Talk:Demiurge/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Iamblichus

Iamblichus (philosopher) was a neoplatonist who incorporated ides of a Demiurge into his philosophical ideas/system. Perhaps someone would like to add a bit to this article dealing with it. --DanielCD 20:45, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

What do you mean "incorporated ideas"? The Demiurge is a central principle of Neo-Platonism, identified as the Intellectual-Principle by the founder of Neo-Platonism Plotinus and descended from the Father: the Good - certainly not a doctrine peculiar to Iamblichus. --Nicander

Cerinthus

This section about "co-creators" is a pet theory and not substantiated here. Perhaps citation from the Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price, or statements from presidents of the Church of Latter Day Saints is wanted. - originally left by User:Castanea dentata as an inline comment

Genesis 1 cannot be translated as "the gods created..." etc. The original Hebrew is בראשית ברא אלוהים. Although the word for God, "elohim" can be translated as having a plural meaning, the verb "created" or "barah" is clearly singular, indicating that the subject, elohim, is a singular actor and not a plurality. In Biblical Hebrew, this combination of the plural noun with a singular verb is taken to indicate the majesty of the subject in question. God is, for instance, referred to in liturgy as מלכי המלכים which means literally "kings of the kings," but is immediately afterwards called הקדוש ברוך הוא literally, "the holy one he is blessed" which clearly emphasizes God's singularity and oneness. The reference to "kings of the kings" therefore, is pluralized in order to emphasize the absolute nature of God's majesty.--Benjamin ben-ari (talk) 08:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

another visual error error

Christos never stated that Plotinus' targets where simple early christian. Christos state that the gnostics Plotinus attacked where christian gnostics. Big difference. LoveMonkey 04:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Merge Nebro?

The article about Nebro is very short and seems to be about the same Demiurge as Yaldabaoth. Ialdabaoth merges here and Yaltabaoth merges there. Should these articles be the same thing? Yahnatan 19:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Seems sensible to me. I don't see any reason not to, if that section was just placed in this article. Does anybody have any reason not to do it? MrCheshire 20:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Seeing no objections or further discussion, I have merged Nebro into this article. Yahnatan 15:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

'Already'

"It is used metaphorically of a creator (of the laws or the heaven) or even the Creator (of the World) in Plato already." I'd dearly love to know what the 'already' means here so I can put the sentence into English. Please guide me. Jigsawpuzzleman 19:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

vedic

Why is the word 'vedic' used when Brahma is not even mentioned in the Vedas? Besides, not all Hindus believe that the world was created by the demiurge- they may, for instance, hold the view that the creator (Hiranyagarbha/Brahma/Prajapati) is an aspect or name of the supreme being.

Ialdabaoth is not Demiurge

Why Ialdabaoth is confused with Demiurge? In gnostic traditions, Ialdabaoth is an Archon servant to the Demiurge, along with other figures. Citations please if you see otherwise.--Connection 01:49, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


On Ialdabaoth

You must understand,Christian gnosticism (of which Ialdabaoth was a key figure) spanned over many different sects and places, so things were bound to get confused after a while. So in some writings (mostly the later, Origen influenced ones), Ialdabaoth would be identified with the Cosmocrator, Sophia's abortion, and in others he would be identified with the first Archon, a role later given to Ialdabaoth's son, Sabaoth. Sometimes these two identites would get mixed, so it's only natural that Ialdabaoth would be identified as the Demiurge, the first Archon, and (as Origen put it), "Michael's second name".

the word was ?

kai theos ēn ho logos (word-for-Word "and god was the word"). problem!!! Greek has only a definite article similar to "the" and no indefinite article "a" or "an". A definite noun will have the definite article (ho) which translates "the" in english. An indefinite noun will have no (ho). Therefore, (logos) translates "a word" and (ho logos) translates "the word". The same applies to (theos) translates "a god" and (ho theos) translates "the god". Now English has both a common noun "god" and a proper noun "God". The proper noun "God" in english corresponds to the greek (ho theos) "the god".

In application to John 1:1 (kai theos ēn ho logos) translates "and a god was the word" and with proper grammar applied "and the word was a god". Careful study of the greek scripture reveals that "the word" was of the "god class" or more presisely "divine". Therefore John 1:1 actually translates into english as such "In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was divine. He was with God in the beggining."

This is the true translation. So check it out for yourselves. I am not clear on the date at this moment but around 400 C.E. maybe later, maybe a little earliar, John 1:1 was purposefully misinterpeted and later, mistranslated to prove the trinity. I think if the scriptures are going to be mentioned, then the mistranslation also should be explained because it is relevant. Because the early Christians, if the scripture are translated properly, were not influence by the Gnosic views of theology. In fact, the actual scripture of the entire bible, free from modern influences reveal a very different picture of both Jews and early Christians. Their beliefs at the most basic level were original. The problem is that no one actually looks at the scriptures to see. What is taught in the churches today are mainly influenced by the Gnostic theology. To look at the modern similarites and compare them to the bible reveals this. Interestingly despite the vandalism the chuches of Chistendom did, the truth has been restored thanks to many good discoveries and great investigations of historians and archeologists. Anyway the churches of Chistendom edited the bible a bit and accepted many pagan beliefs and customs into it to gain converts. This is in clear contrast with early Chistians such as Paul and the recovered early manuscripts show this. Maybe the main stream religions of the world influence each other but as long as we have honest archeologists and trustworthy historians the truth will always be revealed.

{So my suggest is to explain that the main stream religion after it was established was infultrated and influenced by pagans, holding to their prior beliefs and customs. Therefore it may seem that there are many similarities between the various religions.}

It is incorrect to present the corrupted versions of the scriptures as proof without presenting the context of history and the origin of the corruption and the time the corruption took place. Not doing this would be presenting a "lie" as an "established fact". I emplore you to correct your article and check your sources. When someone says that this religion influence that one, look for historical evidence to back it up. Explain how and why it did. There must be historical and cultural evidence. Not just a few similarities here and there. For example the Jews in captivity to Babylon still maintained there separate religion and customs. They mainly married Jews and maintained jewish customs and kept a record of there blood lines. Why would they do that? Because of there beliefs in a promised messiah born to the house of david. Non-gnostic belief. They believed in a mortal soul more presisely they believed that all animals, and humans were souls. For clarity they did not believe we have immortal souls but we are souls. (Genesis 12:13; 17:14; 19:19, 20; 37:21; Exodus 12:15,19; 31:14; Leviticus 7:20, 21, 27; 19:8; 22:3; 23:30; 24:17; Numbers 9:13; 15:30, 31; 19:13, 20; 23:10; 31:19; 35:11, 15, 30; Deuteronomy 19:6, 11; 22:26; 27:25; Joshua 2:13, 14; 10:28, 30, 32, 35, 37, 39; 11:11; 20:3, 9; Judges 5:18; 16:16, 30; 1 Kings 19:4; 20:31; Job 7:15; 11:20; fjfjf18:4; 33:22; 36:14; Psalms 7:2; 22:29; 66:9; 69:1; 78:50; 94:17; 106:15; 124:4; Proverbs 28:17; Isaiah 55:3; Jerimiah 2:34; 4:10; 18:20; 38:17; 40:14; Ezekiel 13:19; 17:17; 18:4; 22:25, 27; 33:6) The fact that they did not believe in an immortal soul tells us how they viewed heaven and hell and afterlife. One did not assend to heaven or to fall to a place of pain. Death was the opposite of life. (Ecclesiastes 9:5-10) This belief was with the Jews and in their scripture at the time of Jesus and his apostles. They were looking for the messiah at the time Jesus started his ministery. Many thought John the baptist was the messiah. Even though he pointed to Jesus as the messiah. The Jews were waiting for their promised King to lead them to freedom. My point is that these were not Gnostic beliefs. They were at the basic level Jewish beliefs of the common Jew of the time. Thats why they kept blood line records and married only Jews. Each one hope to be apart of the blood ancestry of the promised one. They believed in ressurection and redemption to a life on a paridise earth - Not heaven. All of which was linked to the messiah because he was key to eliminating sin - the source of death. These are not Gnostic beliefs.

