Talk:Neoplatonism and Gnosticism

message: This is a useful article title that is now taken up by a single book. Is this right?--shtove 23:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  While the book most likely does deserve a mention, it shouldn't be the only thing on this page.  And there is no need for a complete table of contents from the book. M Alan Kazlev 02:10, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Single book

message: I don't see anything here worth saving or merging. Maybe the topic is worthy of an article. If someone wants to start from scratch immediately, then keep it. Otherwise, it should be deleted. FloNight talk  16:27, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're not alone - the entire talk page addresses that point. Up until recently, Plotinus was full of it too. Don't know about book review section.--21:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: PROD

message: Hello LoveMonkey! If you can develop Neoplatonism and Gnosticism into an article, I would be happy. I don't like deleting. That's the reason that I use PROD. I gives someone a chance to fix it and take off the PROD. FloNight talk  17:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Re-write

message: I was really, from the offset trying to create an article along the lines of Decline of the Roman Empire. Only the article including the book this time as a spring board.LoveMonkey 20:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: mot-i-va-tion

message: It has been suggested that this article is not sufficiently notable, as it is or was based on a single book that presumably had a  small print run, and in any case is out of print (I was intrigued enough by the contents listed in an early version of this page to want to order it from Amazon, but discovered it is not (or no longer) available there).  
While I do agree that not every book needs a wiki page about it (even if some do!), the subject matter covered here would be of interest to the study of the finer academic details of Gnosticism, Neoplatonism, and for that matter Esotericism of the late Hellenistic period.  I also think LoveMonkey has been doing a good job at improving the content of this page, changing it from a page about a book to a page about subjects discussed at a Conference.  A Conference, although obscure to anyone not specialising in these subjects, is still worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia.  After all, if we have detailed pages here on every planet and fictional character in the Star Wars or Star Trek universe (something I as a self-professed geek fully support btw), then there is no reason why we can't have detailed pages on serious academic conferences on this or any other subject, provided they are in keeping with wikipedia guidelines (NPOV, no original research, etc). 
So perhaps it is that the problem is not the content on this page, but that the title is too broad for the current page content, and hence inappropriate and misleading.  
So how about the following idea:
:(a) The current page is moved to / renamed as "First International Conference on Neoplatonism and Gnosticism"
:(b) A new page be written on "Neoplatonism and Gnosticism" which can cover:
::o the general historical relationships between these two great Western esoteric traditions (and other traditions as well; during the Late Hellenistic period there was a lot of intermixing)
::o Neoplatonist criticisms of Gnosticism (Plotinus, who else?)
::o Gnostic adaptions of Neoplatonic ideas and cosmology (this is especially the case in later Sethian Gnosticism but I assume can be found elsewhere as well.
That way all the work on the current page isn't wasted, and at the same time a new page more appropriate to the subject title can be started. Also, the material on Plotinus and the gnostics which really takes up much too much space on the Plotinus page can be transferred to the new Neoplatonism and Gnosticism page. Or even better, it can be given a new page of its own.  What does everyone think? M Alan Kazlev 09:26, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep. That's pretty much what I was hoping for from the beginning. But I'm in no position to contribute - just an interested reader. Now, who's going to take it on?--09:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I've given my reservations about this proposal on the deletion page. Lucidish 20:57, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Because the material of the book which is covered so far (and presumably, also that which is to be written) offers direct insight upon the very topics you want the wiki to explore. Lucidish 03:55, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But the article should treat of the concepts discussed in the book, not the book itself.--Shtove 12:55, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Have you read the article recently? Lucidish 18:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup - it's still an advertisment, not an encyclopedia article. Describe the substance, and let the conference/book be covered by an article about the conference/book.--Shtove 22:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestion

message: OK since this was fought a while ago and no one has tried, I'll start working on an attempt.  My user space has drafts of each of these two sub-pages.  I'll work on them a little and anyone else can too, and when we think they are OK we'll replace the current page with them.
:user:bmorton3/First International Conference on Neoplatonism and Gnosticism
:user:bmorton3/Neoplatonism and Gnosticism
Bmorton3 20:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Lets try it

