What's the comfiest philosophy?
>>25329577Heideggerism
>>25329577Daoism
>>25329684"The bee is a part of the flower and the flower is a part of the bee, they are one. I am the universe.">>25329732"Live, laugh, love."
>>25329577Quietist pragmatist type framework with self consistent non realist foundations. But it's going to take up lot of min-maxing epistemology to build this piece by piece. You're going to have to shed all your presuppositions and start from scratch. Not realistic for most people. But the end result is robust impenetrable framework with no friction whatsoever.
what kind of question is that, you follow philosophy according to how much it panders to your experience, it has nothing to do with best
>>25329577chill analytic metaphysics
>>25329577Has anyone in here actually read Rudolph Steiner? It has the character of hellenistic synchretic philosophy to me - i.e. the kind of decadent thought where superficial knowledge of different subject collapses into pseud-scientific and pseudo-philosophical systems. Somehow, it seems to attract a specific brand of romantic and sentimental non-specialist, eager to make sense of the world in the quickest possible way without having to work (here being the key thing) through actually learning a craft of some kind. Overall his reading of Goethe's Theory of Color was probably the most interesting thing I read by him - but the rest was unconvincing. I tend to distrust Steinerian people strongly. I also saw, weirdly, that both extreme leftwing (of the hippie kind, sadly, rather than the anarchist or revolutionary kind) and extreme rightwing (of the Evola reading kind) are attracted by him, or write extensively about him.Has anyone else read him? I'd be interested in hearing an informed opinion. Again, my understanding of him is superficial and I'm curious about how he is perceived.
>>25330825>Somehow, it seems to attract a specific brand of romantic and sentimental non-specialist, eager to make sense of the world in the quickest possible way without having to work (here being the key thing) through actually learning a craft of some kind. Why does one need to be a specialist of some sort in order to appraise whether a particular world view has any merit? Also I've listened to literally dozens of audiobooks from Steiner and I still feel like I don't understand all the ins and outs of his system. Also he was smart but he wasn't really a philosopher or scientist in the usual sense, because the better part of his world-view derives from personal mystic/visionary experiences and various forms of esotericism.
>>25330835I am referring on the fact that he was a polymath on subjects, such as medicine, agriculture and architecture, of which I doubt he had a proper understanding. I am all for mysticism and getting an intuitive grasp of these subjects through philosophical inquiry or deep mystical experience - but much like the writing of other mystics, I am not inclined to take these indications literally. If a mystic told me, like in the passage you quote, that "they" will make "a vaccine against the soul", I'd take this in a non-literal sense, or open it to as many interpretations as possible - the endgame being, like for all other mystics I've read such as Plotinus, an invitation for the reader to reach their own mystical state.Steiner readers instead seems to take this as if vaccines against measles or Covid will literally severe your soul from some transcendent reality. This is particularly true in places like Germany, where Steiner scholars constitute the equivalent of a lobby.The core of mystical experiences in my opinion is to drive one's own research towards the inward and toward yourself, and do away with masters (in a sense to "betray" them and "kill" them - as in the buddhist proverb). This doesn't seem the trend among Steinerians at all.But all I have are personal impressions, and you seem to have studied him more than I did. What do you find fascinating about him? Why is he worth reading and studying, in your opinion?
>>25330530Where do I start?
>>25330863>I'd take this in a non-literal sense, or open it to as many interpretations as possible - the endgame being, like for all other mystics I've read such as Plotinus, an invitation for the reader to reach their own mystical state.I agree that the goal of authentic spiritual practice and knowledge is to Know Thyself i.e. go inward beyond particulars. This doesn't mean that certain temporally powerful people don't have an interest in thwarting this goal, and that they won't use particular means (e.g. vaccines) to this end. Certainly you'd agree, at least, that our present culture as a whole seems almost custom-built to keep people in a base, neurotic, narcissist frame of mind. If this is intentionally devised, even in part, is it really so absurd to suppose that technological means may be deployed toward this end? At any rate, I think it's perfectly reasonable to be wary any such thing aggressively pushed by mass media. >What do you find fascinating about him? Why is he worth reading and studying, in your opinion?I like the depth and detail with which he describes things pertaining to the spiritual world. I also find him to be extremely erudite in general, particularly regarding esoteric-adjacent topics, even if I don't agree with every conclusion he has. He's certainly helped tie together a lot of loose ends for me, often only incidentally, for example referencing some obscure text or historical event in passing. He points out a great many connections in this regard, drawing clear but often overlooked inferences. For example he's pointed out a medieval Vatican counsel in which they assert the ability to command God himself to be in the eucharist. Another example would be an obscure talmudic text that (derisively) appears to reference the proto-Matthew gospel, which would imply it was extant and known prior to the destruction of the Jerusalem temple. Both examples have "checked out" according to my own scrutiny.
>>25330863I read Steiner kind of how I read literature, meaning I don't take him too literally. Though sometimes I do think there is some literal truth to what he says, but usually I try to interpret what he says from an open ended approach. Like with literature, although the factual details may not be true, the spirit of what's being communicated often is quite insightful and true on a deeper level. Personally, I've found his concept of Ahriman and Lucifer to illuminate an accurate dichotomy of two separate spiritual impulses that seek to guide humanity (both on an individual and societal level). His writing on Ahriman in particular seem more prescient now with modern computer technology, digitization, and more recently, developments in AI. As well as an increasing bureaucratization of everything.That said, when it comes to his takes on medicine, agriculture, architecture, etc, I know very little about those topics and take him with a grain of salt there. Though I do think it's significant that a lot of wealthy people send their kids to Waldorf Schools which Steiner founded, precisely because of the holistic approach he established. >>25330921>I like the depth and detail with which he describes things pertaining to the spiritual world. I also find him to be extremely erudite in general, particularly regarding esoteric-adjacent topics, even if I don't agree with every conclusion he has.Basically this. Steiner was practically a walking encyclopedia and often simple tangents in his lectures give me lots of interesting things to investigate and look deeper into. Especially if you have an interest in history
>>25330863>I am referring on the fact that he was a polymath on subjects, such as medicine, agriculture and architecture, of which I doubt he had a proper understanding.The central conceit of Stirner's belief structure is that knowledge can be accessed in non-empirical ways through the awakening of higher (psychic) faculties. If you don't believe what he had to say about these topics, you don't believe that he had access to the supersensible realm (or at least that he was not able to draw accurate information from it), and the whole thing kind of false apart.
>>25329577Unironically pessimism and antinatalism.
was this you >>25301419
Epicureanism and Daoism
>>25330385Shut up idiot, "live laugh love" isn't Daoism.
>>25329577
>>25331967"I don't know, I don't care and it doesn't matter anyway."You like that take on Daoism better?
>>25332049Also wrong, brainlet.
>>25332054You're grasping and there's nothing to grasp
comfiest is definitely nominalism
>>25332271That's more like it
>>25329577Epicureanism
>>25329732Zhuangzi is comfy but going any deeper into Taoism than that is painful.
>>25333312If you're bitch made maybe
>>25333333Kek'd and check'd
>>25329577Why do I keep thinking this is a picture of Ted Bundy?
>>25330790So obscure pessimist nihilism, got it.
French spiritualism (Ravaisson, Bergson, Lavelle, I'd probably throw Ruyer in there as well)
>>25329577American Transcendentalism
>>25329577Mat 22:37-40 Jesus said to him: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart, and with thy whole soul, and with thy whole mind. 38. This is the greatest and the first commandment. 39. And the second is like to this: Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. 40. On these two commandments dependeth the whole law and the prophets.
