Pope Francis: Identity is Being Erased in the Name of Protecting Diversity

submitted by DisastrousDepth14Race comes first from self.debatealtright

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Rakean93Identitarian socialist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

I saw the video today, and indeed the golden one says that he is neo-platonic. About me, i AM neoplatonic. But if you're into perennialism, you should also know that it's not just about an intellectualistic take on religions, but also about beeing part of an organic and active tradition. And here we have Catholicism, which provides liturgy, doctrine, hierarchy, and it's also the last remnant of the roman empire AND the oldest european institution.

As a matter of fact, it takes way more energies to justify NOT beeing catholic, once you're on board with neoplatonism.

[–]NeoRail 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

If you are truly a Neoplatonist, then why don't you establish your own Neoplatonic group? There is no shortage of materials you can use to that end. There are plenty of primary and secondary sources on contemplative Neoplatonism and also on more ritualistic and theurgical practices, even if you are delibarately disregarding all the derivative esoteric traditions that tie into Neoplatonism. I just don't see how you could equate Catholicism with Neoplatonism and perennialism without either mangling the definitions of all of those terms or being an adherent to some sort of rare, radically heretical form of the Christian faith. After all, the original Neoplatonists considered themselves Hellenic revivalists and anti-Christians. This type of syncretism seems incoherent to me.

[–]Rakean93Identitarian socialist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

What you are proponing is to make up a brand new religion with blackjacks and hookers, which rarely works, while also implying that christianism, personally endorsed by Plotino himself as far as we know, is somehow rejected by Neoplatonism in favour of an Hellenic revivalism that is totally anti-historical in the III century, since the Hellenic polytheism was still alive and kicking. That leads me to think that you are not speaking about actual neo-platonism, but something way more recent (which is probably the perennialism itself)

[–]NeoRail 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

I am not at all proposing a new religion, I am proposing that you look at actual Neoplatonist practices if you are a Neoplatonist. Plotinus was certainly no Christian, nor friendly to Christianity. I would certainly consider the Neoplatonists to be revivalists, too, because they were attempting to breathe new life into Hellenism, which was in crisis in the same way that modern Christianity is in crisis.

[–]Rakean93Identitarian socialist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

There are no neoplatonic practice because neo-platonism is not a religion, and Plotino was definitely friendly to Christianity.

[–]NeoRail 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

What do you mean Neoplatonism isn't a religion? It has its own metaphysics, its own cosmology and its own rituals and theurgical practices. Neoplatonist initiates practiced it in groups. Emperor Julian planned to reinstate paganism in the Roman empire on the basis of Neoplatonism, on the work of Plotinus. It's pure fiction that the main competitor to Christianity at the time was somehow friendly to it, I don't know how you got that idea.

[–]Rakean93Identitarian socialist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I got the idea by reading both enneads and books about the subject, which is something you should really consider to do before continuing to write nonsense. Neoplatonism isn't a religion, is a metaphisical school, and it wasn't a "contender" of Christianity. It's like saying that Aristotelianism was a religion competing with Christianity, while actually - like Neoplatonism - is a philosophical school widely used by most Christian theologians. It has no priests, no liturgy, no tradition whatsoever. You are free to prove me wrong by pointing a "neoplatonical" priest. The basis of the Julian's reformation wasn't Neoplatonism, was the cult of Deus Sol Invictus, which is a Roman god. The fact that he was using neo-platonism in order to explain the nature of the God doesn't mean anything, because at the same time the fathers of the church were doing the exact same thing for Christianity. At the time of Julian, the priesthood of Sol Invictus was heavily influenced by the Mithraic cult, originally from Persia, but also quite influenced itself by Christianity at that point - there are tons of studies on the subject that clearly explain the wide differences between the Persian Mithra and the Roman Mithra, the latter being suspiciously similar to Christ while also emerging after the first spreading of Christianity. Reguardless your acceptance of that fact, that would require by you the incredible task of reading something and that therefore I can understand you are not going to do, Mithraism and the cult of the Roman God Sol Invictus were both religious expression of the, respectively, Zoroastrianism and Roman religion, both of whom have traditions, liturgy, myths and priesthood: those were actual religions. The fact that you consider a philosophical thought an actual religion is just an expression of the degeneration of the modernity, and exposes a total lack of understanding of what's an organical religion and what's a product of individual consumption wrapped as religion. So please don't bother me again with that degenerate stuff, you are clearly not going to develop an Aryan spirituality and I'm bored of writing down the basics of the subject.