message: It seems that what is stated in AH Armstrong's translation of the Enneads must be censured and or suppressed. Why is that? Also Dan do you have a copy of this 1980s edition of AH Armstrongs Enneads of so then you know that he literally stated what was posted and then sourced. The term unhellenistic heretic is in the introduction notes they were written by AH Armstrong not me. I copied and posted them word for word.
LoveMonkey 02:19, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, you make it look like Plotinus used the word "heretic". And if I didn't remove it, I probably don't want to remove it. I deleted one of the long quotes, replacing it with a reference to the previous quote, because they had the same page number citation and the second one seemed redundant. Dan 17:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

text: As it has in the past, your own link disproves your claim. Dan 03:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

text: The part about Plato clearly still exists in the linked version of the article - the article, not the footnotes - with a citation containing the same Armstrong page numbers and a quote that touches on the point at hand. Dan 17:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of source quotes from AH Armstrongs translation of Plotinus

message: Plotinus. Enneads, 7 vols., translated by A.H. Armstrong, Loeb Classical Library. 
Shortcut:
WP:SOURCES 
See also: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons.
Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require exceptional sources. All articles must adhere to Wikipedia's neutrality policy, fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view.[4]
In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable it is.
Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications. The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context. Where there is disagreement between sources, their views should be clearly attributed in the text."
Armstrong's edition of Enneads mets these requirements. If what Armstrong has expressed is outside the academic consensus of his field of study AKA Hellenic Philosophy please post where this has been called by the academic community into quesion because I have not seen any such articles and if I am ignorant of them I apologize.
LoveMonkey 12:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was asked to comment (by Love Monkey): The Loeb Classical Library  is of course the standard bilingual English edition for classical authors, and has a general reputation for translations which keep fairly close to the wording of the text.  The edition was published between 1966 and 1989; the translator here appears to be an authority , as would be expected. He has published 7 other academic books on the general subject from 1940 to 1986.     But that does not necessarily mean it is the only possible translation of the material--and the actual Greek text is of course more authoritative than any translation.  As for notes and interpretation, certainly Armstrong is a reliable secondary source. But presumably there are also others, and there may be several decades of more recent work to consider. I'm not going to go looking for this--I personally have a total lack of interest in Neoplatonism. That's up to the rest of you. But in general at WP all responsible academic views should be represented; if there are multiple sourced interpretations, I see no need to quarrel--just present them all. If anyone wants to write a personal essay explaining and presenting his own views, however, WP is not the place.  DGG (talk) 14:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You missed the point:  Armstrong is not questioned. A wikipedian's interpretation is questioned. `'Míkka 18:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

text: What are we talking about here? The current version makes it look like Plotinus used the word "heretic". He did not. (I suspect Lovemonkey's talk of Armstrong's "translation" or the phrase "Word of word from the Enneads" has misled you, DGG, since he's actually citing Armstrong's introduction. Technically even Armstrong does not appear to use the word in quotation marks, but that seems like a minor point.) And unlike the charge of blasphemy -- which you may notice I mentioned in my version, citing Armstrong -- "heresy" implies doctrines about the Church or the body of Christ that Plotinus clearly did not hold. Unless someone wants to claim that Armstrong disagreed with the facts here (he did not), everything Lovemonkey has said seems irrelevant. Meanwhile, he continues to make false claims about what I did and attack people's motives. He even refuses to use a different Christian/Abrahamic term here (not a good compromise in my view). Dan 19:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

text: To put the main issue another way, Lovemonkey reverted my edit containing the word 'blasphemy' and insisted on a version that contained both 'blasphemer' and 'heretic'. If we assume he meant to do this, it suggests he wanted to include the more specific meanings of the word 'heretic' even though they do not apply here and nobody claims that they do. But in fact, it seems to me that he just doesn't understand what the revision history says, and refuses to believe me when I say that I didn't remove everything he claims I removed. Dan 20:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was addressing only the narrow issue of the reliability of that particular translation and its commentary, not the content of he article. As I said, i am not knowledgeable or interested in the Neoplatonist tradition. if everyone agrees he is a RS, then quote whatever it is he did say.  DGG (talk) 04:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Um, again, I did quote him and I'd just like you to confirm for Lovemoneky the objective facts of what the revision history says. Dan 04:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[A.H. Armstrong]] and the his copy of the Enneads published by the [[Loeb Classical Library]]

