Talk:Plotinus

Year of Birth
If Plotinus was 66 when he died in 270, he should have been born in 204, not 205. I dare not simply change it as there is possibly more to it, like contradicting information not discussed here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.190.253.144 (talk) 00:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Same Iamblichus
In the "Excursion to Persia and Return to Rome" section of the article, there is mention of Ariston the son of Iamblichus, with a link to the article on the Iamblichus who developed Neo-Platonism after Plotinus. Since this Iamblichus was about 25 when Plotinus died, it doesn't seem likely that Plotinus taught his son's wife! Maybe the link should be removed. Ineffabilis (talk) 14:24, 10 May 2008
 * I looked this up. It does seem that it could be true if one assumes that Plotinus taught Amphiclea when she was young, and that she only married Iamblichus' son after Plotinus' death (perhaps twenty years later). I added a reference anyway. Singinglemon (talk) 02:58, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Archive
Could the older discussions on this talk page be archived? This page is far too long and most of it is pretty old. Pollinosisss (talk) 06:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I created the archive myself. Pollinosisss (talk) 14:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Influenced Bergson
I added Bergson as an influencee. See this source:

http://books.google.com/books?id=1PwTZPW1ohQC&pg=PA139&lpg=PA139&dq=Bergson+influenced+by+Plotinus&source=bl&ots=RoTGn2J0Xr&sig=S7czXbG0KCOqRo8v9prDb_Wxoz8&hl=en&ei=yQi1S-DsBoTGlQfG1uBx&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Bergson%20influenced%20by%20Plotinus&f=false

"That the philosophy of Henri Bergson is significantly influenced by the doctrines of Plotinus is indicated by the many years Bergson devoted to teaching Plotinus and the many parallels in their respective philosophies. This influence has been discussed at some length by Bergson's contemporaries, such as Emile Bréhier and Rose-Marie Rossé-Bastide..."

128.164.62.227 (talk) 21:05, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Mysticism
There doesn't seem to be anything in the aritcle about Plotinus's mysticism. He didn't just describe the One but claimed it could be experienced. This seems to be an omission. Any comments? Oxford73 (talk) 04:57, 5 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Of course you are quite right. That appears to be a very typical phenomenon, academics analyzing the "theory of life" in detail, never being aware that they themselves are forever limited to an existence as paper-eating mice, since they cannot even imagine any other existence... - Hence such ways of "presenting" topics XY...


 * Regards, -- 147.142.186.54 (talk) 17:33, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Same thought. Plotinus refers to methods to acuire henosis, oneness; yet, these methods are not being described...  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   04:41, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Christianity
The article originally mentioned the influence of Neoplatonism, and gave a good example comparing Eastern Orthodox to Catholocism to Aristotle and finally Plotinus. I inserted the quote from Russell between these two phrases; The quote is now an authoritative support of the assertion that Plotinus had influence, and introduces the example provided by an earlier contributer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leviticus Orion (talk • contribs) 23:38, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Intellect concept
This is a funny line: "The One is not just an intellectual concept". In Greek philosophy, as with heidegger, "intellect" goes beyond mere ration, and includes the leap from mere "fact" and rational analysis to a deeper, 'intuitive' understanding. Maybe we should use another word here? Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   14:57, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure what's being asked here. Assuming that "ration" above means "ratio," the concerns are different. The page is highlighting the ontological reality of the One, rather than as a mere construct of intellectual power (a more Aristotelian theory of geometry might say this about the objects of mathematics). The distinction between intellectus, ratio, and the third (the Latin term escapes me, but the Greek is δόξα) while relevant to Plotinus's epistemology, is not strictly relevant to the ontological claims about the three primary hypostases. The claim cited above is a claim about the reality of the object—it is not a mere ens rationis, but (in an obviously equivocal sense to its normal usage) an ens realis. How we have knowledge of it is through intuitive apprehension (Latin: intellectus). The kinds of knowledge play a larger role in Proclus (Elements of Theology, and the paraphrase/epitome The Book of Causes). Suffice to say the sentence is fine as is. 53backes (talk) 16:20, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Plotinus. 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/20100409195724/http://www.giffordlectures.org/Browse.asp?PubID=TPRATO&Cover=TRUE to http://www.giffordlectures.org/Browse.asp?PubID=TPRATO&Cover=TRUE
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071006090521/http://plotin.lotophages.org/ to http://plotin.lotophages.org/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110720212626/http://upr_76.vjf.cnrs.fr/biblioplotin.html to http://upr_76.vjf.cnrs.fr/biblioplotin.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) 23:36, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

