Neo-Platonism and Christianity

  • Thread starter Thread starter Reprobus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

Reprobus

Guest
Greetings,

Is there anyone here who could tell me more about the history of neo-platonism within Christian theology?

I have it from Wikipedia that a fellow named William of Moerbeke went to Sicily in 1268, where he found and translated a book by Proclus called The Elements of Theology. Is there any connection between this event and (for instance) the emergence of the Lollards a century later? Wycliffe is said (in Wikipedia) to have been well known for his skill with the dialectic. How important is neo-platonism and the dialectic to modern theology? How prevalent are they?

There is an error in logic which I have found described in both classical and modern sources. I would like to know something more of its history. I have spent most of my time either on the classical sources or the modern ones, but very little in between.

Reprobus
 
Neo-platonism, or at least philosophy heavily influenced by neo-platonism was fairly standard for the Christian intellectual community until the 13th Century and the Scholastic “revolution” (when most of the Aristotelean corpus was rediscovered). Plotinus in particular seems to have been a considerable influence. Christian philosophy, however, has never adopted Platonism full on, and has only had it in an extremely modified form (no pun intended). Platonism often led to many errors, and I would argue that the eminationism of Gnosticism bears a strong Platoniv character. From the 13th Century onwards, however, Aristotle has reigned supreme in Catholic philosophy.

It is a huge topic though perhaps if you specified the error you were looking for, we might be able to give better information.
 
St. Augustine. The City of God Against The Pagans, Book VI Chapter 5 lays it out in three paragraphs. Almost the entire work is devoted to the subject.

Nietzsche declares his intentions in paragraph 2 of the Foreward to Ecce Homo. “I erect no new idols; let the old idols learn what it means to have legs of clay. To overthrow idols (my word for ‘ideals’) – that rather is my business.” I know Nietzsche by his obvious errors to be the modern Manichee, and deliberately so. Poor bastard. He performed his task almost too well.

This error – I hesitate to speak of it even privately, but the time has come when I must. It is a delicate and dangerous matter. I have begun to write my confession, and I have been attending mass at the local church. I cannot complete the task at hand except in communion with the church, and yet, I have seen this error promoted from various pulpits and I have seen some evidence from Nietzsche and Machiavelli that this error was revived within the church. I would hesitantly date it to the Renaissance, when Knowledge became an end in itself.

I live today in a small town on an island in a remote part of the world. I could use a friend who has some clue what I’m on about.
 
If you are looking for something laying out the early history of Platonism and Christianity and their connection, I would suggest “An Introduction to Ancient Philosophy” by A.H. Armstrong. It deals specifically with the transfer of pre-christian and pagan thought to Christianity, and deals with thinkers up to about Augustine, if I recall correctly.
 
Christianity is not as monolithic as many might think when it comes to affection for the likes of Plotinus. The East tends to the apophatic and the West tends to the cataphatic. Ask about Neo-Platonism and Christianity and one will get different responses from different quarters. The East derides the rationalism it sees as having been spawned by the West and people like Augustine and his Neo-Platonism.

Augustine’s Invention of the Inner Self: The Legacy of a Christian Platonist by Phillip Cary is an excellent treatment of the subject. Cary connects the dots quite nicely.
 
Reprobus, I am still unclear what the precise error you are referring to (or is it just the error of Neo-Platonism in general?). Certainly Neo-Platonism has good points as well as its bad, and it seems as though precision is called for.
 
Here is a selection from Augustine. I will try to explain my meaning further below.