I can go on and on about both the ancient Jews and early Christians and there belifs and how very unique they really were to they many other religions around that area and time. But you people have to do your own research and find out for yourselves. I am not going to do it for you. I have given you a few tiny details to work with. As for this article it needs clarity, definition, and historical context as well as cultural context. After reading it, it seemed as if everything was just one big bucket of premordial religious beliefs that everyone understood and believed. Such is not the case in "reality". I am aware the some people who call themselves experts spread their opinions around like butter on toast, but unless they have significant solid proof it is just an opinion. I am also aware that many modern religions have been and are influenced by past and current, religions, politics and social reforms. All that taken into consideration much of the distinct beliefs and reasons for those beliefs of each one have survived down to this day. And without speculation and presuming as many do we can actually compare them. It take hard work and Tons of deductive and inductive reasoning, and finally abductive resoning as well (see definitions). Use all tree type of logic, avoid circular logic, that's sales, and nobody's buying, so be conclusive. Sorry for the long paragraph, spelling errors and any unclear reasoning. 24.150.46.62 22:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The word was Logos

I'm not really sure what you're trying to say...

The Jews had no clear concept of the Christian "Heaven and Hell", which is much more identifiable with the Roman afterlife than the Jewish one. The Jews believed (and still believe, I think) in Sheol (which is the basic place of rest for the dead), Gehenna (for those who were extremely wicked in this life), and a sketchy concept of Heaven (for the patriarchs, and those especially righteous). Some systems hold even seven heavens! Much more "pagan" than you would have us believe. And to say that Judaism came out of the Babylonian captivity the exact same religion that it was before is just ludicrous. Out of Babylon, they recieved the archangels (Michael and Gabriel), plus many different views of god and satan. Out of Babylon came the Talmud (though, to be fair, this was long after the captivity, and was only the Babylonian version - though this still shaped Jewish thought). You are right on one point, though: Judaism was unique - not in the way you meant, I'm sure, but still unique.

Christianity, on the other hand... it's much harder to make that distinction... It seems to me that Christianity as a whole takes much of its religious views from Mithraists (Christmas, the title "Pope (Papa)", etc.), and that the life of Jesus is much closer to that of Bacchus than we might have once imagined. I do not really care if one borrowed from the other, but only that you see that these religions did borrow. Judaism less so than Christianity. But look at some of the letters of Paul, which are filled with subtle gnostic dialogue! The prince of this world = Ialdabaoth. Before Paul, Judaism had never called the Devil this (though one might argue, the Essenes had), though one can see that it's readily compatible with Christian Gnostic thought. The thing is, you present your opinions as "facts", in the exact way that I have.

September 4, 2006


Sorry, if I presented my opinions as "facts" as you say. The only major fact that I was pointing out was the very commonly mistranslated John 1:1. Refering to "the Word was God" an incorrect translation. The correct translations are as follows "the Word was a god" or "the Word was divine" or if you really want to get crazy "the Word was of the god class" or " the Word was godlike." Which is cited in the Comparisons section under Cerinthus. And this needs to be cleared up that a misunderstandings of many throughout history have come from this mistranslation. Further there is documentation of many mistranslations and alterations that have be done the scriptures to conform the the customs that modern religions now practice. To compare modern practices to the first century scriptures would reveal this. One must also take into contideration that the language use was the common language of the people. The language was used differently by the religious leaders, teachers, philosophers, etc., and even by social class. The words (She'ohl') and (hai'des) are translated as "hell", "the grave", "the world of the dead," and so forth. These were all places where the people buried there dead when they died, from a historical vantage. Thus, these represent the common grave of humankind, apart from the religious and philosophical context many have stamped on them. The Greek word (ge'en•na) was used as a symbol of eternal destruction. From a historical vantage, it was a place outside the city where the people would burn their garbage and the dead not worthy of burial.

I only ask that the scriptures be considered a historcal document used within the context of original language. Not using religious dogma. These documents hold there own value, speak for themselves and show a very different picture that the one you paint. Even if no one wants to accept it. We have the reconstructed languages of those days and the history to reconstruct the context in which it was written. Thus we can reconsruct using all our resources the original meanings of what was written and the common beliefs of that time. Of all the Babylonian, Mede and Persian, Greek, and Roman religions, sriptures, and beliefs. It also sould be noted that people in captivity jealously guard their beliefs. People throughout history were willing and have died, even in masses to protect their beliefs. A persons beliefs are extremely difficult to uproot. Parents go to extreme length to garantee their children have their beliefs. And leaders of communities like parents do the same. Further, whole cultures have out survived envaders and occupation relatively intact. Religion is much more important than ones culture. Also take into account that they were enemies, slaves but enemies. There are many factors to consider when making such assumption. And they are just that assumptions of someone. Someone, like you and I with an opinion. I guess what I am saying is when someone presents someones opinion so steeped in uncertainty, and speculation, present it as an established opinion, but also present the evidence, and circumstance. I apologize if you were offended. If I were presenting my opinions as fact I would have just put it into the article, rather than discuss it.

As for things in the second half of the second century, thats when things started to go bad for Christianity. That's when the influences started to take place. From there on you will find up until the forth century then things got really really bad for christianity, in terms of maintaining it's original beliefs from the scriptures. An in that time period you will also find many groups fighting for their beliefs many unchristian. After that there has be a steady separation between the standing religious beliefs and the bible. Up until the major Protestant movements. If you study each time period working backward you will find where each influence came from. And If you continue back to the first century you will undoubtedly see a major difference from what exists today a Christian Religion and what existed then. Also the jews of the first century were violent to the early Christians. Even Paul who was Saul admitted to that fact. This Violence was not just with the Jews. This shows two things, first the Jews were very jealous religiously, clearly from occupation. Second, the surrounding nations also avoided religious contamination. So they were also vigilant in guarding there beilefs. Many lost their lives in those early centuries. Do you not know of the history of the Roman treatment of Christians. Not only was there governmental persecution but there religious also. That came to an end when one of the Cesars converted to Christianity, by then barly recognizable.