message: Professor Turner wrote this about Plotinus' commentary in Against the Gnostics.
"Although the Platonists initially regarded the Sethians as friends, soon they too, like the heresiologists of the church, began writing pointed and lengthy attacks upon them for distorting the teaching of Plato which they adapted to depict their own spiritual world and the path toward assimilation with it."
LoveMonkey 17:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do need to say , though , that this is not a statement that Plotinus considered the Sethians heretics, just that those (unnamed) Christian writers who were writers about heresy, considered the Sethians distorters of Plato.  DGG (talk) 04:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: right, that is Armstrong's summary. DGG (talk) 18:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Once again, my reverted edits leave what I consider a clearer statement of what Armstrong says in the quotes, along with a citation and enough of a quote to confirm that he does say something like this. I removed the literal screenful of quotes in the other article because I don't understand what purpose they serve and I have a hard time believing that copyright law allows it. Seriously, why do you want them there? Dan 19:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

text: How? Where do you address my argument about clearer word choice? (See define:heretic and define:blasphemer for a sense of English meanings.) Adding the word heretic serves no obvious function except as a hook for a long quote. So, why does that quote need inclusion when the quote I left in the article seems to get the point across fine by itself? And why on Earth would you think we need more than a full screen of repetitious, copyrighted quotes in footnotes over at Plotinus? Dan 18:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just took a look there--though I the quotes technically come within fair use, they're stretching it, unless it was absolutely necessary to explain the subject. It is not the style of WP to have material such as that, and when it appears, I usually start thinking of WP:POINT or SOAPBOX.  (Not that i am saying that this is necessarily the case here). But this is a 21st century encyclopedia, not a learned monograph, and should be written accordingly.  And, without commenting on the merits of these two terms here, most such quarrels over single words are in my experience highly unproductive. DGG (talk) 18:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, I explained that I think the shorter version gets your point across just as well or better, and nobody else seems to like these long footnotes either (or quotes or references or whatever you want to call them). For the most part I couldn't care less what Plotinus said about 'Gnostics', the original groups having long since died out (except maybe the one facing genocide in Iraq due to their pacifism). I only object to the content of your edits when they make Plotinus look more Christian and distort his philosophy in the process, like the argument you made back when I came in. Do you have any reason for keeping all the long quotes, aside from claims about users I don't know who might have mistreated you in the past? You've already linked to my preferred version of the article introduction, and I've given my reasons for those edits. Dan 21:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Quick response: I really don't know why you think this addresses anything that I've said, and I suggest you just quote Plotinus in the henosis article rather than trying to summarize him. Your summaries invariably make less sense. Dan 05:13, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Look, I still have no clue what you just said. Go back and look at what? What community do you mean, and who criticized it? Second-guess what? What does this have to do with justifying tons of quotes, or a word that serves no purpose except to hang a long quote on? What does Saccas have to do with any of the issues we've discussed? See also Talk:Henosis. Dan 04:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Professor [[John D. Turner]]

message: This subject is very obscured by being imbedded in technical jargon. It would very good for readers to see the evolution of the Neoplatonic movement in it's understanding with Neoplatonism. In a more modern wording.
LoveMonkey 13:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: How to improve the article

message: The article is rather badly written, perhaps the result of re-editing without consolidating. Sentences such as this (quoted in full), "Since a high aptitude would be a necessary qualification to understand and grasp the teachings of the academy", are typical throughout. The article is about an significant subject, so the failings of presentation become even more important. I will leave the task of amend and rescue to others, because of the time certain to be wasted (the article's chief architect I find to be rather obstinate and obdurate, though assiduous). -The Gnome (talk) 07:02, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Grammar and syntax

message: This article can be summarized as follows: Gnosticism was influenced by (Middle) Platonism, but neo-Platonism rejected Gnosticism. I've trimmed the text, to put forward this summary. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:46, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Summary & shortening 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Neoplatonism and Gnosticism. 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/20070622200655/http://jdt.unl.edu/triadaft.htm to http://jdt.unl.edu/triadaft.htm
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) 14:04, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018)