The City of God Against The Pagans, Book VI Chapter 5
CONCERNING THE THREE KINDS OF THEOLOGY ACCORDING TO VARRO, NAMELY, ONE FABULOUS, THE OTHER NATURAL, THE THIRD CIVIL
Click to expand...
Now what are we to say of this proposition of his, namely, that there are three kinds of theology, that is, of the account which is given of the gods; and of these, the one is called mythical, the other physical, and the third civil? Did the Latin usage permit, we should call the kind which he has placed first in order fabular, but let us call it fabulous, for mythical is derived from the Greek mu~qov, a fable; but that the second should be called natural, the usage of speech now admits; the third he himself has designated in Latin, calling it civil. Then he says, “they call that kind mythical which the poets chiefly use; physical, that which the philosophers use; civil, that which the people use. As to the first I have mentioned,” says he, “in it are many fictions, which are contrary to the dignity and nature of the immortals. For we find in it that one god has been born from the head, another from the thigh, another from drops of blood; also, in this we find that gods have stolen, committed adultery, served men; in a word, in this all manner of things are attributed to the gods, such as may befall, not merely any man, but even the most contemptible man.” He certainty, where he could, where he dared, where he thought he could do it with impunity, has manifested, without any of the haziness of ambiguity, how great injury was done to the nature of the gods by lying fables; for he was speaking, not concerning natural theology, not concerning civil, but concerning fabulous theology, which he thought he could freely find fault with.
Click to expand...
Let us see, now, what he says concerning the second kind. “The second kind which I have explained,” he says, “is that concerning which philosophers have left many books, in which they treat such questions as these: what gods there are, where they are, of what kind and character they are, since what time they have existed, or if they have existed from eternity; whether they are of fire, as Heraclitus believes; or of number, as Pythagoras; or of atoms, as Epicurus says; and other such things, which men’s ears can more easily hear inside the walls of a school than outside in the Forum.” He finds fault with nothing in this kind of theology which they call physical, and which belongs to philosophers, except that he has related their controversies among themselves, through which there has arisen a multitude of dissentient sects. Nevertheless he has removed this kind from the Forum, that is, from the populace, but he has shut it up in schools. But that first kind, most false and most base, he has not removed from the citizens. Oh, the religious ears of the people, and among them even those of the Romans, that are not able to bear what the philosophers dispute concerning the gods! But when the poets sing and stage-players act such things as are derogatory to the dignity and the nature of the immortals, such as may befall not a man merely, but the most contemptible man, they not only bear, but willingly listen to. Nor is this all, but they even consider that these things please the gods, and that they are propitiated by them.
Click to expand...
But some one may say, Let us distinguish these two kinds of theology, the mythical and the physical, — that is, the fabulous and the natural, — from this civil kind about which we are now speaking. Anticipating this, he himself has distinguished them. Let us see now how he explains the civil theology itself. I see, indeed, why it should be distinguished as fabulous, even because it is false, because it is base, because it is unworthy. But to wish to distinguish the natural from the civil, what else is that but to confess that the civil itself is false? For if that be natural, what fault has it that it should be excluded? And if this which is called civil be not natural, what merit has it that it should be admitted? This, in truth, is the cause why he wrote first concerning human things, and afterwards concerning divine things; since in divine things he did not follow nature, but the institution of men. Let us look at this civil theology of his. “The third kind,” says he, “is that which citizens in cities, and especially the priests, ought to know and to administer. From it is to be known what god each one may suitably worship, what sacred rites and sacrifices each one may suitably perform.” Let us still attend to what follows. “The first theology,” he says, “is especially adapted to the theater, the second to the world, the third to the city.” Who does not see to which he gives the palm? Certainly to the second, which he said above is that of the philosophers. For he testifies that this pertains to the world, than which they think there is nothing better. But those two theologies, the first and the third, — to wit, those of the theater and of the city, — has he distinguished them or united them? For although we see that the city is in the world, we do not see that it follows that any things belonging to the city pertain to the world. For it is possible that such things may be worshipped and believed in the city, according to false opinions, as have no existence either in the world or out of it. But where is the theater but in the city? Who instituted the theater but the state? For what purpose did it constitute it but for scenic plays? And to what class of things do scenic plays belong but to those divine things concerning which these books of Varro’s are written with so much ability?
Click to expand...
 
“Neo-platonism” is an inaccurate description of the error, but Plato’s forms have long seemed to me to be the source of the ‘natural’ kind which is so common today.

I was born a bastard in the years immediately following what we pagans like to call the ‘sexual revolution’. I have had, for as long as I can remember, a sense that something was horribly wrong. The world had gone quite mad.

My search for the source of this madness took me, eventually, to the Classics department at a local university. It was there that I found the source of this madness, and in St. Augustine, its cure.

I can trace the re-appearance of this madness in history and politics. In the British world it came in the decades following the lawless government of Henry VIII. Many took up the idolatry of Freedom in response to lawless tyranny. Later there were Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity – the Gods of the French Revolution, which in turn inspired Hegel and the Young Hegelians. Then came Society, Democracy, Tolerance, Diversity, and Gaia (aka The Environment). There are many more since. We have sacrificed sound money to The Economy. Millions of people have been sacrificed for The People. And so on…

I don’t know enough about theology to follow it through, but I can tell you I have seen some very strange things in churches. Nothing like a fat lesbian preaching Tolerance before a giant rainbow cross to inspire the masses. lol. I don’t know if this came from within the churches or has merely infected them, but I know it is there. I’ve seen it. It is the second most important reason I have had for not becoming a Christian.

I was not raised as a Christian. I took Augustine’s arguments, removed all reference to God and adapted them to the modern variant of this error. They are devastatingly effective. I used them in full only twice. It is not a kindness to convince a man that the false gods he has sacrificed all his life for are in fact false gods. Two suicides later I decided to keep my mouth shut until I had found a better way. This all happened nearly 20 years ago now.