History, human behaviour, religion, culture, public opinion of the governing nation, the beliefs of the subjected people and many other thing must be considered. There was extensive racism, and frequent clashes of violence, with between Jews and Romans. The Jews being a proud people. That same pride going back many eariler centuries. Under the persians they found favour with the rulers but thier were many violent and deadly clashes among the Jews and many other nations under the persian empire and including the persians. Honestly, tell me considering the bitter hatred and divide on both sides coming from religious and racial sources that they would share their beliefs, even mimic them. These people were not friends, or allies, even though they had much freedom under their rule. Go back further to Babylon. Keep going and keep reconstucting the social climate in it's many areas. There is much to consider, many variables and factors. I again apologize for my opinions. History is hazy a best. And people will be reconstructing it long after you and I are dead. I am only interested in the discernable facts in our time not parts taken out of context, not speculations or opinions, unless there is more that a few similarities here and there. I am not interested in conjecture. On further note, Paul was not the first to establish the Devil as the ruler of the world. Check John, It was a teaching of Jesus. 24.150.46.62 05:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Systems Malfunction

I'm removing the odd "Systems Malfunction" quote in the "References in popular culture" because it seems to be from a home brew RPG thats run on a college campus and not from any form of Pop culture what so ever. In addition it seems to be of excessive length and has nothing to do with the subject except the world "Demiurge". If it pops up again, please be kind enough to remove it. PsyckoSama 03:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

moved from article

I moved all of this from the article. It gives a strange interpretation of Plotinus (as well as Plato), and I don't know if the first part follows NPOV. Some of the Gnostics likely knew Greek: The same logic would lead to the mistranslation of the word democratic to mean "people creator" rather than "rule by the people". Where as demiurge would mean "people creator" rather than "people ruler" as the term Kosmokrator would imply the power to rule, direct or influence. This would also mean that by the Platonic divine ontology that the demiurge, being the agent of the one, as creator only, was not the true ruler of cosmos. The true ruler being the source, one or monad who's will the demiurge was fulfilling. This then would mean per Gnosticism, that the Monad was the "Kosmokrator” and therefore evil. Since the demiurge did the will of the one or Monad (see Plotinus).

This other sentence might belong in the article somewhere, but seems out of place in the gnostic/neoplatonist section: Though it is speculative that the demiurge returned to the One or Monad once creation was complete (see Justin Martyr). Maybe I'll check this when I feel less tired. Dan 07:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Well good maybe you can help me sort out the differencies between the nous' and the demiurges. [1]. Since Jesus was the logos. He returned to God he gets some to say he is the second God. Blah blah the different perspectives are confusing. But your here Dan so you can help. LoveMonkey 04:39, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Interesting! But I see that in the linked account, Justin Martyr technically calls the Father the Demiurge, rather than giving Jesus this title. "He is Demiurge, creator or begetter of all things but not directly, through the second God, his Son or Logos". Numenius does call "the Second God" the Demiurge, but I can't tell if he talks about this second god returning anywhere -- the page claims the second "becomes one with the First God" without actually giving a citation from Numenius. It is confusing, as you say, because their description of Numenius seems to contradict itself on this point. On the Demiurge again: "either he participates in the First God, then he is called the Second God, or he turns himself to the matter and produces the World out of formless matter (since his nature is being Creator), then he is called the Third God and even may be regarded as the World. ... Thus Numenius classifies the Demiurge, the Second God, as analogous to the First God, his image and imitation." And I don't see why Justin couldn't go ahead and give Jesus the title of Demiurge, if the site accurately describes Justin's views. But it doesn't look like he did for some reason. Dan 21:29, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Incidentally, who first used the term Kosmokrator for the Demiurge(s)? I see you added and then removed a reference to Sethians and Ophites. Brief internet research suggests that some of them did use the word, although I don't see a clear and unambiguous reference. Dan 21:29, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah very good! I have been kicking myself silly over the history of the terms demiurge/nous/divine nous and daemon/eudaemon. The site I posted tries but comes up a little short (God bless them anyway). I have reframed from calling the demiurge a daemon because the demiurge is the template in your brain that adapts or imposes order onto consciousness. Attacking it or daemonizing it causes a disconnect with reality. That is why Plotinus thought that the gnostics where imbeciles. They where vilifying the thing in your brain that a)connects your intellect to the divine and b) the part of your mind that is SANITY and reason or common sense. Good luck embracing a syncratic spirit and getting these different perspectives to arrive at a core unison. Like early terms ousia and hypostasis people used them to mean different things, which of course confuses people. Plato/Numenius/Plotinus meant the term demiurge as a meta-phor there is no person or being that IS the or a demiurge there is no demiurge in Hellenic Greek philosophy and there never was. Think of it like this, freedom can for understanding can be spoken of as a being or person or God but really isn't. LoveMonkey 00:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC) As for the ruler of the universe comment. Paul WAS talking about men not a spiritual being or spiritual beings. though some in Orthodoxy do see the comment as alluding to demonic influence over people who have power in the world (AKA Spidlik). LoveMonkey 00:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC) Here is the Orthodox explaination of nous [2] This first article is inaccurate in parts but will do. [3] This one is much better nous is the complete perception or intuition as Niko Lossky would say. LoveMonkey 09:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

That last bit seems relevant to the nous article, but I'm not sure why you posted it here. Since neither article mentions the demiurge by name, this demiurge article should give it at most a one-line comparison and an internal link within a larger section on Plotinus. The nous article should probably say a bit more on the subject. (I'll put it on my list of tasks.) Dan 05:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

nous and demiurge

Well in hellenic philosophy the ordering/nous or artistic/demiurge faculity in a person is the same thing. In the roma-byzantine understanding nous/soul/heart or intuitive understanding are the same thing. The demiurge being something that one understands when one untunes it from internal thought and puts it in harmony with now. The creative faculity then becomes ontologically properly aligned and now becomes real. LoveMonkey 06:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

PS Jesus is referred to as the creator of the world in liturgical text. As for no demiurge in the articles well Dr Mether is still a firecracker [4] LoveMonkey 08:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Also about the Christ demiurge connection see Christ Pantocrator article. LoveMonkey 07:06, 23 June 2007 (UTC) The nous in Orthodoxy is the eye of the soul. Gnosis is knowledge of the supernatural, supernatural is the uncreated.[5] LoveMonkey 01:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Verifiability

Wikipedia:Verifiability Dab I understand that as a philosophical terms it is and will be very hard to get just a segment of source to be clear on the definition of a term used but Wikipedia:Verifiability needs to be adherred to as much as possible. Dab your edits to this article undermind verifiability if you can source these contributions please do. If not the request to have part of the article sourced is acceptible and also the additions you made are unverifiable so if you have sources please provide them. I know of no valid source to tie the demiurge to the Grand Architech of the Universe. Also please name "other" philosophy systems that use the term demiurge outside of Plato and Gnosticism. LoveMonkey 12:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

would you mind pointing out which statement you object to specifically? "demiurge" is synonymous with "Grand Architect", and the two articles should maybe be merged. I think this is some terminological confusion? "demiurge" refers to any "craftsman" creator deity in the world's mythologies (c.f. usage in origin belief). Thus, there is a demiurge in Iroquois, Bakuba and Ainu mythology, besides many others. I admit this entails the risk of WP:CFORK with creator deity (but a creator deity need not be a "craftsman", but can create e.g. by sexual intercourse, or by defeating the chaos-monster) -- if we want to restrict this article scope to exclusively Platonist and Gnostic conceptions, we'll need to explicitly disambiguate the term. --dab (𒁳) 12:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Demiurge was used by Plato, Numenius, Plotinus, Iamblichus the concept of demiurge by Aristotle (God bless 'em) but no Architect of the Universe can you tell me where this comes from? It is not in Plato or Hellenic philosophy? Thanks LoveMonkey 13:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

What is the demiurge

The demiurge is the ordering principle of the Universe. It is a principle that according to Plato was good because the ordering of the Universe is a reflection of divine in mankind. It was good according to Plotinus because order teachs us beauty and good. If something is made by evil it would reflect evil and not good. If something is crafted by good but -distorted by evil then it is and will still be good only now distorted. Order reflects ontology, ontology culminates in being (ousia). Plato's answer to being is essentialism and Plotinus (and George Berkeley by proxy) is idealism. And of course the most beloved brother Nikolai Lossky as neo-idealism. LoveMonkey 12:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

When you do the edits that you are doing dab you are also affecting these other articles and you are contridicting the validatity of the other articles. Take for example essentialism.

