u/NoogLing466

Hello Friends! I have a question about eternal punishment in the Platonic Tradition, which seems to be affirmed by earlier Platonists like Plato himself and Plutarch, but not by the later Neoplatonists.

Plato makes mentions to those who are "incurably" evil in his works, holding that they are punished not for their own benefit, since they are incurable, but for the benefit of other onlookers.

In the Gorgias (525c-d), he writes: "But of those who have done extreme wrong and, as a result of such crimes, have become incurable, of those are the examples made; no longer are they profited at all themselves, since they are incurable, but others are profited who behold them undergoing for their transgressions the greatest, sharpest, and most fearful sufferings evermore, actually hung up as examples there in the infernal dungeon, a spectacle and a lesson to such of the wrongdoers as arrive from time to time."

In the Phaedo (113), he writes: "But those who appear to be incurable, on account of the greatness of their wrongdoings, because they have committed many great deeds of sacrilege, or wicked and abominable murders, or any other such crimes, are cast by their fitting destiny into Tartarus, whence they never emerge."

Plutarch seems to witness and affirm this, in the De sera numinis vindicta (22): "But when Justice has given them over as altogether incurable, then the third and most severe of all Adrastea's ministers, Erinnys (the Fury), takes them in hand; and after she has chased and coursed them from one place to another, flying, yet not knowing where to fly, for shelter or relief, plagued and tormented with a thousand miseries, she plunges them headlong into an invisible abyss, the hideousness of which no tongue car express."

My understanding is that this becomes rejected or treated merely symbolically by the Later NEoplatonists (Can't find the source for that right now, but I think I found something in Damascius or Olympiodorus for that). And the main rationale, from what I remember, was that punihmsnet is always purifying, and that "they never emerge" in the Phaedo is interpreted to be the duration of the Great Year, rather than an actual eternity. However, doesnt that logic simply contradict Plato's own logic, that yes punishment is awlays remedial, but in this case its remedial for others and not the incurable evildoer. How come this change occured, and did any later neoplatonists still affirm eternal punishment?

Thank you in advance for any answers and have a blessed day!

Hello Friends! I have a question on how Neoplatonism, specifically the Theurgical tradition, should engage with other traditions, specifically Tantra.

In Eastern Tantra, specifically in the Kaula and Kashmiri Shaiva traditions, there is literal sex magic (i thought this was a myth but apparently its a non-controversial aspect of their teachings), and these sexual rituals are seen as forms of worship for Shiva and Shakti. How would a Neoplatonist Theurgists engage with these? Would these be valid expressions of theurgy, or would they be corrupt rites?

Thank you in advance for any answers, and have a blessed day!

Edit: These sexual acts in question or not innocent btw, e.g., they can be adulterous and non-procreative and yet, highly respected in Kashimiri Shaivism which is quite a grand and impressive metaphysical and spiritual tradition.

Hello Friends!

Does Neoplatonism hold that each Personal Daimon attends to only one human soul, or many human souls? I'm asking because Proclus' Proposition 62 states that the more perfect realities are less numerous than lower ones, e.g., "bodily natures are more numerous than souls, and these than intelligences, and the intelligences more numerous than the divine henads. And the same principle applies universally."

I'm wondering if this applies within the hypostases themselves, e.g., divine souls being less numerous than daimons, which are less numerous than human souls. My question would be, if the daimons are less numerous, wouldn't personal daimons then attend to many human souls?

Thank you in advance for any answers, and have a blessed day!

Hello Friends!

What is the neoplatonic position on curses/imprecation upon evildoers? Is it licit or acceptable, or something to be avoided? I know that during the historical context of the Neoplatonists, cursing magic was common in the cultural milieu. Any comments from them on this?

Thank you in advance for any answers, and have a blessed day!

Hello friends! I have a question about how the old covenant prohibitons on blood square with our reception of the Lord's blood in the Eucharist.

In the Old Covenant, we were forbidden from drinking blood due it being associated with the very vitality of animals, and this was reserved for God alone and offered to him at the altar. What about our reception of Our Lord's blood in the Blessed Sacrament? Here, what change has happened between the Old and New Covenant that allows us to partake of atleast some blood?

Is it that we have now been given Christ in the New Covenant, and we begin our journey to divinization and become partakers of the divine nature such that we too are able to partake of blood? Or is it that we abstain from the blood of other animals and beings so as to make Christ special in that we partake only of his blood? Some say that this is no concern since the cup is not physically blood. But this doesn't seem to make sense to me, since it is substantially the blood of Christ.

What are your thoughts on this? Thank you in advance for any answers, and have a blessed day!

RZ says that Star Wars is unChristian because the Jedi philosophy is closer to Buddhism with its detachment and asceticism rather than Christianity. He even made some videos saying the Sith code is closer to Christianity.

I want to challenge this idea, though more from the Legends or Expanded Universe lore. In my understanding, the series has always criticised the Old Jedi Order for being too ascetic. This is why in the New Order, Luke allows the Jedi to marry and have relations to lovers, children and previous family. We can even see this motif in the Old Republic Era where the Jedi and Sith team up to fight a worse enemy, and that their respective leaders (Darth Marr and Grandmaster Satele Shan) reconcile and seek 'Balance' in the Force.

I actually really like Star Wars and think it can be beneficial media for Christian living. I think the Light-Dark side dichotomy is just the deficiency-excess dichotomy of Aristotle made aestheticised into two rivalling orders. Star Wars always talks about balance between them, and the Christian tradition has historically also prescribed the golden mean between excess and deficiency (specifically, in the case of Star Wars, the virtue is right relation to the world, with the Sith having excessive love to wordly goods and the Jedi having excessive detachment from them).

Moreover, though the Force is more akin to an impersonal energy than a Theistic God, it does have a plan and is providential. Both Jedi and Sith codes even have cool parts, e.g., the last two lines of the Jedi Code are "There is no chaos; there is harmony. There is no death; there is the Force." which professes both providence and the overcoming of death, whereas the last two lines of the Sith Code are "Through victory, my chains are broken. The Force shall free me." which represents freedom.

Finally, Redemption is a big part of the original trilogy and strongly resonates with our instincts that no person is beyond repentance, even if they are as evil as Vader who slaughtered children.

Edit: I just thought too that just as God can bring good out of our evil, so too does the Force in Star Wars explicitly permit evil to allow greater goods to come forth from it.

Hello friends! I have a question on the Late Platonic view of Daimons.

Proclus says this in Book VII of Theology of Plato:

"Since however the genus of dæmons is everywhere an attendant on the Gods, there are also dæmons who are the fabricators of generation; some of whom indeed rule over the whole elements, but others are the guardians of climates, others are the rulers of nations, others of cities, others of certain families, and others are the guardians of individuals. For the guardianship of dæmons extends as for as to the most extreme division."

My question is that, for the Daimons who rule over temporary things like certain nations, cities, or families, what happens when these things perish, eg., a city becomes destroyed? Do the Daimons just find another task, or do they become inert? If the former, would it be immediately or after some time? I heard various daimons would also govern certain species of animals, and so these too could go extinct and the same question could be asked of them.

Thank you in advance for any answers, and have a blessed day!