Ten years ago I stumbled upon the works of Nietzsche. He knew. He knew but what he did with it was awful. I wrestled with him on and off for years. I know his weakness.

I knew last spring it was time. I have to explain this stuff to my little brother. I have to explain it to my 11 year old (red-headed) step-son. I have to tell my mistress (his mother) why I must leave her. I have to explain it to my father – a Quebecois dirt farmer with a grade six education. None of these are academics.
 
In the passage you quoted from Augustine, he is really just condemning mythical theology because it is inconsistent with natural theology. Neo-Platonism was certainly an attempt at a natural theology during Augustine’s time, but I fail to see the point you are making.

Are you saying natural theology is bad (and hence Augustine wrong on this issue)?
 
No mate Augustine got it right. If I have any criticism of him it is that he did not go as far in refuting the Platonists as he did the Manichees. But then he only studied Platonism for a very short time, and was a Manichee for nine years.

I don’t know what “natural theology” is. I am no scholar. I only read this stuff because I needed to know what was wrong. Why everyone around me was behaving so strangely.

Natural idolatry is something I do recognise. Hegel was full of it, and his disciples too. Marx, Bauer, Stirner etc. Why else does Nietzsche refer to Hegel’s work as a “monstrous theology”? God exists. God is not the same thing as a natural idol. I think it would be an error to think of God that way, which is why I was asking about neo-Platonism, and events following the rediscovery and translation of Proclus’ The Elements of Theology. If Augustine fell into this error I never noticed it. Maybe I have been too attentive to his opinions on idolatry and paid too little attention to his opinions on God. I used to think I didn’t need the God parts to diagnose and cure the idolatry I saw around me. I was wrong on that.

The civic idolatry we see today – Liberty, Equality, Fraternity et al – is rooted in the natural. It is less obvious than the classical because there are rarely any statues made, Justice with her blindfold and the statue of Liberty notwithstanding. All of them are abstract notions to which we are expected to make great sacrifices.

The theatrical in modern times uses people rather than Gods but is no less depraved. To see it you need go no further than your local supermarket check-out and read the magazines there.

c’mon… do you really think these clowns who go on and on about ‘creativity’ are really capable of coming up with something new?
 
Certain humanists during the Renaissance studied Plato and created a form of Neo-Platonism and were trying to create a new doctrine/system free from the control of Church theologians.
 
Scripture scholars have many methods available today that do not depend on philosophy–form, literary, historical, and rhetorical criticism; anthropological models; etc. Some biblical scholars lament the mucking up of theology by viewing biblical texts through the filters of the Greeks.
 
Clearly I have some reading to do. Based on what I have found this afternoon I have no objections to natural theology. In any case, it has nothing to do with my original question.

I must apologise for my ignorance. My grandparent’s generation (the ones that lived long enough for me to meet them) were not Christians. National and International Socialists for the most part. Parents generation are (Fabian) Socialists and Objectivists with one token Humanist. No Christians. I’ve never liked any of these things but they are what I know. Pretty much everyone I know has fallen into this error in some way or other. People I love. It’s deadly. !@#$% deadly. I’ve been doing my best to keep them alive and herd them gently away from the greatest dangers. It’s hard when the greatest danger is something I cannot speak of directly. The time has come when I must.

All of these cults – Communism, Socialism, Humanism, Objectivism – suffer the same underlying flaw. Objectivism, which is to my mind Aristotelian, suffers it least, but the flaw is still there. I read just enough of Plato to identify him, his dialectic and his Forms as the source of that flaw. After that I read no more of it.

Augustine identified the flaw. Idolatry. What we moderns call Idealism. Natural idolatry is held to be the highest and best sort of idolatry, but it is still idolatry. Most but not all of the new pagan idols are abstract notions. Each requires sacrifice. Most importantly, from Augustine again, each is something which is valued for its own sake. IIRC this is from On Christian Doctrine: Nothing should be valued for its own sake except for God.

If the diagnosis is correct then the cure is obvious and well known. Christianity. The Mohammedans hate idolatry (and have correctly identified it) but they are useless for anything but blowing stuff up.

I have been able to trace the spread of this disease in the political sphere. I have no idea how it has affected the Churches. Certainly many of the Protestant denominations have fallen into it. I don’t know if that is recent or if it was part of the Reformation. Nor do I understand why the Catholic and Orthodox churches have been so weak in the face of it.

The recently issued Manhattan Declaration is one example of this weakness. The preamble honours those “who died bravely in the coliseums rather than deny their Lord.” I’m named after a Christian martyr. An old one. His is the only story I know well, and while he did refuse to deny his Lord, he wasn’t killed for it. He was killed because he refused to make any sacrifice to pagan idols.