The One . . . beyond being and nonbeing . ..
The phrase, beyond being and nonbeing is etched in my mind for some reason (and also appears in this Wikipedia entry), but I cannot find it in The Enneads. I do find where it is implied (III.6.6) and where the One is said to be precedent to all Being (VI.9.3). Can anyone provide a citation that is more explicit? Hazratio (talk) 13:44, 15 April 2019 (UTC)Hazratio

depiction(s) of plotinus
according to the german site on plotin(us), there are several busts that stem from before 235 (including the one used here) which are commonly and erroneously assumed to be a depiction of plotinus -> despite the fact that he made a point of refusing to be portrayed, there is also a chronological conflict. i suggest to take a look at what is being said under "ikonografie" and what is thus being using instead in germany: 135.129.116.168 (talk) 17:13, 6 November 2021 (UTC): https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plotin 135.129.116.168 (talk) 17:16, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Selected Bibliography
Dear All,

I have added a topic 'Selected bibliography' which will eventually comprise all 21st century citations and all translations. That topic will be similar to the same topic in the 'Neoplatonism' article. All entries include an 'sfnref' tag so that hovering over the link in the citation pop-up displays the bibliographical reference and clicking on the citation takes you to the reference. This is very useful for linking to translations. I have found this method of linking works well where there are many citations, as there will be in this article.

As I work through the article, I am hoping to migrate all 21st century book and journal refs to the topic 'Selected bibliography'. Website citations and books published before 1999 will remain in 'References' with an appropriate 'sfnref' tag.

Regards

Daryl Prasad

Darylprasad (talk) 12:57, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Year of birth and death
Dear all,

There is no circa about Plotinus birth or death in the following authoritative references:

Gerson 2018, Emilsson 2017, Remes & Slaveva-Griffin (Chapter 9 by Brisson) 2014, Remes 2008, Corrigan 2005, and Edwards 2000.

And so the 'c.' before the year of birth has been removed.

Regards

Daryl Prasad

Darylprasad (talk) 13:03, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Second Sentence
Dear All,

With respect to the second sentence:

"Plotinus is regarded by modern scholarship as the founder of Neoplatonism."

(1)

the first citation:

Gerson, Lloyd P. (2017). "Plotinus and Platonism". In Tarrant, Harold; Renaud, François; Baltzly, Dirk; Layne, Danielle A. (eds.). Brill's Companion to the Reception of Plato in Antiquity. Brill's Companions to Classical Reception. Vol. 13. Leiden and Boston: Brill Publishers. pp. 316–335. doi:10.1163/9789004355385_018. ISBN 978-90-04-27069-5. ISSN 2213-1426.

refers to 19 pages in which does not seem to explicitly support the sentence in my attempts of a full text search in https://www.google.com.au/books/edition/_/U9UGtAEACAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PA614&bsq=neoplatonism

hence the first (of six times the citation is used in the article) HAS BEEN REPLACED with the simpler and still authoritative citation:

"Remes 2008, p. 1, Introduction."

which explicitly supports the citation in the first sentence of on p. 1 so you don't have to read 19 pages to get the same information.

The editor who added the Gerson, Lloyd P. (2017) citation is encouraged to narrow down the page numbers and add the citation again so the reader does not have to read 19 pages to find support of the statement: "Plotinus is regarded by modern scholarship as the founder of Neoplatonism" which is now accepted generally by contemporary scholarship.

Similarly for the 4th citation (used 10 times in the article):

Siorvanes, Lucas (2018). "Plotinus and Neoplatonism: The Creation of a New Synthesis". In Keyser, Paul T.; Scarborough, John (eds.). Oxford Handbook of Science and Medicine in the Classical World. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 847–868. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199734146.013.78. ISBN 9780199734146. LCCN 2017049555.

refers to 21 pages in which does not seem to explicitly support the sentence in my attempts of a full text search in: https://www.google.com.au/books/edition/The_Oxford_Handbook_of_Science_and_Medic/NfxdDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1

although the full text search revels that p. 840 supports the sentence; however, I cannot find the author of that article to change the citation. The editor who added the Siorvanes, Lucas (2018) citation is encouraged to narrow down the page numbers and add the citation again.

And so the first instance of the 4th citation HAS BEEN REPLACED with the equally authoritative (as far a Plotinus is concerned) and far simpler citation:

Emilsson 2017, p. ii, front matter.

