Here is a question. If, as Perl has it, the foundational basis of Neoplatonism (pagan or Christian) is "to be is to be intelligible", how do we justify this first move? It already has Neoplatonic metaphysics built into it, i.e., it assumes the reality of the forms. Of course, I have no idea whether there are Platonic forms or not.
That said, what unfolds from this initial statement is a beauty to behold. It also looks to have surprising commonalities with other forms of Religion/Spirituality/Philosophy that *don't* make this initial assumption or even have anything similar to Platonic forms in their basic metaphysics (or do they?).
In The Lost Way to the Good you make the case for the similarities between Dionysian Christian Neoplatonism and Pure Land Buddhism. Other comparisons could and have been made. I know this is probably a far more complex topic than we can get into here. But it nags at me. This is, of course, a form of the postmodern question of foundations. Or more directly: is Neoplatonism, etc., little more than "word magic"? One that conjures up an entire metaphysic out of a simple, but far from neutral assumption about reality.
I think that the key to this is the form of the Good, and the question of other forms is subordinate to this.
The overarching category in which all beings share is existence or Being itself. One may therefore be tempted, and indeed guided by God's self-revelation to Moses in the burning bush, to identify Being as the highest form, which is to say, the most real in the sense that it is that in which all existent things participate.
However, existence as a static concept is not enough, since there is something else to which all beings aspire, and that is the prolongation of their being in time. Inanimate objects resist non-existence, or their destruction; living things, who "being" is under the subcategory of "life," seek to continue living and to avoid death. We might therefore say that all things have a propensity to existence because it is their primary good, without which they can enjoy no further goods, or qualifications of any kinds. To be is the primary good of all things: without participation in being, which is their primary good, they can participate in no other forms.
But this opens the question of whether being itself is the primary form, or whether rather, since all things seek being as their highest good, goodness is not instead the highest form. Plato considered the Good the highest form not arbitrarily, but because all things without exception seek their own good, so as he said in the Republic, the Good is beyond being, for it is that towards which all beings strives, and cannot therefore be a being itself (else it would be infinitely self-seeking and the good would be unrealisable).
How there comes to be anything rather than nothing is answered in different ways by different Platonists as time goes on, starting with the Timaeus and Socrates' "likely story" (myth) of the Demiurge crafting things from the blueprint of the forms which emanate from the Good. By the time of the philosophers we now call Neoplatonists, the Nous or Intellect has taken the role of both Demiurge and the locus of the forms, derived therein from contemplation of the Good. Christian Platonists were quick to adapt this as the Logos, the divine mind and imagination, replete with the rational forms by which the cosmos is ordered.
So, why are there beings? Because existence is better (i.e. more good) than nonexistence, and therefore it is in the nature of the good to produce beings. Why are they comprehensible? Because they can be recognised by reason as tending towards the good. This recognition of the inherent goodness of beings, i.e. the inherent propensity of all things to desire the good, is something which can be arrived at by reason without necessary recourse to empirical evidence because the mind, whether human or other, is itself a participant in the good: it reflects the goodness and order of creation. That is, from a Platonic viewpoint, there is not an external realm of chaos and meaningless in face of which our minds simply happen to follow a certain order and logic, and subsequently impose this order on the chaos; rather, the rational architecture of our minds is only a reflection to the rational ordering of all things towards their source and longed-for destination, the Good.
I've tried my best in a short time off the top of my head to give some answer to your question. Much more could be said, especially about Christ as the living Word, perfect human because the perfect image of God, but that might have to wait.
I think valuable comparisons can be made with any philosophical or religious tradition grounded in something like a realist metaphyics, i.e. which teaches the existence of extra-mental intelligible realities. The most obvious route is number: do numbers exist regardless of minds to understand them or things to count? It would seem to me that existence depends on the absolute reality of numbers, but that numbers would be true regardless of whether or not anything physical existed. From there, logical notions of self and other, sameness and difference, sequence, harmony and thence beauty emerge, and all without empirical reference.
