r/Neoplatonism

In the conception of Plotinus, the universe emanates from God, and the universe is not conceived as having been created as an act or decision. In the conception of Plotinus, then, does God has conscious will or not? Can God decide things like to create the universe or not?

I would like to know if there are and if there were some kind of pagan neoplatonic poets... please if you quote a poet tell me at least why

I understand some basic principals such as the nous and ascendance but I have a bit difficulty I was wondering If I could get any advice.

I also am a hellenist but any advice is welcome

Philosophy as a Rite of Rebirth: From Ancient Egypt to Neoplatonism changed my life in many ways, especially coming from an academic background in Western philosophy. I was also quite taken by his Philosophy and Theurgy in Late Antiquity and the book on Orpheus. Need to re-read all of them.

I don't see him mentioned that often here, so I thought I'd ask.

Also, are there any authors similar to him that I can read up on? Please let me know. Thanks.

Reading the dialogues out of order actually has its own joys which, to me, appear to be learning in a more natural and entertaining manner.

But that's neither here nor there. What I want is to piece together why Socrates chose death. This is me trying to get a more complete picture of his reasoning in Crito based on what I've read in Apology, Minos and Phaedo.

In Crito Socrates argues that he shouldn't care about what people who don't know what they talk about say, and that it would only harm him (I suppose in matters of the Athenians choosing to execute him) and that showing concern for his children or property would be showing concern for material matters of which he claimed to be uncaring of, and being afraid of death when he said he wasn't because he believed that his souls would go to Hades.

Fleeing would be "destroying" the law of the city that "birthed and nurtured" him, which, if he did so reject why only know that he is about to die and not at any other point in which it wouldn't be so self serving to do so? And ultimately while lawgivers may be unjust, law is good and just, and fleeing from law here would mean that he wouldn't find it even harsher in Hades where he could flee from it no more.

In Apology he makes many of the same arguments but, interestingly, he says that he had a life mission given to him by the god of Delphi - Apollo, and both in Crito and in Phaedo he mentions dream visions which further reinforces the idea that Socrates was a genuine believer and not some mad elderly man.

In Minos he claims that law is this divine truth or aspect of divinity that exists, if given by the gods, to enrich the lives of people through spurring them towards doing good and acting justly, so my guess is that he saw the laws of Athens in the same manner, though warped and twisted by wicked and unjust men.

And in Phaedo he discusses the nature of the soul and his belief in the underworld. Mostly that death was no big deal for a philospher, thay his soul was purified by philosophy and that ultimately he would be judged, he thought, fairly and hopefully be given a place among heroes and gods where he could continue his work.

So, what I've pieced together is that:

Socrates chose death because he was truly pious, truly good and just, and wanting to not fail the gods, his people and himself, and unafraid of death, he chose to die.

But that is just my reading so far. Perhaps another dialogue completely shatters this, and I haven't even touched on piety, though I have finished reading Euthyphro, so I'll leave this for another post.

I was recently reading On Abstinence from Eating Animals by Porphyry and came across some strongly negative views on sexuality. I have a regular sex life and I'm comfortable with that lifestyle. At the same time, I'm interested in adopting neoplatonism, but this seems difficult for me. I know that some Neoplatonists were married, but I'm not sure what their views were on casual sexual relationships. Could anyone provide some insight on this?

In the Homeric tradition, theophanies of the gods are often represented in highly anthropomorphic and emotionally charged ways. Gods appear as reactive personalities who speak, threaten, deceive, become angry, favor individuals, intervene dramatically in events, and inspire fear in a very personal sense. In many cases, these manifestations seem phenomenologically close to what later Platonists would classify as daimōnic beings: particularized, affective, relational, and emotionally expressive presences.

However, Plato criticizes precisely this anthropopathic portrayal of the gods, and later Platonists such as Iamblichus and Proclus describe the gods as transcendent and supra-rational realities beyond corporeal form and human passions.

Because of this, I am trying to understand how later Platonists conceived genuine divine theophanies.

Is it correct to say that, in a Platonic or Neoplatonic framework, authentic manifestations of the gods would tend to appear in a more majestic, hieratic, luminous, or symbolically perfect way, rather than as emotionally reactive personalities? For example:

a silent enthroned Zeus,

a radiant Helios,

an overwhelming presence of light,

a motionless divine figure,

or even an abstract symbolic manifestation.

And conversely, would more conversational, emotional, dramatic, fear-inducing, seductive, unstable, or psychologically “human” visionary encounters be understood instead as daimōnic manifestations or lower psychic entities rather than direct appearances of the gods themselves?