(2)

the 2nd citation (used 11 times in the article)

This citation is fine, but it includes a huge slab of text from Encyclopedia Britannica which is not needed, as that information is just a click away and in the first sentence of the Encyclopedia Britannica article. The size of the pop-up is also very disruptive when you are hovering over the links and unnecessarily complicates the 'References topic'.

The first instance of the citation with a huge quote HAS BEEN REPLACED by much simpler and equivalent citation:

Armstrong, A. Hilary (1 January 2022). "Plotinus". Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved 12 July 2022.

and the same reasoning applies to the 3rd citation, where the citation with a huge quote HAS BEEN REPLACED by much simpler and equivalent citation:

Gerson, Lloyd (30 June 2003). "Plotinus". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved 12 July 2022.

Regards

Daryl Prasad

Darylprasad (talk) 12:39, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Fourth sentence
Dear All'

With respect to the sentence:

"Historians of the 19th century invented the term "neoplatonism" and applied it to refer to Plotinus and his philosophy, which was vastly influential during Late Antiquity, the Middle Ages, and the Renaissance."

As this article is about Plotinus, and not neoplatonism. the sentence and its citations HAVE BEEN REMOVED.

Best not to complicate the Introduction to Plotinus with a tangential issue so early on. If the reader want to find out about 'the term neoplatonism' all they have to do is click the link just above it in the second sentence, and that article (Neoplatonism) will tell you the same information in the second sentence.

Regards

Daryl Prasad Darylprasad (talk) 14:21, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Notes and Quotations
Dear All,

There were some old notes and quotations with slabs of text that have been replaced with equivalent citations. There is no need to quote the text that the citation refers to when citing a reference. Doing that opens the article up to copyright issues.

If you want to include a 'block quote' please make sure the source material is not in copyright.

Regards

Daryl Prasad Darylprasad (talk) 04:55, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Copyvio template removal
Hi

The Copyvio template has bee removed because it had the wrong information and was specifically targeting my edits where there are no copyright issues.

The copyvio template removed said:


 * The revisions requested to be redacted are: 1094150342(Copyvios report) to 1101132711 (inclusive)

'''However the major copyright issues were not added as part of those edits. They were added before 1094150342.'''

If you want to add a copyvio template, please add one with the correct information.

ScottishFinnishRadish removed the copyvio template on 15:51, 29 July 2022 with the comment: 'Restoring revision 1101148903 by Darylprasad: I'm fairly certain this is a clean version'

Thanks

Daryl Prasad

PS. I have notified the person who restored the copyvio template with no explanation after ScottishFinnishRadish had removed it. Darylprasad (talk) 00:09, 31 July 2022 (UTC)


 * After investigating for an hour or so, the only things I found were sites that apparently copied from Wikipedia. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:14, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * There were also definite issues with the Stanford article (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plotinus/index.html) and with notes that had text and block quotes from Gerson 2018, Armstrong 1990 [1966] and possibly Katz 1950.
 * The issues with the Stanford article, Gerson 2018, Armstrong 1990 [1966] and possibly Katz 1950 were all added before revision 1094150342 and have been replaced with citations from exactly the same references.
 * Regards
 * Daryl Prasad Darylprasad (talk) 00:26, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Daryl Prasad Darylprasad (talk) 00:26, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Discrepancy
On the Neoplatonism page, it says Ammonius Saccas and Plotinus created it. However, the Plotinus page says otherwise. What should be done about this? GoutComplex (talk) 16:30, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Neoplatonism in the STALKER video game series
The stalker video game series are based on the book Roadside Picnic. The story of the book is based on the Noosphere concept formulated by the catholic priest Pierre Teilhard de Chardin and the biochemist Vladimir Vernadsky. In the story, scientists discover the earth's immaterial field of energy composed of all the consciousnesses of humans, called the Noosphere. The noosphere is named after the greek word Nous, and sphere, world. Therefore, the Noosphere is the Noetic World. This appears to be inspired from Neoplatonism, as this is a word Plotinus uses in the Enneads (Kosmos Noetos). Anyway, scientists try to temper with the Earth's Noosphere to eliminate negative thoughts that cause war and suffering, but their interference spawns The Zone, a horrific rift between the Noosphere and the material world, where the worst aspects of human consciousness become materialized.

This is an example of Neoplatonism in pop culture today. It may be worth adding it. 31.120.255.211 (talk) 17:46, 29 December 2023 (UTC)