Seems way better at squaring reality than gay materialism
Nope, roll the dice agai. I'm betting on meta structuralist Platonic Lockean dualism next, that is the philosophy we need
>>25005655Word salad.
>>25005652>>25005659>Analytic Idealism is a theory of the nature of reality that maintains that the universe is experiential in essence. That does not mean that reality is in your or our individual minds alone, but instead in a spatially unbound, transpersonal field of subjectivity of which we are segments. even dumber word salad
>>25005659idk I like it, that anon already convinced me to change my beliefs to what he said
>>25005664This sounds a bit like panentheism or am I mistaken?
>>25005664Isn't this just open individualism?
>>25005669It's just woke solipsism. Evola's theory of magical idealism makes more sense
>>25005664>>25005665Word salad.
>>25005681>he prefers word burgers :DD
>>25005673>can't explain why I exist as this person and not as someone else, just denies it entirelyhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertiginous_question
>>25005652Bought his "Analytic Idealism in a Nutshell" recently. Anyone read it? Thoughts?
>>25005669Basically. It's idealism following in the footsteps of Berkeley, Hegel, etc.>>25005680Not solipsism because it doesn't deny other minds.The fundamental point is that consciousness precedes the material. The "external universe" exists in a dependent relationship with consciousness and is therefore not really external at all. Consciousness didn't develop from some random process in an independent material universe, but the other way around. Consciousness organises and imposes laws on matter.
>>25005652>Idealist slop
materialism is hated because it is trve
>>25005875Consciousness that's conscious of the laws and mechanisms inherent to our ontological stratum within the God-mind.
>>25005822It doesn't deny other minds because that's "problematic". That's just a woke dogma though and doesn't follow logically
>>25005887I think you mean the Yahweh mind
>>25005887>What created the laws.>Consciousness.>So you're saying that consciousness is ultimately conscious of itself.>Yes, and what's the problem with that?>A consciousness that's only conscious of itself is a contradiction, you're basically asserting that consciousness can be conscious with no external content to be conscious of, but a consciousness that's conscious of no content can't be conscious of anything.>W-w-ell i-it just is, OKAY!?
>>25005909Consciousness isn't only conscious of itself. It's bound within an ontological stratum, but can conceive outside of that stratum. That's what religion, mysticism, meditation, etc are for. Higher conscious states are possible.
>>25005918>It's bound within an ontological stratum, but can conceive outside of that stratum.I assume what you mean by "ontological stratum" is just existence, in that case you'd be correct. The second part though is completely false, nothing can exist outside existence by definition, it is quite literally impossible to conceive of pure non-existence.
>>25005927I mean we're limited to a particular realm of being (defined by finitude, certain hard mechanisms of reality, etc). The Absolute contains within it "layers" of being. While all consciousness derives from and participates in the God-mind (Absolute), consciousness is subject to different "orders". This qualified idealism stands in contrast to more naive idealisms ("We're all God", etc).
>>25005696Pralaya from Bhagavata is clear on this. Each time this is performed the outcomes are the same. There is no more to say.
>>25005664>spatially unbound, transpersonal field of subjectivity of which we are segmentsWhat is spaceWhat is personWhat is fieldIf there are no bounds, how is there subjectivity>segmentsI thought you said it was unbound
>>25005652Traditional Metaphysics >>> Analytic Idealism > Naturalism/Materialism
>>25005990nigga i'm just quoting the guy, i have no idea what the fuck he's talking about
>>25005956>While all consciousness derives from and participates in the God-mind (Absolute), consciousness is subject to different "orders".This doesn't resolve the primacy of consciousness contradiction. Since prior to existence, this God-mind had to exist to create existence, which is a contradiction.
>>25005999Consciousness is existence. Nevertheless, consciousness can be limited to differentiated modes of experience. There is a hierarchy of conscious experience akin to that outlined by the Neoplatonists.
>>25006014>Consciousness is existence.This is a contradiction, consciousness is the faculty that perceives existence, if there's nothing to perceive then consciousness has no content and isn't conscious of anything. A consciousness conscious of nothing isn't a consciousness at all.
>>25006045There is something to perceive - the limitations of experience we are subject to by nature of inhabiting a particularised stratum of existence. We are not (at least in our normal finite/default state of consciousness) witness to the totality of things. I've already said that our experience of consciousness is not equivalent to the God-mind.A "consciousness conscious of nothing", by the way, is the path of meditation. By seeking inwardly to break free from the limitations imposed on us in our default waking state is how we can grow closest to the God-mind. "Nothing" and "emptiness" - consciousness unconditioned - is consciousness in its purest, most godlike state.
>>25006061>God-mind.I'm saying that there is no God-mind because consciousness preceding existence is a contradiction and contradictions are false.
>>25006066It's not a consciousness akin to ours. Higher states of consciousness (meditation, mystical practices, astral projection, etc) already imply there's much to consciousness beyond our usual spectrum that we don't appreciate. We can't presume to understand the full capacities or nature of consciousness at the level of the God-mind.
