sdi | [Discussion] On the Gods and the World, Ch. I

Once upon a time, boccaderlupo recommended Sallustius' On the Gods and the World to me as a short introduction to Neoplatonism. But where he found it clear, I found it obscure! (I believe I described it to him as "a puzzle-box"—it seems to me that all the pieces fit together elegantly, but one needs to know the trick to open it up and get at the candy inside, and not knowing the trick all I could do was to play with it for a while before setting it down again.) Yesterday, I suggested perhaps starting up some discussion on the topic in the hopes that, with the help of other blind men, I might discover that this rope I'm touching is actually an elephant.

Therefore, I plan to post a chapter of the text each week (on Wednesday, in honor of the lord of dialogue), and perhaps we can unpack it together. I will only be posting the text in the subject post, and placing whatever thoughts and questions I may have down in the comments: after all, I am a student here rather than a lecturer, and anyway it might be helpful to break up discussion into parallel threads to keep things organized. Anyone is welcome to lurk, comment, ask their own questions, etc. I'll be transcribing from Gilbert Murray's 1925 translation, though I also have Thomas Taylor's 1793 translation handy and will call it out when there's something interesting. (Our good Br'er Wolf recommended Arthur Nock's 1926 translation, but I don't have a copy. It'll be in the public domain in a couple months, though, so perhaps we can revisit it then.)

Let's pick the puzzle-box up, shall we?

I. What the Disciple should be; and concerning Common Conceptions.
Those who wish to hear about the Gods should have been well guided from childhood, and not habituated to foolish beliefs. They should also be in disposition good and sensible, that they may properly attend to the teaching.
They ought also to know the Common Conceptions. Common Conceptions are those to which all men agree as soon as they are asked; for instance, that all God is good, free from passion,* free from change. For whatever suffers change does so for the worse or the better; if for the worse, it is made bad; if for the better, it must have been bad at first.

* Thomas Taylor's translation gives "without passivity." Arthur Darby Nock's gives "impassive."

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I'm not 100% sure of this—I couldn't find parallel Greek/English text!—but I think that "Gods" refers to the group composed of multiple individual deities, while "all God" refers to divinity in the general sense.

Good question. I don't have the Greek text in front of me (nor the chops to translate it), but in general, being generally familiar with the Neoplatonic tradition, "God" in the singular can frequently be understand as the class of divine beings. The One is the unitary principle, and arrayed around it are all things that partake of its ultimate qualities (good, immutable, etc.), namely the henads or gods. Some refer to "The One" as the Godhead, but it would be a mistake, I think, to think of it as having any type of persona.

The Christians synthesized this idea with their conception of God, via Pseudo-Dionysius. Thus God the Father bears many of the attributes one would associate with "The One." Pagan Neoplatonists, on the other hands, would extend these qualities across the spectrum of divine beings, who abide at the pinnacle of the cosmos, ontologically speaking.

Thank you for giving some context (I'm quite unread in any of this, so tend to not know much).

Surely!

When it comes to the gods, all of us can only know so much.

Axé

[Discussion] On the Gods and the World, Ch. I

Re: perfect, therefore unchanging

Re: perfect, therefore unchanging

Re: perfect, therefore unchanging

Re: perfect, therefore unchanging