Here is a question. If, as Perl has it, the foundational basis of Neoplatonism (pagan or Christian) is "to be is to be intelligible", how do we justify this first move? It already has Neoplatonic metaphysics built into it, i.e., it assumes the reality of the forms. Of course, I have no idea whether there are Platonic forms or not.
That said, what unfolds from this initial statement is a beauty to behold. It also looks to have surprising commonalities with other forms of Religion/Spirituality/Philosophy that *don't* make this initial assumption or even have anything similar to Platonic forms in their basic metaphysics (or do they?).
In The Lost Way to the Good you make the case for the similarities between Dionysian Christian Neoplatonism and Pure Land Buddhism. Other comparisons could and have been made. I know this is probably a far more complex topic than we can get into here. But it nags at me. This is, of course, a form of the postmodern question of foundations. Or more directly: is Neoplatonism, etc., little more than "word magic"? One that conjures up an entire metaphysic out of a simple, but far from neutral assumption about reality.
I think that the key to this is the form of the Good, and the question of other forms is subordinate to this.
The overarching category in which all beings share is existence or Being itself. One may therefore be tempted, and indeed guided by God's self-revelation to Moses in the burning bush, to identify Being as the highest form, which is to say, the most real in the sense that it is that in which all existent things participate.
However, existence as a static concept is not enough, since there is something else to which all beings aspire, and that is the prolongation of their being in time. Inanimate objects resist non-existence, or their destruction; living things, who "being" is under the subcategory of "life," seek to continue living and to avoid death. We might therefore say that all things have a propensity to existence because it is their primary good, without which they can enjoy no further goods, or qualifications of any kinds. To be is the primary good of all things: without participation in being, which is their primary good, they can participate in no other forms.
But this opens the question of whether being itself is the primary form, or whether rather, since all things seek being as their highest good, goodness is not instead the highest form. Plato considered the Good the highest form not arbitrarily, but because all things without exception seek their own good, so as he said in the Republic, the Good is beyond being, for it is that towards which all beings strives, and cannot therefore be a being itself (else it would be infinitely self-seeking and the good would be unrealisable).
How there comes to be anything rather than nothing is answered in different ways by different Platonists as time goes on, starting with the Timaeus and Socrates' "likely story" (myth) of the Demiurge crafting things from the blueprint of the forms which emanate from the Good. By the time of the philosophers we now call Neoplatonists, the Nous or Intellect has taken the role of both Demiurge and the locus of the forms, derived therein from contemplation of the Good. Christian Platonists were quick to adapt this as the Logos, the divine mind and imagination, replete with the rational forms by which the cosmos is ordered.
So, why are there beings? Because existence is better (i.e. more good) than nonexistence, and therefore it is in the nature of the good to produce beings. Why are they comprehensible? Because they can be recognised by reason as tending towards the good. This recognition of the inherent goodness of beings, i.e. the inherent propensity of all things to desire the good, is something which can be arrived at by reason without necessary recourse to empirical evidence because the mind, whether human or other, is itself a participant in the good: it reflects the goodness and order of creation. That is, from a Platonic viewpoint, there is not an external realm of chaos and meaningless in face of which our minds simply happen to follow a certain order and logic, and subsequently impose this order on the chaos; rather, the rational architecture of our minds is only a reflection to the rational ordering of all things towards their source and longed-for destination, the Good.
I've tried my best in a short time off the top of my head to give some answer to your question. Much more could be said, especially about Christ as the living Word, perfect human because the perfect image of God, but that might have to wait.
I think valuable comparisons can be made with any philosophical or religious tradition grounded in something like a realist metaphyics, i.e. which teaches the existence of extra-mental intelligible realities. The most obvious route is number: do numbers exist regardless of minds to understand them or things to count? It would seem to me that existence depends on the absolute reality of numbers, but that numbers would be true regardless of whether or not anything physical existed. From there, logical notions of self and other, sameness and difference, sequence, harmony and thence beauty emerge, and all without empirical reference.
Thank you. Much to think about.