r/Neoplatonism

I was recently reading On Abstinence from Eating Animals by Porphyry and came across some strongly negative views on sexuality. I have a regular sex life and I'm comfortable with that lifestyle. At the same time, I'm interested in adopting neoplatonism, but this seems difficult for me. I know that some Neoplatonists were married, but I'm not sure what their views were on casual sexual relationships. Could anyone provide some insight on this?

In the Homeric tradition, theophanies of the gods are often represented in highly anthropomorphic and emotionally charged ways. Gods appear as reactive personalities who speak, threaten, deceive, become angry, favor individuals, intervene dramatically in events, and inspire fear in a very personal sense. In many cases, these manifestations seem phenomenologically close to what later Platonists would classify as daimōnic beings: particularized, affective, relational, and emotionally expressive presences.

However, Plato criticizes precisely this anthropopathic portrayal of the gods, and later Platonists such as Iamblichus and Proclus describe the gods as transcendent and supra-rational realities beyond corporeal form and human passions.

Because of this, I am trying to understand how later Platonists conceived genuine divine theophanies.

Is it correct to say that, in a Platonic or Neoplatonic framework, authentic manifestations of the gods would tend to appear in a more majestic, hieratic, luminous, or symbolically perfect way, rather than as emotionally reactive personalities? For example:

a silent enthroned Zeus,

a radiant Helios,

an overwhelming presence of light,

a motionless divine figure,

or even an abstract symbolic manifestation.

And conversely, would more conversational, emotional, dramatic, fear-inducing, seductive, unstable, or psychologically “human” visionary encounters be understood instead as daimōnic manifestations or lower psychic entities rather than direct appearances of the gods themselves?

Part of my confusion comes from the fact that the phenomenology traditionally associated with daimōnes seems much closer to these latter forms of encounter. In many religious and magical texts, daimōnes, paredroi, and intermediary spirits appear as highly particularized beings with recognizable personalities, emotional tones, fluctuating behavior, local attachments, and direct involvement in human affairs. They can converse, threaten, flatter, seduce, mislead, guide, or form intimate relationships with practitioners. In the Greek Magical Papyri especially, daimōnic and paredric presences often seem immediate, relational, unstable, and experientially “near,” in contrast to the overwhelming transcendence usually associated with the Platonic gods.

Because of this, I wonder whether later Platonists effectively relocated the more anthropopathic and emotionally immediate dimensions of traditional religious experience away from the gods proper and toward the intermediary daimōnic realm, while preserving divine imagery itself in a more idealized, impassive, and metaphysically elevated form.

This also makes me wonder how Neoplatonists would have interpreted texts like the Greek Magical Papyri, where even gods themselves often appear in ways that seem phenomenologically much closer to daimōnic beings: emotionally reactive, coercible, conversational, threatening, or intensely personal rather than purely transcendent and hieratic.

I also wonder whether Giordano Bruno preserves a similar phenomenological distinction between gods and daimōnic beings despite shifting from a receptive to a more operative magical paradigm. Even in Bruno, higher gods seem to retain a more vast, luminous, symbolic, and archetypal character, while spirits and daimons appear more emotionally dynamic, relational, and psychologically immediate, much like in the broader Neoplatonic framework.

Hello, I'm a person born in a agnostic-to-atheist family. I've always a Power mystic imagination and, about my 30s, I had a strong feeling of being called by a charm, powerful light.

I surrended to faith. By my country and culture, It was Catholic faith. Catholic Church became my spiritual structure of reference and I was baptized and confirmed.

Despite this, some things doesn't match. My light, which I strongly link with Christ Jesus, commited me to be first vegetarian and then vegan. Also, get me away from drinking alcohol. Is stronger then, and heal my body and mind.

Catholic priests and morals are okay with meat eating (which I simply can't tolerate, out of compassion for animals) and even with drink a lot of alcohol if It IS with Friends and don't kill me. Simply It doesn't match with my light. Even they're clothed in black, when the light always is in White when I "saw" "Him".