[edit] Essentialism in philosophy The definition, in philosophical contexts, of the word "essence" is very close to the definition of form (Gr. morph). Many definitions of essence harken back to the ancient Greek hylomorphic understanding of the formation of the things of this world. According to that account, the structure and real existence of any thing can be understood by analogy to an artifact produced by a craftsman. The craftsman requires hyle (timber or wood) and a model or plan or idea in his own mind according to which the wood is worked to give it the indicated contour or form (morphe). In Plato's philosophy, things were said to come into being in this world by the action of a demiurge (Gr. demiourgos) who works to form chaos into ordered entities. (See Plato, Timaeus.) Aristotle was the first to use the terms hyle and morphe. According to his explanation, all entities have two aspects, "matter" and "form." It is the particular form imposed that gives some matter its identity, its quiddity or "whatness" (i.e., its "what it is").

Plato was an essentialist since he believed in ideal forms, which are reflected in individual objects. Ideas are eternal. Ideas are superior to material objects. When we see objects in the material world, we understand them through their relationships between them. This belief is clearly manifested in his famous parable of the cave.

LoveMonkey 13:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

um, yes, the demiurge is good in Platonism and evil in Gnosticism, that's what's in the article, too; I think I fail to see the point you are trying to make. --dab (𒁳) 13:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

This should help alittle --[6] You make Nikos Kazantzakis the devil, well there are those who would not disagree. But to make him the devil simply because he is an author, well... LoveMonkey 17:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

What is the demiurge again

When you do the edits that you are doing dab you are also affecting these other articles and you are contridicting the validatity of the other articles. Take for example essentialism. Mythology.

P.S. dab there is no demiurge there never ever was. It is nothing more then a philosophical concept there is no creator God in Plato other then maybe Zeus. You are compromising Plato and Hellenic philosophy in order to reconcile it to other things which then change the meaning of the concept.
P.S.S. The demiurge can not originate (AKA create out of nothing) there the concept is not the same as the "creator" Gods in the other idealogies. The demiurge is man's creative principle and or faculity. LoveMonkey 13:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

wth

wth, is this about WP:TRUTH now? I have no opinion on the matter at all. I am merely reporting on various notions of "demiurge" in various traditions. Can you please be clear about what you want instead of giving me selected bits of your worldview? The Modern Greek meaning doesn't enter into it, this is en-wiki, not el-wiki. dab (𒁳) 21:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


Really, so verify and source what you posted. How is posting a link to an online Greek translator opinion? Also how is posting the wiki policy of truth absolve you from verifiability? You made the changes now source them. Also there is already an article named Creator deity go there if you want to post opinion, as for here the word is Greek, dab can wth to forever but the word is Greek no policy states that a loan word loses it meaning in its native language just cause dab says so. I have sourced my postings you haven't done that. And dodging and not sourcing and posting abbreviation's for what the hell do not show good faith. LoveMonkey 01:07, 20 October 2007 (UTC) LoveMonkey 01:07, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

As for Gnosticism

Plotinus referred to gnostics as imbeciles because Plato never ever had a creator God. To Plato what is was always, it was not and can not be created ex nihilo to Plato there was no "nothing" he believed aether was a substance and had being/ousia. So Plato tried to reconcile that "creation" is a human concept. He made what an artist or poet was into a divine God like concept to "philosophized" what an human as an artist is. P.S. I am an artist thank you gnosticism for making me EVIL is kinda what is going on here (see how ridiculious that is). dab you should not be doing this. LoveMonkey 13:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The demiurge is not really a "creator" dab the concept is that mankind can not create anything only mix and or re-order what already is. LoveMonkey 13:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The Judaeo Christian God is not the demiurge because the OT and NT God explicity creates and does so -ex nihilo therefore the OT/NT God is of a different essence or ousia then the demiurge and is therefore not the demiurge. When you start forcing these concepts together people get confused. Hence all the bloody confusion about what Plato was trying to say. LoveMonkey 13:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Hypostasis and Numenius

Now if you want we can discuss how to properly incorperate existence with being and Numenius I am totally game. LoveMonkey 13:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

No creator God in Plato other than maybe Zeus?

How about this: Ἐπεὶ δ' οὖν πάντες ὅσοι τε περιπολοῦσιν φανερῶς καὶ ὅσοι φαίνονται καθ' ὅσον ἂν ἐθέλωσιν θεοὶ γένεσιν ἔσχον, λέγει πρὸς αὐτοὺς ὁ τόδε τὸ πᾶν γεννήσας τάδε ("When all of them, those gods who appear in their revolutions, as well as those other gods who appear at will had come into being, the creator of the universe addressed them the following") (Plato, Timaios, 41a). Odysses (☜) 16:33, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
??? I put the source request on the line because I can not find the term demiurge historically referenced before Plato. If you could reference if the term is used in say the Theogony I would be delighted. I was requesting clarification on where the word and or term demiurge is used before Plato. It appears from the wording that demiurge was and is a commonly used term. But when Plato stated creator he meant reamalgamator. When the term creator is used in Hebrew it meant originator who created something out of nothing. This is all part of the Greek argument against zero or "one cannot have zero of something". Hence when Numenius was stating that Plato was nothing but the Greek Moses. It was reflecting this common confusion. The Hebrew God is changed and or compromised when retold as the Greek creator since the words have different meaning in their genealogies. Plato was synthesizing the many cosmologies he was familiar with and then reconciling them with his idealism and essentialism.LoveMonkey 15:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

As for Plato having a creator God this goes to say that there is a very important misunderstanding here. You see Plato is using the word demiurge or creator in a way that would make the proper understanding of the word demiurge to be "like general people works" or "how the average human creates". This is a comment on perspective. In order for our minds, person's nous to perceive (aka have perspection) we must have reason or reflection and differentiation. The demiurge and or nous is your eye or connection to the material world and or sensory perception. It is the place where all sensory perception are unified as a complete organic whole (see Nikolai Lossky and or Russian Philosophy).

This means that no, Plato has no creator deity but instead stated that our minds have templates that superimpose upon the material world "creation" and only then creation as ontology and or mathematical order. Hence the demiurge is the ordering or ontology template or faculty in our being. The demiurge is our nous or minds. Mankind's nous is the demiurge by design. It is the Unmoved mover.

This above statement is the very heart and soul of Plotinus' neoplatonism. It reconciles Plato with Aristotle and the Cosmological argument. It is part of the whole math thing (see Philosophy of mathematics)that abstract knowledge is mathematical knowledge (hence Kantian's German idealism). When you define creator as something greater then reamalgamator (Amalgamation (fiction)) then you are stating that the word creator then means something else.
This inlines the misunderstanding. The monad or source is of one undivided unity. It has no division in it -at all. Therefore if the all that is creation is made of the monad or one then all is one. Now what the monad is well it is complicated but for the sake of simplicity. The one or source or monad is pure energy and is that which is the underlying thing to all things. It can not be created or destroyed is a cornerstone to Plato and Plotinus and this very complicated mess. What the demiurge or nous does is impose order and comprehension upon the energy (aka manifest as the five elements).
Plato did not name the demiurge nous because it would, I think have misguided or misdirected the whole point of his argument against the third man argument that was used to undermined his argument of forms (idealism and essentialism). It is important to understand that Plato via Socrates exemplified that the concept of creator is intrinsic to being and a component of being ontologically. LoveMonkey 16:04, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Architect or Creator

