far as I know these are the best in the world, are they not? I used the conference on this very subject. It was wikipedia's decision to remove, delete, the article I created on the two conferences I had information on. And it is quite obvious I was right to create the article and Wikipedia was wrong to delete it as non-notable. How many more times is this kind nonsense going to occur? Heres the original that Me and Professor Morton worked on.. How can I get it restore? Yworo could just avert this whole thing and follow policy by telling me what in the section you needs addressed. LoveMonkey (talk) 19:03, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, you named dropped your alleged sources. But where are the complete citations? You know, name of book or article, publication data, page numbers. Remember our verifiability policy? These claims can't be verified without proper citation. Feel free to choose to remove either the section tag, or the individual tags, but not both. I used a section tag because the problem is systemic in the section and multiple individual tags are frequently considered more disruptive, but have it your way... Yworo (talk) 19:28, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It doesn't matter how good the sources are if article needs more work—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 19:52, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * So you did not go and look at the main article that this section is based on? Neoplatonism and Gnosticism? But I can source those requests. Its a shame that you are so difficult to motive to do something so simple.LoveMonkey (talk) 20:12, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does not use itself as a reference. Articles are continually changing. The text and sources there now are not necessarily the text and sources that were there when this section of this article was written. And it's the responsibility of the person who wrote the text to source it. Tagging these issues is of benefit to Wikipedia, so please don't criticize what I do vs. what I don't do, and I won't criticise you in that manner either. Cheers. Yworo (talk) 20:15, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Stumbled across this as I was assessing new copyedit tags in prep for the copyedit drive. FWIW, you're spending too much time here arguing. If you know about philosophy and gnosticism please add sources rather than tagging, otherwise find someone who can help. The main article has plenty of reliable sources, and indeed this is a daughter article. It doesn't reference the main article, but sources there can be used here. That said, expecting a single editor to add sources to a difficult subject such as this quickly is unrealistic. Better would be to find a wikiproject that supports this article and from there find editors to help. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:29, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense this is edit warring if you don't specify where and what then you are wasting time. And edit warring. As for "truthkeeper" glad to know Jim Jones is your hero. Will you include him with all your knowledge of Gnosticism? Since he is pretty much what is seen in the East as a gnostic.LoveMonkey (talk) 20:33, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That was pretty rude. I know quite a lot about the Cathars and was sad to see the paragraph taken out. My comment was targeted at the tagger, in case that wasn't clear. Anyway, I'll leave you all to it. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:40, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Sure. Religious conmen, cult leaders are what they are. That's not my fault. As for Cathars thats for the Roman Catholics to atone for. That should not have been done.LoveMonkey (talk) 21:41, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Tags
I changed some of the tags to be more appropriate. A couple sections have very few citation. They have been tagged as needing more. One section is labeled confusing. I agree and a copyeditor may be able to improve it. The article does not seem to rely highly on primary sources, so I removed that tag, relying on the more specific tags in the sections which actually need more references. Please read the edit comments, they were quite clear. Yworo (talk) 16:48, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Well. Appropriate to whom? Let me see which Wiki policy and lets see if we can fix that. Post the policies that say what and how it is in part or whole "less appropriate". The sections with few citations (the Plato and Neoplatonism ones) have few citations as the citations given should cover the information. If they do not lets take them one by one and I'll source them. As for Copyedit please do, go ahead and goto the copyedit request board and fire away. Your next comment appears misinformed. Please seek out the wiki policy on sources and please tell me here what it requests for proper sourcing? Here I'll give you a hint, does Jimbo want- primary or secondary? Which one could be more subjective (which is bad for here at wikipedia)? I read the edit summaries and they were wrong. I have included very clear sources that state that the Demiurge from Plato is the same one that gnosticism is referring to. Which source do you have a problem with specifically?LoveMonkey (talk) 16:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

