Talk:Iamblichus

confusion of "psyche" and "nous
The chapter on Iamblichus cosmology is confused, especially the notions of "intellect", "nous", "soul" and "psyche". Normally "psyche" translates "soul" and "nous" translates "intellect"; but in the chaper "intellect" is sometimes used for "nous". An expert is needed to correct it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.217.193.188 (talk) 22:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Cosmology section is hard to clearly understand. There is a dyad of nous and psyche, but then Nous is split into three categories, but then into two which with psyche makes a triad, but then the demiurge is 'identified with' (meaning the same as or merely connected to? emerging from?) nous, and it becomes a hebdomad? Needs to be defined much more carefully. 86.147.185.116 (talk) 12:53, 10 August 2016 (UTC) Rick Scott


 * The original Britannica article was twice as long. What remains has been chopped up and later all the Greek was removed. The author, William Ritchie Sorley, was a professor of moral philosophy and one of the now-extinct breed of British idealist philosophers, so he may even have understood was Iamblichus was on about. This is Iamblichus for Dummies. NRPanikker (talk) 19:42, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

jibborish
I removed a lot of the jibborish: it was maily Greek text that didn't translate for some reason and references to chapters in Iamblichus' book. There are still some missing pieces though, and the text is really stale and choppy. I'm going to try to fill in the spots and work on making the text flow better. If anyone thinks the references need to be returned, that can be done as well. Anyone who is interested: read the text through and see if it seems coherent. --DanielCD 21:01, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * "By his contemporaries, he was accredited with miraculous powers (which he, however, disclaimed), and by his followers in the decline of Greek philosophy, and..."

I cannot figure out what "in the decline of Greek philosophy" means. Can someone figure this out? Iamblichus responsible for the decline of Greek philosophy? Doesn't seem correct.--DanielCD 21:29, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * The "gibberish" removed by User:DanielCD must have been the Greek text in the original Britannica article by William Ritchie Sorley, only a half of which has been transcribed here. I presume the font used was not readable by his translation software. Removing all the Greek from an article about a Greek philosopher is not necessarily helpful to the interested reader.


 * The phrase "in the decline of Greek philosophy" can be clarified by looking at the original, before it was chopped up to become American-friendly: "By his contemporaries he was credited with miraculous powers ... and by his followers in the decline of Greek philosophy, and his admirers on its revival in the 15th and 16th centuries, his name was scarcely mentioned without the epithet 'divine' or 'most divine' ..." Part of what is being said is that Iamblichus and his disciples lived at a time of decline of Greek philosophy: which we know since they lived in the time of the emperor Constantine, who empowered the Christian Church to stamp out pagan learning. NRPanikker (talk) 19:26, 17 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Much of this article initially was transferred or had information added from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica when we did that project many years ago. A lot of the Greek was coming through like this --> " Owl ~yKuJ.uo, ". I'm not sure if I was not able to transfer the Greek letters at that time or what happened. I could fix it if I did it today. But I definitely agree it improves the quality of the piece to have the Greek text. If you wannt to add it back in, please do so, or I may look at it when I get the time and inclination. --DanielCD (talk) 13:17, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

peer review
I have rewritten much of the cosmology section, but am uncertain about it. The interpretation of all these gods and divisions gets very complicated, and I may have made some mistakes. I was also trying to accommodate the 1911 text as much as possible. Actually, I don't think more than a few scraps of it remain. As time goes, I may try to rewrite that section.