Also Odysses could you confirm historically where the term demiurge is used interchangeably with the term architech? I mean specifically historical or Hellenic philosophical text. LoveMonkey 15:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Plato in Timaios uses the term “δημιουργός" and its derivatives 18 times. Hesiod uses the term "εγένοντο" which is normally translated as: "came forth" but also implies "was created" (From Chaos came forth Erebus and black Night). Homer used the word “δημιουργός" but "as skilled workman, handicraftsman". The earliest occurrence before Plato that I have located is by Philolaus (a Pythagorean and Presocratic). He used the word “δημιουργός" as creator, producer, the Creator of the visible world, Demiurge, Philolaus 21, Hp.Ep.23, Ph.1.632. Odysses (☜) 17:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Philolaus was during the time of Plato and Socrates. As for Homer could you locate exactly where? I would like this to be incorporated in the article. LoveMonkey 19:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Philolaus wrote e few decades before Plato (Presocratic) so he couldn't have influenced Plato. Actually, it seems that Plato was influenced by him in Phaedo. I only have the Odyssey handy: book 17.383 and book 19.135. Odysses (☜) 10:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, so he did. Plato mentions having hung out with him in Phaedo. So it would seem Philolaus was a "philosopher" and therefore also be in the group that due to limited articulation would accept the definition of demiurge as "generic creation template" since Philolaus also does not tie the demiurge to any of the pantheon of the Gods he certainly worshipped. Do know any Hellenic philosopher outside of Plotinus anyone tying the demiurge to say Gaia or Eros or Zeus? Also I think the logos thing needs to be properly addressed and rectified since an editor changed nous in the article to logos but I don't remember Plato using logos instead of nous or say demiurge. LoveMonkey 15:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

From Plato's Timaeus
"Which of the patterns had the artificer in view when he made the world-the pattern of the unchangeable, or of that which is created? If the world be indeed fair and the artificer good, it is manifest that he must have looked to that which is eternal; but if what cannot be said without blasphemy is true, then to the created pattern. Every one will see that he must have looked to, the eternal; for the world is the fairest of creations and he is the best of causes.
-The passage that commits that to speak of creation as evil is blashemy to Plato.-

And having been created in this way, the world has been framed in the likeness of that which is apprehended by reason and mind and is unchangeable, and must therefore of necessity, if this is admitted, be a copy of something. Now it is all-important that the beginning of everything should be according to nature. And in speaking of the copy and the original we may assume that words are akin to the matter which they describe; when they relate to the lasting and permanent and intelligible, they ought to be lasting and unalterable, and, as far as their nature allows, irrefutable and immovable-nothing less. But when they express only the copy or likeness and not the eternal things themselves, they need only be likely and analogous to the real words. As being is to becoming, so is truth to belief.
-Platonic idealism and essentialism and his idea of forms.-

If then, Socrates, amid the many opinions about the gods and the generation of the universe, we are not able to give notions which are altogether and in every respect exact and consistent with one another, do not be surprised. Enough, if we adduce probabilities as likely as any others; for we must remember that I who am the speaker, and you who are the judges, are only mortal men, and we ought to accept the tale which is probable and enquire no further." http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/timaeus.html

LoveMonkey 15:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Incorporation of the correct understanding which right now is not being done

Now how can this understanding outlined above be properly incorporated into the article? It seems that gnosticism and it's incorrect take on Plato's words and works is more important in the article then what the technical term as Plato used and made famous is understood and or depicted. Why is this? Can we collaborate to make this happen? Administrators (at least one) have come in and edited the article to say all kinds of other nonsense that totally miss the importants of the correct meaning of the term in relation to the modern world in mathmatics and science as well as the meaning of the term in it's correctness to psychology and technology let alone the arts. LoveMonkey 16:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

demiurge,logos,psyche and nous

In Platonic philosophy, Demiurge means creator, Logos (reason in the world) means dianoia (reason in the mind/nous), and nous is the assembly of all sensory perception into one thing. So logos and nous are not the same thing (when one experiences, one contemplates). Since logos and dianoia are part of the nous or psyche. In the processing of sensory perception through these facilities of dianoia and or logos, the nous creates reality. Hence nous and demiurge as the same thing. Logos is not nous because though the nous contains logos, logos does not contain nous. LoveMonkey 16:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Hence the demiurge or nous is the image inside (esoteric) and outside (exoteric) of the individual mind of the perfect and or absolute good, containing the economy and or cosmos of intelligible beings. Since the demiurge exists regardless of the individual nous or mind because it is both A priori and a posteriori in the works of Plato or AKA Noology. LoveMonkey 16:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Demiurge as architect

The article currently refers to the Demiurge also as "a divine artisan or architect". This has been tagged as "Dubious", but it shouldn't be. The notions of the "architect's hand in the cosmos" are well known to have been promoted, for example, by the Freemasons, who explicitly refer to the Demiurge as the Great Architect of the Universe (there were , a term also used by many Christian theologians and logicians. (Greek initials used for this reference, in conspiratorial mode: Μ.Α.Τ.Σ.) The pioneer Freemasons included artisans and architects. The tag should be removed. The Gnome 12:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I reverted, please source where the demiurge is referred to as also architect within the Greek language and or also by Greek people. Again there is a creator deity article already. Please source the reference via WP Verifiablity before removing the request for dialog. Since the word is a Greek loan word I can not find in Greek where it is used to also mean architect.LoveMonkey 15:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
The word "architect" derives from the Greek word meaning "master creator" (Αρχι- master, leader, first; -τέκτων creator, constructor). Not coincidentally, the term "(Free) mason" itself is rendered as τέκτων (tekton) in Greek. (The secondary Greek term Μασώνος massónos is a straight transliteration of "mason".) The term Μ.Α.Τ.Σ. used in Freemasonry is composed of the initials of the words Great Architect of the Universe in Greek. One of the primary uses of the term "creator" in Greek (i.e. Δημιουργός dēmiourgós), which is inter-changeable with the meaning "constructor" in the general sense, is in reference to those artists and artisans who fashion something original, something of their own inspiration (and are not simply copying or reproducing). It is quite common to refer to sculptors, film directors, writers or architects in Greek as demiourgoi. On the other hand, one would call demiourgous people assisting in the creative process, such as actors, artisans, etc, only if one assesses their contribution to be highly individualistic and of extraordinary quality. -The Gnome 00:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I do not mean to be scholastic because even so modern scholastics are a corrupted bad joke with all kinds of unfounded innovations under the guise of tolerance. Having stated that I know of no such linguistic teaching do you have a Greek source say from Athens or Thessaloniki that can validate all of that? I mean it is common to refer to authors and or creators as demiurges but architects no. In Greek they are architects. No one gets on the phone and says hey honey call the demiurge and and see how our floor plains are coming along. Nor would they say hey Madame Callas (or Nikos Kazantzakis for that matter) was one helluva an architect. So again please source I am fascinated I would love to know where what you said comes from.I can see where one might translate demiurge as say author but architect is not common as far as you appear to be saying.LoveMonkey 13:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I did not claim that "demiurge" is a synonym for "architect". Nor is it an alternate term for the practitioner of any of the arts we mentioned. However, writers, architects, painters, sculptors, and other artists and artisans would be called "demiurgoi", provided their work merited it. (It goes without saying that the term is applied subjectively.) The term "demiurge" is used as the term "maestro" is used (not for orchestra conductors) but with additional criteria: the object of the description must not only be a master of his/her craft/art but a creator of original work as well. Artisans, including architects, who produce original, individualistic, extraordinary work would most certainly be called "demiurgoi" in Greek. I trust you understand that the term is only used to denote excellent and extraordinary work; it does not offer a complete description. I.e. when you say "Nicos is a demiurgos" in Greek, you do not provide enough description. "Demiurgos" in what? See, I'm afraid the term itself, "Demiurge", on its own, is used, in Greek, only for the God of Eastern Orthodoxy. -The Gnome 08:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

