Richibi’s Weblog

Just another weblog

Nemo – “Ennead I” by Plotinus (5)‏

Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2013 10:01:30 +0000
To: Richibi’s Weblog
Subject: [New comment]  “Ennead I” by Plotinus.

Let’s go through it point by point.

1. When someone says, “I think”, he is obviously thinking of something, i.e., thoughts. I’m aware and conscious of my thoughts.

2. “I think” necessarily means there are thoughts.

3. The difference between the statements “I think” and “there are thoughts” is that the latter does not presuppose the existence of the “I”.

4. To prove the existence of the “I”, we cannot presuppose its existence. Therefore, we cannot use the statement “I think” or anything with a subject “I”.

5. We are left with the statement, “There are thoughts”.

Which of the above arguments do you disagree with and why?

first of all, Nemo, let me say that I haven’t had as
much fun since a couple of weeks ago when a
friend and I were trying to come to a conclusion
about the meaning of memory, is memory all of
one’s memories, or is it the process of
I thought the process set the thing in motion
after which the memories themselves took
but for the process to take hold you need at
least two memories, my friend more or less  
retorted, I paraphrase 
where does that leave us
I’m still thinking about it 
perhaps we’ll end up at the same place,
loggerheads, but let’s try 
I object to your second proposition, ““I
think” necessarily means there are thoughts“,
I believe “I think” to mean only “I think”,
nothing more, nothing less, these two
words are our speculative arena   
but I admit you have a point, to think
presupposes a thought, and perhaps
not as peripherally as I’d thought
previously, if I refer to my earlier,
memory, model 
but before you jump up and down in
apparent victory remember that the
thought cannot be thought without
the thinker, who initiates the thought 
an apparent paradox, much like the
relation between energy and matter,
which came first 
I believe the consciousness of my
consciousness came first, and from
there I evolved the process that gives
order to my world, memory, and then
its development into reason
but that’s just what I think, and, of
course, I could be wrong 
essentially I, of course, must be wrong
somewhere, but I’ll never know where
nor will I know where I’m right, ever
on questions of philosophical speculation, 
of course, without the advantage of
mathematics, the closest thing I can think
of, incidentally, to what we think of as God,
or is that, to what I think of, me, no one else,
what do I know of what others are thinking
of, as God, there goes He, She, It, out the
window, as a Jungian idea of collective
unified consciousness, or as a frozen
Platonic, universally conceded, ideal   
what I do know is that I exist  
that’s also, I think, all you know 
the rest is entirely speculation
thank you Descartes 
psst: all that speculation, note, is what has,
           to my mind, made a paradise, for some,
           of our world, for others a work of always
           fascinating and wondrous invention  
           read Proust

Nemo – “Ennead I” by Plotinus (4)

Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2013 05:43:44 +0000
To: Richibi’s Weblog
Subject: [New comment] “Ennead I” by Plotinus

The Latin “cogito ergo sum” is actually closer to the interpretation I had in mind at the beginning,”There are thoughts, therefore there is a thinker”. If you accept that as a valid argument, then you’re closer to accepting the existence of God. “There is creation, therefore there is a Creator”.

The Republic of Plato is not ruled by an autocrat, but by Reason and knowledge. Come to think of it, Plato should be hailed as the Father of Enlightenment. 🙂 I’ve written a post on the Republic too, if you like to discuss it further.

Plato’s theory of the nature of the universe in Timaeus encompasses both change and immutability, and Plotinus explains this in Ennead III.

“Cogito, ergo sum”, Nemo, I have to insist, is
not There are thoughts“, as you argue, it is
“Cogito”, “I think”, “I grasp consciousness”,
“I perceive”, it is not an acknowledgment of
any more than its own consciousness, “there
are thoughts” is a further, and only peripheral,
application, thoughts themselves are entirely
speculative and without any firm basis but
this is a fundamental disagreement in our
discussion which needs to be recognized
and acknowledged, it doesn’t seem to have
been as yet 
There is creation” therefore, in my opinion,
is presumptuous at best, though the
proposition seems manifestly, even 
irrationally, obvious, which has nothing to
do, nevertheless, with Descartes, and what
we’re discussing 
should you wish to discuss more intuitive
subjects, I’ll pass, cause faith, and oratory,  
have no basis in anything other than mere
seduction, the Greeks called it rhetoric and
reason, of the Greeks, and of our epoch, is
still my essential arbiter, though my own
personal mystical devotion is ardent and
it is however, my own personal mystical
devotion, merely evident and convincing
by example, not argument  
but I digress    
I’ll read your post on “The Republic“, a
treatise I’ve found even repulsive, I’ll read
again Timaeus“, or as much of it as I can
again tolerate, and read your Ennead III“,
or did Plotinus write three “Ennead”s,
hope to discover enlightenment
psst: o my god, he wrote Vl