I would definitely appreciate ANY input and certainly PEER REVIEW is always desired and welcomed.--DanielCD 15:24, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Link
I found this link (I placed it on ext links) extremely informative. I highly reccomend a thorough reading of it (and the links within it) by any interested parties. Frankly it strikes me as dramatically superior to our own article on the subject. Cheers, Sam [Spade] 20:11, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Yea, that link is nice; it's basically the original writing of Eunapius. We can quote it, but putting it in whole would prolly be a copywite vio or something.  I'll see if I can find some good quotes from it.  Other than that, any other ideas that might improve the article?  It's kind of still a work in progress, kinda my pet project I been reading up on.  But all improvements and input welcome. --DanielCD 00:53, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I think short of an expert coming along, this is apt to remain your pet project (nothing so wrong w that tho, so long as you enjoy editing it). I don't know much of anything about the particulars, and am frankly unmotivated to study it at any real length. I read a good deal of that link, and while I found it informative, I didn't find myself nearly as interested as necessary to have kept up w it.    Your right that the most we can do is quote a line or two, but I think that article should be a pretty good resource for you (along buying/borrowing some of the relevant books if your feeling ultra-motivated) in your efforts here. I'm pretty sure there will be not a few grateful students in times to come due to your work here :) Cheers, Sam [Spade] 00:58, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment. I often find your comments helpful. I kinda like some of this 'obscure' stuff because it's just interesting to me and because it's not so controversial. I actually picked up the Shaw book I refer to at the bottom of the article. It's really good, kinda thick, but good. --DanielCD 21:01, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The current Anatolius link is disinforming; Iamblichus died 325, and "Anatolius was Patriarch of Constantinople (449 - 458)." Must have truly been a wise man to learn from someone that was to be born a hundred years later. ;) --Oop 01:48, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)
 * Yea... I wish I was so wise :-) 4C 17:32, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Move?
I don't know about anybody else, but I don't much care for these parentheses at the end of an article name when an alternative is at hand. How would you feel about moving this article to Iamblichus Chalcidensis? QuartierLatin1968 03:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * It's been a while since I looked at this, but if you have good reason to believe he was known as that, then go ahead. I can't recall at the moment, but I think that might be right. I'd rather have an article title without the parenthesis anyway. --DanielCD 21:38, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Having looked around some, I don't have reason to think his contemporaries called him Iamblichus Chalcidensis. A certain J.M. Dillon called him that in what appears to be a Latin edition of (one of?) his works, though. Perhaps we could follow the lead of de:Iamblichos von Chalkis and move him to Iamblichus of Chalcis? Or back to Iamblichus with an tag? QuartierLatin1968 [[Image:Red flag waving transparent.png|20px|El bien mas preciado es la libertad]] 19:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps go ahead and make the title "Iamblichus", add an "otheruses" tag, and put a redirect at Iamblichus of Chalcis. Or use Iamblichus of Chalcis, I think that would be fine. --Shadow Puppet 19:40, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I made the change. Perhaps someone could double check to see it I missed anything. Thanks. --Shadow Puppet 19:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Good Article nomination has failed
The Good article nomination for has failed
 * The article fails to meet many of the criteria for a good article.

Bugmuncher 13:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Try not to get discouraged; this is the best article I have reviewed for GA so far. It's pretty close. Here are my notes, using the criteria as a reference: A good article has the following attributes.

1. It is well written. In this respect:
 * (a) it has compelling prose, and is readily comprehensible to non-specialist readers;
 * PASS, mostly. It could be a little better, but I can't put my finger on what it needs.
 * (b) it follows a logical structure, introducing the topic and then grouping together its coverage of related aspects; where appropriate, it contains a succinct lead section summarising the topic, and the remaining text is organised into a system of hierarchical sections (particularly for longer articles);
 * FAIL the lead does not cover the scope of the article.
 * (c) it follows the Wikipedia Manual of Style;
 * FAIL section headings repeat subject of article.
 * (d) necessary technical terms or jargon are briefly explained in the article itself, or an active link is provided.
 * NOTE It might be helpful to explain "cosmology" at the head of the cosmology section.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. In this respect:
 * (a) it provides references to any and all sources used for its material;
 * PASS
 * (b) the citation of its sources is essential, and the use of inline citations is desirable, although not mandatory;
 * FAIL - most or all of the citations appear to be to ancient works, which are not mentioned in the references section.
 * (c) sources should be selected in accordance with the guidelines for reliable sources;
 * PASS
 * (d) it contains no elements of original research.
 * FAIL The only way to prove no original research is to cite reliable sources.

