What is Monas? Is it the independent “I”, self-ensouled mind or an activity of the Christian Holy Spirit?
>>23314469The "Monad" is the first principle in pythagoreanism. The neoplatonists don't really use the word monad to describe the supreme principle but instead "ho henos" (the one). There is also no concept of "the I" in classic Euro philosophy, this is a Cartesian idea as far as I know. Also the Monad in Pythagoreanism and the One in Neoplatonism cannot be Mind. We don't really know Pythagoras's definition of Mind, but Pythagoras's Monad is prior to the two principles of Limit and Unlimit (even and odd numbers) so insofar as Mind uses Limit to cognize things the Monad cannot be a mind as it exists beyond Limit. Same in late Neoplatonism where Limit and Unlimit if I recall correctly are prior even to Being. As for "The Holy Spirit"... not even close to being analogous.
>>23314469Go care about something better.
>>23314491How are they not analogous?
>>23314499How are they? The Holy Spirit is a person of God, the supreme existent. It interacts personally with believers in God. The Monad is not a trinity (all hypostases lower than the One are strictly inferior to the One) and it is not personal. The One never interacts with anyone because it is completely transcendent.It never moves or speaks or does anything and does not produce the world actively but rather the world is simply an "overflowing" of it because it so immense, an overflowing that occurs without it doing anything because it must be completely silent. Complete opposite of the Holy Spirit which goes so far as to tell random people the exact words to say in certain scenarios. And Whereas the Christian God and therefore the Holy Spirit is worshipped directly through prayer, the One cannot even be worshipped directly because of its absolute transcendence. One can at best use Intellect as a mediator to revert upon the One, but neoplatonists don't even really worship the One but instead the gods which are lower principles.
>>23314513But Spirit is the supreme existent. It is not modeled by the Trinity but the other way around, hence the argument for its monadic being.
>>23314529Spirit is not the supreme existent in Platonic/Pythagorean philosophy. Spirit (nous) is the second hypostases in Plotinus and all of the gods are superior to it and transcend it. And again spirit/nous never interacts with humans in the way the holy spirit does because it is Pure Being that is incapable of placing itself within the world of Becoming.
>>23314540I am arguing against Platonic Pythagorean philosophy in positing their identity. I guess I just don’t buy into the world soul point of view very much.
>>23314469A monad is just a monoid in the category of endofunctors.
>>23314491>There is also no concept of "the I" in classic Euro philosophy, this is a Cartesian idea as far as I know.Self identity was certainly a thing in Greek thought, just diminished by philosophers. Opening words of Phaedo: "***αὐτός***, ὦ Φαίδων, παρεγένου Σωκράτει ἐκείνῃ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ ᾗ τὸ φάρμακον ἔπιεν ἐν τῷ δεσμωτηρίῳ...">>23314540Nous is mind, not spirit, which translates either thumos or pneuma.
>>23314556Which is why I said Monas instead.
>>23314559Is mind not Spirit?
>>23314575No, not in Platonism anyway. It might be treated as a cause of spirit, depending, but they're not the same.
>>23314554You can't argue against something by stating that its well-defined terms are actually equivalent to your own terms. You need to use their terms as they defined them and then explain why those things don't make any sense.>>23314559I don't think the "I" is self identity. I don't really know what OP means by the "I" but I immediately think of the way Kant thinks of it (as corresponding to the representation "I think" which according to Descartes and Kant can be said of any proposition) and this is more related to subjectivity or consciousness than identity. Although now that I think about it there is the proposition of Proclus that says that nous "sees itself" and also "sees that it sees itself.">Nous is mind, not spirit,It can be translated as "Spirit", e.g. in Russell's history of philosophy he refers to nous as spirit. you're right though that the holy spirit is referred to as pneuma. But I'm trying to communicate to this guy and it really depends on how he is using the word spirit.
>>23314586It is in Platonism because it treats Spirit as the cause of philosophy itself.>>23314587>You can't argue against something by stating that its well-defined terms are actually equivalent to your own terms.Exactly, the terms are well-defined, which is exactly why I used Monas, not “Monad”.>You need to use their terms as they defined them and then explain why those things don't make any sense.Look further up in the thread. There is confusion on “the Monads”.
>>23314622>It is in Platonism because it treats Spirit as the cause of philosophy itself.I'm going to be honest, this sounds like a Christian view of Platonism, and not the thing itself. Spirit as a translation of Nous would be wrong, except in German, where Geist can mean either. But spirit in Platonism is either life-breath (pneuma) or anger and indignation (thumos).What's your first language? It feels like there's a disconnect.
>>23314643There is something close enough to Geist in Platonism. How else can the auxilliaries be said to “tame” themselves in the Republic without a direct link to the philosopher-ruler, who cannot incentivize them? Plato does not have a good answer to this other than lying or manipulating them to simulate pure courage.
>>23314680To Geist, yes, as I said, but Spirit as an English word doesn't match Nous in Platonism. These are loaded words, and especially with OP asking about the Christian Holy Spirit, it's better to be careful not to conflate terms. The "Spirit" in "Holy Spirit", after all, is translating the Greek "pneuma".
>>23314540>it is Pure Being that is incapable of placing itself within the world of Becoming.is that why heidregger says Being is Nothing?
>>23314696nta, I think Platonism goes the one-->nous(mind,intellect)--->spirit-->soul--->body, but correct me if I'm wrong.And is Pythagorean thought basically Vedantic?