[–]NeoRail 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You are saying you have read all of the Enneads, then?

Neoplatonism isn't a religion, is a metaphisical school, and it wasn't a "contender" of Christianity. It's like saying that Aristotelianism was a religion competing with Christianity, while actually - like Neoplatonism - is a philosophical school widely used by most Christian theologians.

Neoplatonism is an articulation of Hellenism, so I would certainly classify it as religious, yes, just like I would consider much of Platonism itself religious. The fact that Neoplatonism was also paired with its own set of mystical practices only makes this easier to assert. Early Christian theologians may have opportunistically plagiarised elements of Neoplatonism through the works of Pseudo-Dionysus, but they have done nothing to engage the full philosophy. They could not possibly do this, either, because Christian doctrine obviously clashes with major elements of the Neoplatonic framework.

It has no priests, no liturgy, no tradition whatsoever. You are free to prove me wrong by pointing a "neoplatonical" priest.

This is a bit funny, coming from a man who has repeatedly referenced Plotinus in this conversation and has read the Enneads.

I can see from the rest of your post that you have become quite hostile and defensive. I think that your views are, for the most part, ridiculous, but will limit myself to saying that, since given the small number of posters on this forum, it is best not to antagonise others too much. I will, however, address one thing.

Mithraism and the cult of the Roman God Sol Invictus were both religious expression of the, respectively, Zoroastrianism and Roman religion, both of whom have traditions, liturgy, myths and priesthood: those were actual religions. The fact that you consider a philosophical thought an actual religion is just an expression of the degeneration of the modernity, and exposes a total lack of understanding of what's an organical religion and what's a product of individual consumption wrapped as religion. So please don't bother me again with that degenerate stuff, you are clearly not going to develop an Aryan spirituality and I'm bored of writing down the basics of the subject.

From what I can see, you have got this entirely backwards. You are sharing some good talking points that you have presumably read in Evola's works, but you are misconstruing what my actual position is. I think that your perspective is the modern one here, because it is clear that you equate religion with the simple worship of a god. According to your view, there is the god which is worshipped, this being the innermost core of the religion, and then there's "traditions, liturgy, myths and priesthood", which form the outer core of a religion. None of this is really the case. Metaphysics and spiritual experiences precede the theistic level in importance - the theistic level is based on metaphysics and organic spirituality, not vice versa. Neoplatonism is not a "philosophy" in the sense that Hegelianism or Marxism are one - Neoplatonism is a mystical spiritual tradition that includes, again, not only contemplative, metaphysical elements, but also its own ritual, social, and theurgical practices, all of which are spiritual at different levels. The major Neoplatonic thinkers were concerned not with philosophising or even with worshipping a specific theistic god, but with union with the divine more broadly. Neoplatonic practices were concerned with direct spiritual experience of reality and their intellectual framework serves a very obvious function in enabling a correct, constructive and functional interpretation of Hellenistic religion for late antiquity. The fact that you can't seem to appreciate the spiritual value in this suggests that the problem is not with Neoplatonism, but with your perspective. I would be curious to see how you reconcile your perennialist position and your definition of what a religion is on the one hand with valid and legitimate spiritual traditions like atheistic Zen Buddhism or the more mystical polytheistic forms of religion that are centred on esotericism and metaphysics rather than theism.