An aside.. From the post that the passage or section is hard to understand. I wonder is Plato and Aristotle easy to understand? I have not found them to be. If the source is difficult why would any overview of it be any less difficult?LoveMonkey (talk) 17:04, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) There's only so much a copy editor can do (without studying the source materials). Gnostic writers could refer to the Demiurge in Plato's works (or those of later Platonists) but Plato could not refer to gnosticism's Demiurge... (The reality of "the Demiurge" can't just go without saying). Plotinus' "attempt to reconcile" Aristotle's energeia (and dynamis?) is likewise distinct from Aristotle's use of those terms... The concepts being referenced by WP editors using these various terms start to become exceedingly muddled and apparently contradictory. One thing that someone (an expert?) could do is clarify how the sources treat "Plato's" Demiurge as "unreservedly benevolent" in relation to a Demiurge of Gnosticism, (whom I take it is not "unreservedly benevolent" and might be called "evil"); e.g. did Platonists describe the former as oblivious to its use shoddy building materials?
 * Anyway, the {Incoherent} tag has been there since December 2009 and this section doesn't have a copyedit tag.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 19:52, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I didn't tag that section hard-to-understand. It was already tagged and I agree. Adding the copyedit tag puts it in a category that copyeditors use to find articles to copyedit, there is no need to put in a request as it is not urgent and will eventually get done. I am not going to post the policies about citation. They are linked from the tags themselves. The problem is the small number of inline citations in the sections tagged. You seem rather attached to the article and inclined to be argumentative. These tags are accurate and should not be removed or reverted. If you disagree, feel free to request a third opinion or start an article RfC about it. You might also want to review WP:OWN. Yworo (talk) 18:24, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * P.S. If you think one or more of my edit comments is inaccurate, please post the diff and the comment with an explanation of what is inaccurate about it. I am editing in good faith here. You made a blind revert of multiple edits. Are you editing in good faith? Yworo (talk) 18:27, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict #2) Doesn't BRD say something about consensus somewhere along the line? I agree your tagging didn't seem to hurt but watch out for tone on the flybys...Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 19:52, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * "You seem rather attached to the article and inclined to be argumentative." This seems very hard to take in Good faith as you made your changes to the article without discussion in the first place. And now you have not provided anything but excuses. Again your the one that posted the tags please provide examples that's the policy and rather you take it as argumentative or not it is part of the process. Also anyone as a third party would see how you asked that Wikipedia sourcing policy be disregarded, in light of your request for primary sources. Can you give another reason why you did not post that the sourcing policy requests that primary sources not actually get used? Am I being argumentative or acting that the article is mine because you don't want to follow policy?LoveMonkey (talk) 18:41, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Uh, there is one footnote in a section with eight paragraphs. Various opinions are attributed to various scholars without even the name of the book, much less full publication information and page numbers. It is completely accurate that the references need to be improved. See WP:CITE for what is required. Yworo (talk) 19:02, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Most of the article still smells like a freshman trying to mimic the style of an 18th-century translation from Greek. 66.191.103.200 (talk) 11:02, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Chaos
I removed the wikilink to the Chaos since that is a disambiguation page and this link does not help the user. If the Chaos in this article is a fictional place with no current article it should not wikilink to the disambiguation page. If there is an article on this place please link directly to it. &sect; Music Sorter &sect;  (talk) 22:43, 25 June 2011 (UTC)


 * ✅ &sect; Music Sorter &sect;  (talk) 04:17, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Yahweh
I wonder why there is so much hesitation to say it right-out: As is well known from Gnostic Christianity, the Demiurge is the “God” of the Old Testament, i.e., Yahweh! That explains much of the extreme cruelty ascribed to him in the OT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allesok (talk • contribs) 11:14, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Demiurge and Creator
"...the demiurge is not quite the creator figure in the familiar monotheistic sense;[dubious – discuss] both the demiurge itself and the material from which the demiurge fashions the universe are considered either uncreated and eternal, or the product of some other being, depending on the system."

This keeps popping up everywhere on the internet and I think it originates in an attempt to distinguish modern highly developed concept of God from that of Plato's in the Timaeus. I think it's mostly for rhetorical impact, is in an unfair comparison and in point of fact false. The Demiurge in the Timaeus fashions matter but he (Plato) nowhere states that the matter is pre-existent. In fact Plato lays out his thinking in a Cosmological Argument which neccessarily precludes pre-exitent matter. "Was the world, I say, always in existence and without beginning? or created, and had it a beginning? Created, I reply." Plato: Timaeus

People who state that Plato's Demiurge is not a creator, clearly have not read what Plato wrote concerning creation.

The section requires editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.137.36.230 (talk) 08:38, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The demiurge does not create the Forms. It merely makes copies of the Forms. Forms are eternal, unchanging, indestructible, etc. Regardless of whether matter is eternal for Plato, the Forms (the most fundamental reality) are eternal and not created by the demiurge. This is completely different to Classical theism which holds that everything apart from God is contingent and it's existence depends on God. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.149.119.150 (talk) 22:03, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I changed "...the demiurge is not quite the creator figure in the familiar monotheistic sense" to "...the demiurge is not necessarily thought of as being the same as the creator figure in the familiar monotheistic sense", in order to try and avoid some of the debate, and just put it out there that some people might not view it the same way, while others may, whereas before it was pretty much in the former. Somnum (talk) 20:24, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