I’m recently a catechist. I know how this error has played out in politics. Can anyone fill me in on what has been going on in the Church?
 
a_priori said:
Christianity is not as monolithic as many might think when it comes to affection for the likes of Plotinus. The East tends to the apophatic and the West tends to the cataphatic. Ask about Neo-Platonism and Christianity and one will get different responses from different quarters. The East derides the rationalism it sees as having been spawned by the West and people like Augustine and his Neo-Platonism.
Click to expand...
It is a bit funny to me - as a student studying PLatonism I remember reading some of the Eastern theologians and Fathers and thinking - wow, these guys were really influenced by the neo-platonists.

More recently, 10 years later, I read a terrible condemnation by an Orthodox priest of Augustine and other Western theologians as being just barely Christians and much to influenced by Platonism. And apparently this is a common view.

I have to say - I don’t really see it. I agree that Platonism did, and does, influence Christianity in the West, but it still seems alive and well in the East too from my perspective.
 
Reprobus said:
All of these cults – Communism, Socialism, Humanism, Objectivism – suffer the same underlying flaw. Objectivism, which is to my mind Aristotelian, suffers it least, but the flaw is still there. I read just enough of Plato to identify him, his dialectic and his Forms as the source of that flaw. After that I read no more of it.

Augustine identified the flaw. Idolatry. What we moderns call Idealism. Natural idolatry is held to be the highest and best sort of idolatry, but it is still idolatry. Most but not all of the new pagan idols are abstract notions. Each requires sacrifice. Most importantly, from Augustine again, each is something which is valued for its own sake. IIRC this is from On Christian Doctrine: Nothing should be valued for its own sake except for God.

If the diagnosis is correct then the cure is obvious and well known. Christianity. The Mohammedans hate idolatry (and have correctly identified it) but they are useless for anything but blowing stuff up.

I have been able to trace the spread of this disease in the political sphere. I have no idea how it has affected the Churches. Certainly many of the Protestant denominations have fallen into it. I don’t know if that is recent or if it was part of the Reformation. Nor do I understand why the Catholic and Orthodox churches have been so weak in the face of it.
Click to expand...
Two questions, then:
  1. Has Christianity in the past several centuries been on a course tending towards idolatry?
  2. Are you familiar with Vedanta?
 
Yggdrasil said:
Two questions, then:
  1. Has Christianity in the past several centuries been on a course tending towards idolatry?
  2. Are you familiar with Vedanta?
Click to expand...
  1. If these things I describe are indeed idols, then many people who used to be Christians have fallen into idolatry. It stands to reason that something not seen for centuries may be difficult to recognise. Whether or how this might have influenced the establishment and doctrines of the various churches I do not know. My Catholic education ended when I was 10 years old, and even then my parents were atheists, so I never took much notice of it at the time.
  2. I have never heard of Vedanta.
 
Reprobus said:
  1. If these things I describe are indeed idols, then many people who used to be Christians have fallen into idolatry. It stands to reason that something not seen for centuries may be difficult to recognise. Whether or how this might have influenced the establishment and doctrines of the various churches I do not know. My Catholic education ended when I was 10 years old, and even then my parents were atheists, so I never took much notice of it at the time.
  2. I have never heard of Vedanta.
Click to expand...
You mentioned earlier that you’re “recently a catechist.” Did you perhaps mean to say that you’re a catechumen? If so, I think you need to investigate both of the above matters before “taking the baptismal plunge,” so to speak. If not, then kindly disregard.
 
Catechumen it is. Apparently I have a lot of reading to do before I can be baptised.

I don’t know that my own madness letters are worth reading. They are too long. They contain some profane language and no doubt many errors.

I’m afraid I don’t understand yet what Vedanta has to do with the task at hand. If the Church has itself fallen into idolatry then I will still join it. My task requires that I be a Christian and in communion with the Church. If I fail at that, then I fail in everything. I have not seen idolatry in core doctrine – most of it is from lay people and in pronouncements from the “liberation theology” / women & sodomite priests crowd.

I love my mistress and her children very much. I would be very happy to discover that I am merely insane.
 
Hello Reprobus. I have concluded the following: You haven’t the faintest idea what Communism or Socialism in general is, a fact made evident by how you treat the ideologies as though they’re unrelated, save for your assertions that they are “idols.”

You see, Communism is just an extreme sect of Socialism, whose aim is essentially to make it law that wealth be distributed so that the public is uniformly upper-middle class (of course, if everyone is part of the same class, there are no classes, since classes are relative, hence Marx’s idea of a “classless society”). There are two obstructions to this goal’s achievement: a) the unwillingness of the rich to surrender their surplus wealth, and b) the paranoia of the public towards Communism. I see much of this paranoia in yourself; you and the rest conflate the aims of an ideology with the actions of those who claimed to adhere to it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top