3. It is broad in its coverage, addressing all major aspects of the topic (this requirement is slightly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required by WP:FAC, and allows shorter articles and broad overviews of large topics to be listed);.
 * PASS - I am no expert, but I think I know a bit about who Iamblichus was after reading the article.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy. In this respect:
 * (a) viewpoints are represented fairly and without bias;
 * PASS mostly... see (b):
 * (b) all significant points of view are fairly presented, but not asserted, particularly where there are or have been conflicting views on the topic.
 * FAIL toward the end of the article, I get the impression than an author is trying to make an argument about the subject, using words like "Clearly" at the beginning of sentence.

5. It is stable, i.e., it does not change significantly from day to day and is not the subject of ongoing edit wars.
 * I did not check this.

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic. In this respect:
 * (a) the images are tagged and have succinct and descriptive captions;
 * N/A
 * (b) a lack of images does not in itself prevent an article from achieving Good Article status.

Thanks, Bugmuncher 13:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for looking at it. I mostly hammered this article into shape from a core of EB1911 material, which is prolly why it's so shallow on resources and dense/awkward in organization. For it to be really good, it likely needs to be rewritten from scratch. Perhaps someday I'll actually have the time... --DanielCD 23:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Syrian or Assyrian
About a year ago, an anon editor changed the line that "Iamblichus was the chief representative of Syrian Neoplatonism" to "Assyrian Neoplatonism". Whereas the former was clearly meant to describe the geographic origin of either the man in question, his variety of Neoplatonism or both, the latter eventually came to link to the article Assyrian people, which is about an ethnic identity. I'm not sure that the latter is attested, and thus is unverifiable. Any thoughts? — Gareth Hughes 16:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Was he a Syriac speaker or not? If so then, obviously Syrian or Assyrian would both be correct. If not, then he should not be labeled as such. Chaldean 17:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I think everything was in Greek, but he does come from a region where the likelihood of speaking Syriac was quite high, but still not definite. — Gareth Hughes 17:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * More research needs to be done. Chaldean 17:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * His name is Syrian (or Aramaic): ya-mliku; he was born in Coele-Syria. Syrian. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Requested move
Iamblichus of Chalcis → Iamblichus —(Discuss)— Primary bearer of name; the other candidate has a dab header linking to him, and is far more obscure. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Survey

 * Support as nom. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Iamblichus. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141121164922/http://ars-theurgica.org/taylor_on_the_mysteries.html to http://ars-theurgica.org/taylor_on_the_mysteries.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:21, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Unreliable source
I went and pulled Shahid's Prolegomenon. The only evidence he gives for Iamblichus being an Arab is his own surmise that Iamblichus is an Arabic name and the spurious claim that only Arabs assumed Arabic names during that time. Anthroponomastics shows Iamblichus was definitively an Aramaic patronym. We don't even know who Iamblichus' parents were. It is pure speculation to posit that he was ethnically Arab. There is no credible source for this, ancient or modern. It would indeed be great, and I for one would be thrilled, if after 1700 years some new piece of evidence came to light showing Iamblichus to have been Arab but it just isn't the case and wishing doesn't make it so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.192.124.54 (talk) 19:36, 3 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is written using reliable sources. Our opinions hold no weight. - LouisAragon (talk) 18:40, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * @IP: It does not matter if you are thrilled or not. You cant judge sources yourself. You are not an academic and even if you are, you still cant edit Wikipedia to reflect your own research before you manage to publish that research in an academic platform and get it peer reviewed. You need to stop reverting: you have been doing this for over a week, and it is not hard to get the page protected and stop you from editing it permanently.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 22:58, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Literally everything you wrote here applies to yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.192.124.54 (talk) 21:39, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Demon and Dæmon, confusion
The problem is that it there is a confusion between dæmon/daimon and demon they do not have the same meaning. Please clarify. Thank you! Cornelius Pannonius (talk) 18:55, 22 March 2024 (UTC)