???? Since when does the Greek church worship Zeus? Also again just source your comments please just post a source according to WP policy for WP Verification.LoveMonkey 13:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about. Please indicate the text where something like the Greek church worshipping Zeus was claimed or insinuated. Perhaps you are confused about the use of the term "Demiurge" in Greek. Once again, the term on its own is used by the Eastern Orthodox Church to denote God. (One of God's attributes is that He created, demiurgise, the world.) God is also "Pantocrator", since He is master of everything/the universe, and so on. -The Gnome 19:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
You posted and I quote "See, I'm afraid the term itself, "Demiurge", on its own, is used, in Greek, only for the God of Eastern Orthodoxy." Plotinus named Zeus as the personification of the demiurge -Plotinus. So demiurge refers to Zeus. Ha I have even source the passage in the article (long before now). As I have used and showed above in examples demiurge is used in modern Greek to express a Creator of art hence my reference to Nikos Kazantzakis. Who (if you read the link) is referred to in Modern Greek as the demiurge of stories.LoveMonkey 15:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Hey for fun source where the Christian God is called Demiurge in Greek. Not another Greek word but demiurge in Greek. -Like in the bible. I have a Greek bible I can confirm. Just for fun we can add it to the article. Odessey should be able to help.LoveMonkey 15:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
The term "Demiurge" is indeed used (in modern Greek, of course) to denote the God of Eastern Orthodoxy. One of His many appellations is "The Demiurge". No, modern Greeks do not call Zeus a "demiurge". It appears the worship of Zeus has gone out of fashion in Greece. [Insert appropriate smiley here.] And, yes, as I already noted, repeatedly too, the word is used in modern Greek for artists, such as writer Kazantzakis, or artisans, such as architect Doxiadis, who create works of originality, individuality and recognised value. Beyond this, I realize I have stumbled into some sort of personal and very passionate quest you're on here -- but in which I have no wish to participate. (You wrote "[F]or fun source where the Christian God is called Demiurge in Greek". I respond "For fun, google the relevant words".) To get this slightly useless dialogue back on track, I will remind you of my original comment, in this Talk Page : The article currently refers to the Demiurge also as "a divine artisan or architect". This has been tagged as "Dubious", but it shouldn't be. In my opinion, indeed, it shouldn't.-The Gnome (talk) 20:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia requires valid sourcing of information, Please source the entry

Gnome please do not edit away and or remove any comments I have made (emphasis included). I can understand responding and edits to facilitate that but removing parts of my comments and or my edits is not ethical. Please assume Good Faith and save my time and yours by refraining from speculating on my motives, your wrong and this is a waste of time. Now, this is at least the third time I have requested sources. You instead engage in logical fallacies and refuse to provide sources. I asked for a source where the word architect is used to mean demiurge. You did not provide any sources I even linked to an online English to Greek service to show my examples. You then stated that demiurge is only for the God of the Eastern Orthodox church, I asked for sources you provided none. I provided via the online engine where a very famous author is referred to as a demiurge you say this is wrong contradicting the source but provide no source of your own and then now state that your use of only does not mean only. Now I was right about this but I am wrong about it? I am of course stating the word demiurge is use by modern Greeks but you state only the Eastern Orthodox God is referred to demiurge. This is wrong. I asked for references from the Greek Judeo Christian bible where the God as such is referred to as demiurge. And if so how many times, you refuse to source your comments and instead refer me to Google.
Here is the wikipedia policy that I have done my best to follow.
Wikipedia:Citing_sources Here Gnome is an important point
" Any material that is challenged and for which no source is provided may be removed by any editor". Again Gnome could you please provide scholarly sources. Sources that demiurge can be used to mean architect if not I am going to remove the word as unsourced. That the word demiurge is not used to describe artists or creators who also happen to be human rather than only the God of the Eastern Orthodoxy. Also where in the bible the word demiurge is used and how often. These are simple requests, where did you get your information from. You removed my request for a source from the article and my request to discuss this. Now you state that you don't want to participate but keep posting comments. Comments without sources. LoveMonkey (talk) 01:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

The "discussion" is over, as far as I'm concerned. Only a couple of clarification points. I did not "edited away" nor did I "remove" anything from your commentary. The architecture (pun intended) of the paragraphs was a right mess and, before responding, I tried to put things in a more clear, cascading order. That was all. (Here is the relevant edit I did : [7]). As to your summary of what I supposedly claimed, it is rather inaccurate, if not a shambles. Your English language skills appear rather poor, I must say. Anyway, I leave to others the task of understanding my points. But being lectured on the Greek language - that was fun. -The Gnome (talk) 21:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Removed unsourced definition

I removed the unsourced definition from the article. LoveMonkey (talk) 03:58, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

YAHWEH

does anyone else think this section has suffered at the hands of christians who have trouble seeing this topic as an interesting theology, and perhaps see it as a threat to their belief system? this section goes on and on and ON about how according to THE BIBLE there is no evidence of Yahweh being a second-tier deity. Yes, we know that ... this is what is so interesting about the gnostic conception: whatever your sacred texts reveal about god, it's always possible to imagine a previously hidden deity who supersedes him. All this banging away about what the bible says not only misses this basic point, but also is in the familiar tortured style of believers (rather than scholars) who are used to the sort of discussion where arguments are settled by quoting scripture; i.e. it has gone beyond a dispassionate description of the gnostic view of Yahweh, and reads more like an apologetic bible-based attack on the notion that Yahweh is a non-supreme creator of the physical universe, which is hardly a belief that many visitors here hold to. 202.134.236.190 09:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)snaxalotl

POV

In the Yahweh section, it states: "Nowhere in the New Testament is the creator of the world or the universe identified as Satan". The "In Christianity" section in Wikipedia's "Satan" article references numerous passages in the NT that suggest or clearly state that Satan is the god of the material world. Therefore, this and other similar comments should not be stated as facts. 59.101.171.200 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 14:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Post the citations here. Keep in mind the demiurge means creator. So the passages would have to state that the creator of the world was Satan. Also this does not qualify as an opinion or point of view [8]. Either the NT states that the Creator of the world is evil or it does not.LoveMonkey (talk) 17:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Incomprehensible passage in Platonism and Neoplatonism section

From the third paragraph of the Platonism and Neoplatonism section:

Plotinus also elucidates the equation of matter with nothing or non-being in his Enneads[2] which is to express the concept of idealism in connection with the nous or contemplative faculty within man.[3] This tradition of creator God as nous can be validated in the works of pre Plotinus philosophers such as Numenius. As well as a connection between Hebrew cosmology and the Hellenic Platoistic one (see also Philo).[4]

