Talk:Iamblichus

message: The chapter on Iamblichus cosmology is confused, especially the notions of "intellect", "nous", "soul" and "psyche". Normally "psyche" translates "soul" and "nous" translates "intellect"; but in the chaper "intellect" is sometimes used for "nous". An expert is needed to correct it!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.217.193.188 (talk) 22:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The original Britannica article was twice as long. What remains has been chopped up and later all the Greek was removed. The author, William Ritchie Sorley, was a professor of moral philosophy and one of the now-extinct breed of British idealist philosophers, so he may even have understood was Iamblichus was on about. This is Iamblichus for Dummies. NRPanikker (talk) 19:42, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: confusion of "psyche" and "nous

message: I have rewritten much of the cosmology section, but am uncertain about it.  The interpretation of all these gods and divisions gets very complicated, and I may have made some mistakes.   I was also trying to accommodate the 1911 text as much as possible.  Actually, I don't think more than a few scraps of it remain.  As time goes, I may try to rewrite that section.  
I would definitely appreciate ANY input and certainly PEER REVIEW is always desired and welcomed.--DanielCD 15:24, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:peer review]]

message: I found this link (I placed it on ext links) extremely informative. I highly reccomend a thorough reading of it (and the links within it) by any interested parties. Frankly it strikes me as dramatically superior to our own article on the subject. Cheers, Sam [Spade] 20:11, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yea, that link is nice; it's basically the original writing of Eunapius.  We can quote it, but putting it in whole would prolly be a copywite vio or something.  I'll see if I can find some good quotes from it.  Other than that, any other ideas that might improve the article?  It's kind of still a work in progress, kinda my pet project I been reading up on.  But all improvements and input welcome. --DanielCD 00:53, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I think short of an expert coming along, this is apt to remain your pet project (nothing so wrong w that tho, so long as you enjoy editing it). I don't know much of anything about the particulars, and am frankly unmotivated to study it at any real length. I read a good deal of that link, and while I found it informative, I didn't find myself nearly as interested as necessary to have kept up w it.     Your right that the most we can do is quote a line or two, but I think that article should be a pretty good resource for you (along buying/borrowing some of the relevant books if your feeling ultra-motivated) in your efforts here. I'm pretty sure there will be not a few grateful students in times to come due to your work here :) Cheers, Sam [Spade] 00:58, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Link

message: I don't know about anybody else, but I don't much care for these parentheses at the end of an article name when an alternative is at hand. How would you feel about moving this article to Iamblichus Chalcidensis? QuartierLatin1968  03:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been a while since I looked at this, but if you have good reason to believe he was known as that, then go ahead. I can't recall at the moment, but I think that might be right. I'd rather have an article title without the parenthesis anyway. --DanielCD 21:38, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Having looked around some, I don't have reason to think his contemporaries called him Iamblichus Chalcidensis. A certain J.M. Dillon called him that in what appears to be a Latin edition of (one of?) his works, though. Perhaps we could follow the lead of :de:Iamblichos von Chalkis and move him to Iamblichus of Chalcis? Or back to Iamblichus with an  tag? QuartierLatin1968  19:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps go ahead and make the title "Iamblichus", add an "otheruses" tag, and put a redirect at Iamblichus of Chalcis. Or use Iamblichus of Chalcis, I think that would be fine. --Shadow Puppet 19:40, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I made the change. Perhaps someone could double check to see it I missed anything. Thanks. --Shadow Puppet 19:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Move?

message: About a year ago, an anon editor changed the line that "Iamblichus was the chief representative of Syrian Neoplatonism" to "Assyrian Neoplatonism". Whereas the former was clearly meant to describe the geographic origin of either the man in question, his variety of Neoplatonism or both, the latter eventually came to link to the article Assyrian people, which is about an ethnic identity. I'm not sure that the latter is attested, and thus is unverifiable. Any thoughts? — Gareth Hughes 16:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Was he a Syriac speaker or not? If so then, obviously Syrian or Assyrian would both be correct. If not, then he should not be labeled as such. Chaldean 17:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think everything was in Greek, but he does come from a region where the likelihood of speaking Syriac was quite high, but still not definite. — Gareth Hughes 17:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: More research needs to be done. Chaldean 17:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: His name is Syrian (or Aramaic): ya-mliku; he was born in Coele-Syria. Syrian. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Syrian or Assyrian 

message: Iamblichus of Chalcis → Iamblichus —(Discuss)— Primary bearer of name; the other candidate has a dab header linking to him, and is far more obscure. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: *Support as nom. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Iamblichus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141121164922/http://ars-theurgica.org/taylor_on_the_mysteries.html to http://ars-theurgica.org/taylor_on_the_mysteries.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:21, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: I went and pulled Shahid's Prolegomenon. The only evidence he gives for Iamblichus being an Arab is his own surmise that Iamblichus is an Arabic name and the spurious claim that only Arabs assumed Arabic names during that time. Anthroponomastics shows Iamblichus was definitively an Aramaic patronym. We don't even know who Iamblichus' parents were. It is pure speculation to posit that he was ethnically Arab. There is no credible source for this, ancient or modern. It would indeed be great, and I for one would be thrilled, if after 1700 years some new piece of evidence came to light showing Iamblichus to have been Arab but it just isn't the case and wishing doesn't make it so.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.192.124.54 (talk) 19:36, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is written using reliable sources. Our opinions hold no weight. - LouisAragon (talk) 18:40, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: @IP: It does not matter if you are thrilled or not. You cant judge sources yourself. You are not an academic and even if you are, you still cant edit Wikipedia to reflect your own research before you manage to publish that research in an academic platform and get it peer reviewed. You need to stop reverting: you have been doing this for over a week, and it is not hard to get the page protected and stop you from editing it permanently.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 22:58, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Literally everything you wrote here applies to yourself.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.192.124.54 (talk) 21:39, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unreliable source 

message: The problem is that it there is a confusion between dæmon/daimon and demon they do not have the same meaning. Please clarify. Thank you! Cornelius Pannonius (talk) 18:55, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Demon and Dæmon, confusion