My visión of Christ Jesus is a Brown skinned man with beard, with a kufi cap and a White robe, Who lives in the night and in the top of a snowy mountain, whose snow He takes with a silver chalice to give me.

I feel Him deep and strong in Eucharist, a rite that I only feel properly done by Catholics.

Once, he in the form of a child said to me "look inside". Also, Mother Mary is important to me and sais "Am I not here, and I'm your Mother?".

I've tried to think or believe other religions (hinduism, buddhism) more alligned with my concerns but is simply impossible. IS like spiritual acid to me, I only feel rest with Jesus and/or Mary. When I discovered neoplatonism, I suspect that can give me answers. Plutarch nearly speaks like me about meat and animals. Is Christ Jesus my tutelar guardian? What I love of Catholic Church, is ancient philisophy and theurgy? I'm really a Platonic?

Thanks!

I've read that in Neoplatonism knowing one's patron or personal deity is important for working back towards the One. I've also heard some say that one does not choose a patron, but rather one discovers their patron in order to work within that chain.

I've been trying to find my patron and I have many signs pointing in one direction: born on a Monday night under the Waxing Crescent Moon, Cancer sun sign, natural psychic ability, vivid dreamer, admittedly emotional & moody, guarded and somewhat secretive... to me, Selene or Artemis stands out clear as day.

However, I've calculated my natal chart according to Neoplatonic teachings and reach a different conclusion. My Oikodespotes is Venus and Kurios is Jupiter (the Moon is my Predominator). Jupiter shows up repeatedly and strongly. Interestingly, this mirrors my Vedic astrological chart. My Atmakaraka is Venus and my Ishta Devata-- using several methods of calculation-- is Vishnu.

Theurgically speaking, should the information gained from my natal chart (Venus & Jupiter) override other signs or feelings of attachment?

This question was asked because The Good/The One transcends being and that no positive affirmations could be applied.

Is it true that all the gods, goddesses, and the beings we call deities in every religion genuinely exist and possess their own individuality, rather than being mere manifestations of the One? Or is it instead the case that they emerge as manifestations of the One and reflect its attributes?

I know some of you would say:”Both, look into the henadological understanding.” but I cannot fully grasp the logic of it in my mind. How exactly does that work?

For example: if the Sun is a god, then is the light that comes from the Sun also a god? But those two are completely different things: the Sun and the light emanating from it are not the same thing. If the Sun is the One, then would the light be both the deities and also the One itself?

Okay, so, I've just read Minos and I'm trying to understand what Socrates was trying to get at.

This dialogue is about law and what law is.

I don't plan on going on for too long or repeating Socrates' arguments. So, from what I can gather:

Law is the truth. Law is the true/ideal state of beings that is distributed to the people by a wise, and just, and noble ruler who is in touch with the gods. So it goes beyond mere political considerations, social norms and so on as Socrates talks at length about how being right is knowing what things are, and law is knowing what things are and in applying that knowledge you know the laws of whatever you are doing.

Minos being brought up as the ideal ruler, born of Zeus and instructed by the Great Zeus, and in periodic contact with his divine father, knows what things are and is able to rule justly and wisely and use law to improve the lives and character of his people (Socrates makes note of how the people of Crete don't drink until inibriated).

Anyways, this is more or less what I've gathered and I wanted to make this post mostly so I could present my understanding and see if other people agree or have differing ones.

Did the Neoplatonists believe nonhuman souls can incarnate in human bodies?

Is it possible to think that the gods and goddesses in all religions, that is, the beings we call "deity", really exist? Or are these actually different manifestations of a single essence? Does each have its own independent individuality, or is what we call multiplicity a reflection of unity?

In this context, the following question arises: How should we approach the gods? Do the gods in all cultures known today exist at the same time? Or is it the reflections of a single entity that emerge in different ways according to cultures? Or should all these gods be understood as beings shaped according to the needs of human beings?