>>25005652Sharia and Islam are the only way forward these guys just try to get away from the Haqq
>>25005652Analytic idealism is spergy, over-engineered cope for weakies who can't handle the blackpill.
There are a number of anti-materialist stances he trashes in his book that make a lot more sense than his convoluted attempt to find a novelty he can use to promote himself. This guy is basically Robert M. Pirsig but with STEM characteristics.
>>25006121I was starting to worry about you. Yes if the proponents of a this phase shifting paradigm just want to stay in universal conscience then the only reason for a return to self is to attack. The root was not severed. This is why the Buddha carried on and there was a split wherein other Hindus chose not to recognize the Buddha as an avatar of Vishnu. The choice to not recognize doesn't refute dualism even in Hinduism and the severing of the root has it's own sequence. Kastrup can still achieve a universal but if there isn't one then he doesn't have anything. His understanding of universals is advanced, if he has one he will come across as a STEM.
>>25005652>everything is mind/consciousness, the material world is just what mental processes and experiences of the underlying one mind/consciousness look like from an outside perspective. What ketchups philosophy is is basically a naturalized version of non-duelism. Removing the divine but still saying that mind/consciousness is the basis of reality, only that this is a naturalistic mind that evolves over time.
>>25005652This is one of most unfortunate faces ive ever seen.this guy should be more focused on his ideal facial ratios
>>25005652Materialism really seems retarded to me, like even if consciousness comes from the material it still proves there's a world of ideas where every possibility can be formulated and analyzed. Even if the material world brings forth idealism, that possibility is contemplated as a subset. We already have consciousness in the first order, proving shit with matter is second order. It's all retarded words at the end of the day holy shit like read some statistics
>>25006066>It's uh..... LE CONTRADICTIONDiscursivecel cope.
>>25006107t. bugman
>>25005763False Chad. My Chad is true Chad.
>>25005886also, im trans
>>25006185>Removing the divine but still saying that mind/consciousness is the basis of reality, only that this is a naturalistic mind that evolves over time.alas, this is the era of evolutionary discourse permeating everything. wait until the next paradigm shift before people are willing to have a serious debate on these matters.
>>25006447much better. but go earlier than the scholastics. :)
>>25006462give it another 100 - 400 years. too many enjoy creature comforts, not that one can blame them. but soon brother. soon..
>>25005664Might as well just be a Whiteheadian
>>25006086islam is so insanely permissive it's almost impossible for someone to not be a muslim if they claim they are one, fuck that shit
>>25006462Evolution doesn’t need to be negated it just needs to be considered in relation to god.
>>25006537Islam is just mass parasitic behavior inflicted on out group and lower status individuals justified with a rudimentary moral code
>>25005909Absolute Consciousness can conceive any and all objects.Consciousness is an object.Therefore consciousness can conceive itself.And this is in fact the first of all conceptions; self-awareness is the preconditional intuition for survival instincts to have a direction of action.
>>25006761nah it's actually pretty permissive. you can be essentially a christian, a total dick, a whore, etc. again NOTHING you can do will make you not a muslim in islam. not even saying you're not a muslim or god isn't real will necessarily make you not a muslim.
>>25006444Try the blue big-boy pants.
>>25005822You clearly didn't understand the book.
Dialectical materialism is the only analytical method that actually manages to explain anything.
>>25006836Trudat
Actually everything is fundamentally ketchup my theory makes the same kind of predictions as idealism, so it got an equal epistemic standing
>>25006848>Find the fragments of your machine.
what kind of physiognomy is this? dirty earthworm?
>>25006983>what kind of physiognomy is this?Leptoprosopic facial phenotype. He looks a little weird I'll admit although he does have many of the classical traits associated with deep cerebral thinkers in physiognomy, and I'll admit that as someone who does not subscribe to his ideas and find his personality a little grating.
>>25006983is that a negative norwood
>>25006983His physiognomy is precisely why materialist doomers win.
>>25005652His book on Jung is excellent. Jung understood all of this and his twin concepts of the collective unconscious and synchronicity encapsulate so.
Lost the single remaining speck of respect I had for this guy when he appeared on British wannabe Deepak Chopra and the host was totally cluelessstarted talking about materialism in the consumerist sense, people are too concerned with buying products and owning bullshit (totally fair point, btw)And Kastrup was not clarifying his position, just nodding along - "Yup, that's why I argue against materialism." Typing this all out, I come to realize, what the fuck was he supposed to do? Start explain his extremely elaborate (borderline?)-unintelligible views maybe nodding along was the best course of action...It just came across as being sell-out at the time, trading honesty for attention and publicity
>>25006781worshipping another God other than Allah is referred to as Shirk and pretty much instantly takes you of the fold of Islam
I still have no clue what's the fucking difference between idealism vs. materialism
>>25005813Idea of the World much better. Daimon or whatever terrible
>>25008550Screentime is screentime. The message does not matter
