The religion of the future

submitted by casparvoneverecBig tiddy respecter from (self.debatealtright)

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

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Rakean93Identitarian socialist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

I didn't remember it was you, the fact just stuck in my mind. But my point still stands: Neoplatonism is essentially ontology with extra steps. Yeah, it may have played a role in the ancient pagan religion, but it also played a role in Christianity, because it's not a religion itself. And as a proof of it not being a religion, I said that it has no rituals nor priests, which I still believes it's the truth. This is not a meaningless or minor point.

If you are inclined toward Buddhism, I can understand why you value esoteric practices. It is indeed a good tradition, but bear in mind that it also has an exoteric part, which is very important, even if westerns try to downplay it. Otherwise, it's like trying to say that orthodox Christianity is just the prayer of heart. Even Evola would recognize that you can't expect a Tradition to be really operative with just left handed practices.

Anyway, Neoplatonism today is truly important. Is the most approachable way to explain the continuity between the Indo-European religions and Christianity.

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

Yeah, it may have played a role in the ancient pagan religion, but it also played a role in Christianity, because it's not a religion itself.

My issue with what you say here is that, in my opinion, a suitable analogy would be to say that Thomism is not Christian or religious, because Thomism has no rituals or priests. The priests and rituals are Christian - the articulation is Thomistic. I view Neoplatonism the same way. It is a high intellectual and esoteric tradition that belongs within the ancient Hellenic religion. It may have inspired changes in other religions like Christianity and Islam, but there is a major difference between Neoplatonism itself and the products of Neoplatonic inspiration.

I certainly agree with you that exoteric practices are valuable, however.

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

Following your analogy, if you strip Thomism of Christianity you end up with Aristotelianism, which, indeed, is not a religion. If you apply Christianity to Neoplatonism you end up with Augustinism. (Ok it's not a 1:1 thing, actually st. Thomas somehow managed to put some Platonism in the mix, but it's quite accurate).

Edit: just to be clear, Thomism by itself it's still not a religion, it's a theology, so you could say that Thomism is a way to understand Christianity, but not Christianity itself.

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

Following your analogy, if you strip Thomism of Christianity you end up with Aristotelianism

I was referring to a full, complete and unmodified Thomism. Although from what you are saying, I think you got my point anyway? Your edit seems to be more or less exactly my position both on Thomism and Christianity, and on Neoplatonism and Hellenic religion.

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

I don't understand the point, but maybe we are using the same terms for different things,so I'll try this approach. Are you saying that Neoplatonism is a theology of the Hellenic religion? I didn't argued about the legitimacy of the Hellenic religion, but about the claim that Neoplatonism is a religion by itself, that it has cult practices, priests, temple, name it. If you are saying that it was a theology used by Hellenics, i would at most argue about his preeminence - it never had a role comparable to the Thomism for Christianity - but I would accept it. But in this case, I can't understand why you shouldn't recognise that it was also used in Christianity.

[–]NeoRail 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

My view is that Neoplatonism, considered in its completeness, is a development that enables higher level spiritual experience in the Hellenic style. Neoplatonism has a contemplative-intellectual dimension and an esoteric-initiatic dimension - both of these typically went together for well-cultivated and spiritually advanced, ancient Neoplatonic pagans. In my opinion, the highest forms of ancient European spirituality at the time of the late Roman Empire are the authentic mystery cults, and also the Neoplatonic circles, in which contemplative intellectuality and theurgical ritual led to direct, esoteric experience of the spirit. On the exoteric plane, Neoplatonism understood as a rational doctrine also bolstered the quality of popular attitudes towards Hellenic religion.

You are correct that there were no such thing as Neoplatonic priests and temples, but the Neoplatonic academies and private groups fulfilled a very similar function, and these academies had their own spiritual leaders, practices and rituals. The academies in many ways paralleled monasteries or Sufi orders.

I acknowledge that there are certain Neoplatonic elements which are included in Christianity, but I consider that distinct from Neoplatonism more broadly. Neoplatonism was a very developed and multifaceted tradition, and in addition to its purely rational-philosophical aspect, it had an intellectual-contemplative element, a socio-cultural element, a spiritual element and a ritual element as well, none of which were - or even could be - included in Christianity.