folk etymology ?
Is there a legitimate etymological connection, from the Greek Demi-ourgos, to the words "Dominance", "Domination", "Domestication" ? Could the term Demi-ourgos imply, even in Hebrew-style kenning or suggestive innuendo, "Work of Domination", "Work of Domestication", connoting a hostile Power working to dominate & domesticate "common" (demos) people? Inexpertly, similarity seemingly exists, to the Sumerian Annunaki, who sought to fashion humans into "bipedal worker animals" (for lack of better words). If so, then the Demiurge in Greek & Gnostic traditions, might represent a continuation of the earlier Sumerian notion, of hostile Gods seeking to "tame" humans into "domesticated" animal peons. 66.235.38.214 (talk) 13:08, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course not. The demi- of Demiurge is Greek demos, the people, hence means of the public, as the demiourgos is a public worker; although ourgos is etymologically related to the English words work and worker. Whereas, dominance is from Latin dominus, master; and domestication from domus, a house. Your explanation is rather lucum per lucerna.
 * Nuttyskin (talk) 16:27, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Demiurge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.unl.edu/classics/faculty/turner/triadaft.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071016173047/http://timelessmyths.com:80/mirrors/gnostic.php to http://www.timelessmyths.com/mirrors/gnostic.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:51, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Demiurge = Half-Maker?
I have often seen the Demiurge referred to as "half-maker", in addition to "craftsman." I don't know Greek, so I don't know if calling saying Demiurge = half-maker is an etymological canard. Can someone help me out here? 74.141.69.51 (talk) 19:28, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I had the same question. "Demi" meant "half" in Old French, but "demiurge" is of Greek origin, where "demi-" apparently came from "demios" ("of the people"), and "demiurge" meant "public worker" (see the Oxford English Dictionary). Perhaps "half-maker" is correct in the sense that that's what later Gnostic thinkers meant (?). lifeform (talk) 00:01, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The dearth of proper scholarship has equalled the death of coherent reasoning. Use an etymological dictionary website, and look up the derivations of Greek words. You will thus build up a list of Greek words or prefixes and suffixes of Greek derivation. Please commit these to memory. Then, when you are faced with a relatively simple task such as this, you will be equal to the task.

Nuttyskin (talk) 15:25, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Split-suggestion
Hello, I thought about splitting the Gnostic demiurge section and Yaldabaoth. Although they are often compared or identified with each other, the term "demiurge" can also refer to a just incompetent deity, while Yaldaboath is associated with "Chaos" and "Evil" and much more demonic. I thought, that a short reference to Yaldaboath in Sethianism and Catharism, would be enough here, with a link to a main-article (Yaldabaoth), making this section only demiurge based without the archons, names of yaldabaoth and the demonization (apart from a short reference), and given the demiurge here in this article a more neutral and less demonized tone. I think "Yaldabaoth" and "Demiruge" are two different ideas, but the first applied to the latter, thus suggesting this split. What do you think about it?--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 19:32, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

I disagree with the proposed split. Both the idea of demiurge being incompentent and the idea of demiourge, aka Yaldabaoth, being malevolent are both theological expressions of dissatisfaction with the created world as we find it. (Sorry, I do not have a reference for this assertion.) Hence, it is appropriate to cover both ideas in the same article.-- Bmeacham (talk) 02:14, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

@ Greetings, sorry haven't seen your response yet. I think there should be a reference to Yaldabaoth though. But more as a sub-section with a short overview. About how the Demiruge was demonized in some Gnostic thoughts but for Yaldabaoth an article on it's own, since it seems to be, the idea of Yaldabaoth is a mixture of a demirug and a demonic "overlord", while the demiruge itself was first a philosophical concept. if this does not convince you otherwise, I would remove the split-suggetion tag I plaed here years ago.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 17:59, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

It’s the guy from persona 5 strikers
. 2601:189:380:C0F0:482B:9587:731F:DBEF (talk) 06:08, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

GLYCON
From the article: "Yaldabaoth is frequently called "the Lion-faced", leontoeides, and is said to have the body of a serpent." This aspect is rather similar to that of Glycon, who is believed to be a snake with a puppet head sporting a blond mane. Has any connection between them ever been made? 170.51.176.196 (talk) 03:40, 6 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I think we need to add the Sant Mat (as in the teachings of Ishwar Puri Ji viewable on YouTube) concept of Kal or Time. A complete perspective just seems like good journalism to me, and that is my current best interpretation of the "demiurge." EricaLaureli (talk) 12:31, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Revert in the etymology section
@GenoV84

It wasn't well cited. Gieseler's text wasn't cited and the claims about the probability of his definition or even the language from which he derives it aren't either. I went looking for it for the Yaldabaoth article and found it in his Lehrbuch der Kirchengeschichte p. 157, it doesn't credit a language, the transcription in the article is incorrect and moreover it's just Matter's etymology but uncited so if anything derived from Hebrew and not even supported by the people who like Matter's "Chaos" translation. The short summary of the controversy together with the link to the full etymology section in the Yaldabaoth article should be enough because the Quispel quote makes no sense without context. Bari&#39; bin Farangi (talk) 10:50, 4 May 2023 (UTC)