Part of my confusion comes from the fact that the phenomenology traditionally associated with daimōnes seems much closer to these latter forms of encounter. In many religious and magical texts, daimōnes, paredroi, and intermediary spirits appear as highly particularized beings with recognizable personalities, emotional tones, fluctuating behavior, local attachments, and direct involvement in human affairs. They can converse, threaten, flatter, seduce, mislead, guide, or form intimate relationships with practitioners. In the Greek Magical Papyri especially, daimōnic and paredric presences often seem immediate, relational, unstable, and experientially “near,” in contrast to the overwhelming transcendence usually associated with the Platonic gods.

Because of this, I wonder whether later Platonists effectively relocated the more anthropopathic and emotionally immediate dimensions of traditional religious experience away from the gods proper and toward the intermediary daimōnic realm, while preserving divine imagery itself in a more idealized, impassive, and metaphysically elevated form.

This also makes me wonder how Neoplatonists would have interpreted texts like the Greek Magical Papyri, where even gods themselves often appear in ways that seem phenomenologically much closer to daimōnic beings: emotionally reactive, coercible, conversational, threatening, or intensely personal rather than purely transcendent and hieratic.

I also wonder whether Giordano Bruno preserves a similar phenomenological distinction between gods and daimōnic beings despite shifting from a receptive to a more operative magical paradigm. Even in Bruno, higher gods seem to retain a more vast, luminous, symbolic, and archetypal character, while spirits and daimons appear more emotionally dynamic, relational, and psychologically immediate, much like in the broader Neoplatonic framework.

Hello, I'm a person born in a agnostic-to-atheist family. I've always a Power mystic imagination and, about my 30s, I had a strong feeling of being called by a charm, powerful light.

I surrended to faith. By my country and culture, It was Catholic faith. Catholic Church became my spiritual structure of reference and I was baptized and confirmed.

Despite this, some things doesn't match. My light, which I strongly link with Christ Jesus, commited me to be first vegetarian and then vegan. Also, get me away from drinking alcohol. Is stronger then, and heal my body and mind.

Catholic priests and morals are okay with meat eating (which I simply can't tolerate, out of compassion for animals) and even with drink a lot of alcohol if It IS with Friends and don't kill me. Simply It doesn't match with my light. Even they're clothed in black, when the light always is in White when I "saw" "Him".

My visión of Christ Jesus is a Brown skinned man with beard, with a kufi cap and a White robe, Who lives in the night and in the top of a snowy mountain, whose snow He takes with a silver chalice to give me.

I feel Him deep and strong in Eucharist, a rite that I only feel properly done by Catholics.

Once, he in the form of a child said to me "look inside". Also, Mother Mary is important to me and sais "Am I not here, and I'm your Mother?".

I've tried to think or believe other religions (hinduism, buddhism) more alligned with my concerns but is simply impossible. IS like spiritual acid to me, I only feel rest with Jesus and/or Mary. When I discovered neoplatonism, I suspect that can give me answers. Plutarch nearly speaks like me about meat and animals. Is Christ Jesus my tutelar guardian? What I love of Catholic Church, is ancient philisophy and theurgy? I'm really a Platonic?

Thanks!

This question was asked because The Good/The One transcends being and that no positive affirmations could be applied.

I've read that in Neoplatonism knowing one's patron or personal deity is important for working back towards the One. I've also heard some say that one does not choose a patron, but rather one discovers their patron in order to work within that chain.

I've been trying to find my patron and I have many signs pointing in one direction: born on a Monday night under the Waxing Crescent Moon, Cancer sun sign, natural psychic ability, vivid dreamer, admittedly emotional & moody, guarded and somewhat secretive... to me, Selene or Artemis stands out clear as day.

However, I've calculated my natal chart according to Neoplatonic teachings and reach a different conclusion. My Oikodespotes is Venus and Kurios is Jupiter (the Moon is my Predominator). Jupiter shows up repeatedly and strongly. Interestingly, this mirrors my Vedic astrological chart. My Atmakaraka is Venus and my Ishta Devata-- using several methods of calculation-- is Vishnu.

Theurgically speaking, should the information gained from my natal chart (Venus & Jupiter) override other signs or feelings of attachment?

Is it true that all the gods, goddesses, and the beings we call deities in every religion genuinely exist and possess their own individuality, rather than being mere manifestations of the One? Or is it instead the case that they emerge as manifestations of the One and reflect its attributes?

I know some of you would say:”Both, look into the henadological understanding.” but I cannot fully grasp the logic of it in my mind. How exactly does that work?

For example: if the Sun is a god, then is the light that comes from the Sun also a god? But those two are completely different things: the Sun and the light emanating from it are not the same thing. If the Sun is the One, then would the light be both the deities and also the One itself?