Could someone please translate this into English?--Editor2020 (talk) 23:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Probably not, but if you could just imagine substituting the lyrics for the song, "Chacarron Macarron" in place of the text, it might make the same amount of sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.170.102.73 (talk) 15:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Are you attempting to collaborate sincerely rather then blindly deleting sections wholesale or are you just being sarcastic? I mean did Plotinus not profess the material world as a construct of the mind or nous (hence idealism)? Other then energy what substance then are thoughts? Let me guess Schopenhauer is not valid and or you :don't understand him either?
Schopenhauer wrote of this Neoplatonist philosopher: "With Plotinus there even appears, probably for the first time in Western philosophy, idealism that had long been current in the East even at that time, for it taught (Enneads, iii, lib. vii, c.10) that the soul has made the world by stepping from eternity into time, with the explanation: 'For there is for this universe no other place than the soul or mind' (neque est alter hujus universi locus quam anima), indeed the ideality of time is expressed in the words: 'We should not accept time outside the soul or mind' (oportet autem nequaquam extra animam tempus accipere)." (Parerga and Paralipomena, Volume I, "Fragments for the History of Philosophy," § 7)Similarly, professor Ludwig Noiré wrote: "For the first time in Western philosophy we find idealism proper in Plotinus (Enneads, iii, 7, 10), where he says, "The only space or place of the world is the soul," and "Time must not be assumed to exist outside the soul." [5] It is worth noting, however, that like Plato but unlike Schopenhauer and other modern philosophers, Plotinus does not worry about whether or how we can get beyond our ideas in order to know external objects.
I could take the initiative and word it more modern but then I would get accuse of Original Research. So it is as close to the literal as possible. I am more then positive that if Plotinus where alive today he would use more current terms to articulate his philosophy. But since he is not and can not and, I am not allowed to take such liberties then it ended up as it is. I guess your way of fixing it was to delete it. What scholars or study programs or works have you and or do you bring to the subject? I am just asking up front. What sources (say a college program or specific set of studies) do you have for your understanding of the Demiurge? I am just asking. I noticed that you have not touched the Creator deity and I was just wondering what attracted you to the demiurge article? I mean if you are here for punctuation and grammar why all the deleting and not just rewrite to word the article to be more palatable, or to your liking. LoveMonkey (talk) 19:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


I am saying that this section, as written, is incomprehensible, and it should be rewritten in standard English. Why use this convoluted, pseudo-archaic writing style? This is Wikipedia, write for your audience. Write simply, write for clarity.

Quote: "I mean did Plotinus not profess the material world as a construct of the mind or nous (hence idealism)?"

This is a good example. This is not the way English speaking people speak or write. "profess"? How about "say"? "Hence"? What century is this?

How about: 'Didn't Plotinus say the material world is a construct of the mind?"

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make with that block of text. You didn't reference it so I'm guessing this is your interpretation of Schopenhauer's explanation of what he thought Plotinus meant? What does that have to do with way this section is written?

I'm not saying the ideas are wrong, just that the way they are presented is incomprehensible.

Quote:"...I am not allowed to take such liberties then it ended up as it is."

Yes you are. That's what Wikipedia is. Rewrite the article as clearly as you can for the philosophical layman, because that is who you are writing for. Provide references to back up your claims, maybe even short quotes in the references. --Editor2020 (talk) 04:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Reply

Editor2020 posted I am saying that this section, as written, is incomprehensible, and it should be rewritten in standard English. Why use this convoluted, pseudo-archaic writing style? This is Wikipedia, write for your audience. Write simply, write for clarity.

LoveMonkeys response

This is pure hypocrisy nothing is stopping you from rewriting the article section. Are you not working on an article about material you are familiar with? If you are not then you should stop wasting people's time period. If you are familiar then jump to it, I most definitely will not stop you if you improve the article. Since rewriting as you imply would actually be engaging in collaboration. DELETING MATERIAL however is disruptive, combative and unacceptable (and the information you deleted was actually sourced material).

LoveMonkey (talk) 08:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Editor2020 posted Quote: "I mean did Plotinus not profess the material world as a construct of the mind or nous (hence idealism)?" This is a good example. This is not the way English speaking people speak or write. "profess"? How about "say"? "Hence"? What century is this?

LoveMonkeys response

Oh you mean uneducated people. Again how familiar are you with the sources and subject matter. All your doing here is blowing smoke. It is shameful that you choose the above line to make your deflective and sorry point. Since I based it on the Plotinus article at the University of Tennessee's Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy article on Plotinus.
I quote The form (eidos) which is the arkhe or generative or productive principle of all beings, establishes its presence in the physical or sensible realm not through any act, but by virtue of the expressive contemplation of the Demiurge, who is to be identified with the Intelligence or Mind (Nous) in Plotinus' system.
Wow aint that pathetic, coming from an Encyclopedia and all, I thought my rewording was easier to understand, but then you come along and state otherwise.
Hey this is that Professor I was mentioning earlier that I think is brilliant- Ed Moore, you know one of those guys that is part of that Neoplatonic group of scholars that you so embarrassingly want to avoid addressing. But again if you can source it and state it better rather then blanket delete it, then get collaborating.

LoveMonkey (talk) 08:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Editor2020 posted How about: 'Didn't Plotinus say the material world is a construct of the mind?" I'm not sure what point you are trying to make with that block of text.

LoveMonkeys response

Well if I had no knowledge of French or criminal law then I probably 1. Won't understand them (no surprise there right). 2. I then should not be editing and blanket deleting content from articles about them of which I have no understanding or knowledge of. How simple and yet lets see how lost on you it is? Again if you can write it better then please go right ahead. Stop wasting time, stop deleting content please, get to it. No one is stopping you. But you better source! And your sources better not strictly be what is already in the article. Cause energy here in Plato land is not the same energy as in photon or electron land.

LoveMonkey (talk) 08:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Editor2020 posted You didn't reference it so I'm guessing this is your interpretation of Schopenhauer's explanation of what he thought Plotinus meant? What does that have to do with way this section is written?

LoveMonkeys response I did not reference the quote from the article on idealism? I think you mean I did not give the book where Schopenhauer makes the comment. You haven't read up on the subject matter have you? You haven't even a surface understanding of any of this do you? I can say I am no scholar but I can at least go to my bookshelf and pull books on this subject that I have read and can quote from. You can't can you? Let alone off the top of our head. LoveMonkey (talk) 09:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Editor2020 posted I'm not saying the ideas are wrong, just that the way they are presented is incomprehensible.

LoveMonkeys response Again yes to people un-educated or un-familiar with the subject matter. But again you can only water it down so much until it become so watered down it no longer remains what it is. And only delusion and extreme arrogants would hold that philosophical matters were to be diluted to meaninglessness in order to make sense to people who don't care enough to even try to understand. It takes work from all involved, such is the pain of learning. LoveMonkey (talk) 09:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Editor2020 posted Quote:"...I am not allowed to take such liberties then it ended up as it is." Yes you are. That's what Wikipedia is. Rewrite the article as clearly as you can for the philosophical layman, because that is who you are writing for.

LoveMonkeys response

This above just gives away the whole absolute sad and shamefulness of this matter. I spent almost 3 months arguing over if Plotinus and A H Armstrong knew what a gnostic was over at the Plotinus talkpage article. Go read the talkpage. Again my opinion is informed and also based on previous experience here, yours appears to be ego driven. Good luck with that, cause from my experience it will get you no where.

LoveMonkey (talk) 09:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Editor2020 posted Provide references to back up your claims, maybe even short quotes in the references. --Editor2020 (talk) 04:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

LoveMonkeys response

Wow your going to blanket delete large chunks of content based on ambiguous and uninformed whim. Claim that content can not be added unless it mets a criteria that is established by your opinion. And then make a comment like
Provide references to back up your claims, maybe even short quotes in the references. You really have no idea, you are completely clueless. How pathetic. Goto the article I wrote with Professor Morton from Indiana State-Neoplatonism and Gnosticism.

Go to the talkpage. The last time I -posted references to back up my claims, maybe even short quotes in the references- I got accused of copyright infringement. Pathetic. LoveMonkey (talk) 09:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Lovemonkey, I regret your seeming inability to grasp English usage. Your responses seem to have little or no connection to what I wrote. Life is too short, I give up. I'm gone.--Editor2020 (talk) 01:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

LoveMonkeys response
However you justify it. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Bottom Line

First read some of these articles & their talkpages (plotinus, henosis, Iamblichus, Numenius, John Douglas, A. H. Armstrong, neoplatonism, Niko Lossky, Russian Philosophy, idealism, materialism, philosophy of the mind, realism, phenomenology, german idealism) just to name a few Editor2020. Get alittle educated about the already happenings. Then lets just cut to the chase, right now and pick an administrator to go ahead and intervene. This process is so played out and tired. Since you obviously are unwilling to bring knowledge to the article and or collaborate, you appear however to want to give direction though (just not get you hands dirty). You are doing nothing but being argumentive, deflective and disruptive. All which are not needed. But here I am sure vengeful and retailtory is somewhere down the road just a waitin. LoveMonkey (talk) 09:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Old Messages Posted Above TOC Moved

Umberto Eco's work on the subject should not be ignored.

In the Hinduism section, Brahma being empowered by Vishnu sounds like a Vaishnava (i.e. sectarian) view. Hope someone with more knowedge about the subject may correct this, or more carefully note what Purana is being cited, or cite the view as a Vaishnava one (if it is), or delete the section altogether. Eduardo Cuellar 21 June 2005

Can somebody explain the how Yaldaboath is Hebrew for "Go, Child" or for anything else? Gadykozma 06:36, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The Hebrew word for "child" is "yeled", and for "go" is "bo". Most probably "yalda" and "baoth" are declensions of "child" and "go" in a certain Semitic language (I doubt it's Hebrew), meaning together "child, come hither".

According to whom/what? Although it does appear that the first part could be related to "child" (which has a stem yald-), why suppose that "baoth" is related at all to "bo"? 24.159.255.29 06:25, 9 April 2006 (UTC) Update - there seem to be a lot of web pages giving the meaning as "child of chaos" (or, in one instance, "father of chaos" - perhaps that's a gloss on a phrase like "one whose child is chaos"?). In many of those pages it is spelled Jaldabaoth. I don't know if any of them is really reputable, so I'm not changing the actual entry, but I thought someone else might find this information useful. 24.159.255.29 06:58, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Is it at all significant that "yalda" is the feminine of "yeled" and thus means "girl" in Hebrew? Or is this a modern conceit? --Aemilia 18:35, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally the feminine of child-boy has a different root in semitic languages: "BNT". The "a" at the end here is a kind of inflection, not feminine indication.--Connection 01:43, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Hoi, how is it I can provide a specific etymology in Aramaic for Samael and have it deleted for an uncited and uncorroborated (and grammatically incorrect) definition instead? Samael is Aramaic for "God is Blind" (Syriac sæmʕa-ʔel). Emily Zilch 17 Jan 2006 --Editor2020 (talk) 23:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Origin of the World

I am not sure why Origin of the World redirects here, other than this seems to deal with versions of origins of the world. I am putting up a DAB page at that phrase. I will link this article there (although it does not seem to be a correct DAB link since this article does not contain "origins of the world" as a specific phrase). 64.0.112.212 (talk) 01:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The Demiurge is not a Creator

This is a rather important point in theology even if it is muddled by language use. Most languages allow to mark a difference between 'doing' or 'making' and 'creating' and this is in fact the distinction between the Demiurge and the Creator. The article asserts that the demiurge is a creator and takes him to be a creator god which is rather incorrect. The Catholic Encylopedia should be a sufficent authority when it says:

gradually demiourgós became the technical term for the Maker of heaven and earth. In this sense it is used frequently by Plato in his "Timæus". Although often loosely employed by the Fathers and others to indicate the Creator, the word never strictly meant "one who produces out of nothing" (for this the Greeks used ktístes), but only "one who fashions, shapes, and models". A creator in the sense of Christian theology has no place in heathen philosophy, which always presupposes the existence of matter [9].

It seems evident that a creator can assume the role of a demiurge but not the obverse; the first produces (ex nihilo) matter and form, the second just the form. Some etymological research could show that the latin 'create' is closer to 'generate', 'bring into existence','give birth' etc, while the greek 'ergon' is more like 'facere'. Imho the whole article should be edited with this distinction in mind.al (talk) 21:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The demiurge is an expression of philosophy, in that it is a Greek or Hellenistic cultural concept. This means that the Demiurge is a cultural concept from the Greeks who did not believe in the empirical existence of nothingness as non-substantive (ex-nihilo). They treated nothingness as a substance called aether. The Greeks as pagans and pagan philosophers did not believe that you can get nothing from something therefore the creator had to create from "something". Plato it was the good, Aristotle it was energy, Plotinus it was force. These are ontological noema that create consciousness in humans. This arises from the unique essence of Greek or Hellenistic philsophy treating the natural (physic) and supernatural (metaphysic) as extensions of human consciousness. So everything that can be talked about or experienced stems from human consciousness and therefore must be expressed from a anthropomorphic perspective. God or Gods can not be anything outside of human. That's why Zeus and the Gods are flawed as their flaws reflect in man and mankinds flaws reflect in them. The demiurge as a phrase is creator and nothing can be created but in the way that mankind creates. The Greek Orthodox Christian God is not relatiable to the Actus et potentia as the Roman Catholic God since, God in essence is not action or inaction or potential nor inpotential this would make God's being, essence or substance comprehenisible and that then is not the Ortohodox Christian God. The Christian God is not one (the monad) or unity according to St Dionysus the Areopagite. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:28, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
In a nutshell: ktistes=creator, demiurge=maker; the fact that the Greeks did not use the first but the second shows that their had a different conception about how the world came to be what it is. Apparently we agree on this but disagree how 'create' and cognate words should be used, so please consider the latin distinction according to which 'create' is not 'facere' (i.e 'make').

"The demiurge as a phrase is creator" does not look as an argument.195.96.229.83 (talk) 11:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


Orthodox Christianity did not have the same God therefore the "concept of God" uses and has familiar language (between Hellenstic Greek and Byzantine Greek) but in essence, substance is a different concept of God. In Greek Orthodox Christianity (which Iamblichus kinda tried to graft into Neoplatonism after the fact) God is in and outside the Universe. God is made up of a substance that is beyond substance since God's consciousness ontologically is hyper-being. Meaning that God as a substance can not be detected nor contained. Now this was dependent on the concept of hypostasis, immanence or existence (cataphatic). The Pagan philosophical God was a detectable substance that all things derive from and reduced to. The Orthodox Christian God is a hyper substance that is not empirically detectable. Mankind has to be altered in order to detect it. Since the God in Greek Orthodox Christianity in his trinitarian completeness (uncreatedness) does not have the same consciousness as mankind, did not share mankinds consciousness until he became a human being AKA Jesus Christ. The reverse is only true in Philosophy since in Orthodox Christianity God as a whole has a consciousness which is completely unrelatable to mankind. Philosophy God and mankind have the same consciousness and Roman Catholicism and Protestantism treat God ontologically very much as modalistic (like Sabellianism) which creates also a different consciousness. Orthodox Christianity also rejects this as anthropomorphic-izing the Christian God, which can only come from not actually having experiencing the Christian God (theoria) and only experiencing the template in your brain or intrinsic God of philosophy. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:58, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Demiurge/Archive_1&oldid=512690296"