imprimis: analytic philosophy is gay

Plotinus ended philosophy there's nothing else to discuss. The more you read philosophy the more you realize silence is the best expression of the ineffable

>>25400610
What should I read after Leibniz discourse on metaphysics

finally an actual philosophy general

bump cuz i like you guys and I like philosophy even though im becoming more worried that i will never achieve what i desire in philosophy.

>>25401341
what do you desire in philosophy?

>>25401363
To formulate a new and "clear" way of understanding the world. No longer to solve problems, but somewhat similar to Later Wittgenstein's motivation: Find a way to make philosophical (and tangentially philosophical problems, such as political philosophy, historical philosophy, social philosophy (broader concepts about the tools we employ in society to understand ourselves, anthropology, statistics, science, evo psych, general psych etc.) problems less troublesome) The problem is that I am not smart enough, nor mentally stable (makes it sound like im crazy, but really I just have ADHD and extreme motivation/focus problems, and get hopeless very easily) enough to do formal education. And from what I can tell. All influential philosophers who have ever contributed anything were either rich, formally trained, or both. And I am none of these. I do not have time to read philosophy not because I don't literally have the time, but because I cannot justify dedicating so much time to something I couldnt dedicate in the formal context of school, theres this sense that I'd be wasting my time, even though its basically all I want to do other than recreational activities, and also because self discipline is already hard enough if I couldn't do university.
So I don't see much hope for me. Even in the case where I could go back to school. I'd likely have to focus on something other than philosophy, like some computer or data shit.

>>25401369
I see what you mean, I also have very similar goals but more from a scientific and logical perspective, I've also been wanting to create a kind of club, like the Freemasons but without the dogma, to advance my own and others education, practical skills, and position in life.

Why do you feel that you can't advance your philosophy? Do you feel that you should be doing practical things? Can't you take up philosophy as a hobby while mainly focusing on practical things? Do you feel like your main dedication should instead be to improving your focus and self-discipline? But you feel hopeless in it so you neither want to do practical things nor develop focus? I've found some success in improving my focus recently, in a certain way i've developed, and am also trying to formulate a clearer view of the world though largely unsuccessful from an intellectual perspective, but it's more of a hobby for me.

>>25401389
>Why do you feel that you can't advance your philosophy?
The only time I can "read" philosophy is when I'm out and about, through audiobook format, people will call me crazy for this, but this is unironically the most success I've had considering my mental problems, getting through philosophy. You can rewind and replay whenever you want.

Any other time, when I'm in the house or something. I would actually rather be listening to philosophy, and I actually used to, but I think it was when I finished my last philosophy audiobook, tried to talk about it online, and realized that either not enough people read it to answer my questions, or not enough people were equipped or interested enough, to engage in discussion, that I stopped being as engaged in "reading" philosophy all the time instead of just when I go out. Because it feels like its not worth the investment, if I can't engage with it in any other way outside of just rereading, even though I must reiterate, its just about the only thing I actually care about or value.

And I realize that a university setting where I have to write papers about what I read would probably be ideal, but at the same time, my brain is just not built for the kind of environment and homework that university is. If I could choose for myself to write and read whatever I wanted in philosophy and submit it, that would probably be ideal. But at the same time that would require self discipline that I lack. So I'm just stuck, damned if I do, damned if I don't.

What I've learned reading philosophy is that you come to understand more about the text, not from the text itself, the text is sort of just a collection of words and concepts, but whence you engage with the world with those words and concepts at the back of your mind, you develop connections and understandings, that recontexualize what you've already read, so that you understand its true value. The best way to do this is conversation and discussion, but something I've found that helps is reading secondary material like lectures and other people's interpretations, so you compare your interpretation to theres and see whats missing. But this is even better when you can have an actual back and forth. And its simply not that easy to find a worthwhile back and forth discussion on philosophical text.

>>25401419
From what you said, you want to form a new and clear understanding of the world, but from what i'm reading, you're constantly consuming and analyzing vast amounts of already established philosophy, which is of course perfectly fine and good, but how are you going to get to the new from that? Are you figuring out your own philosophical theory too? Or do you have trouble focusing on such an endeavour? I'm just trying to get a clearer picture. I've found that figuring out what the actual problem is and what your goals are clearly, does more than half the work of any endeavour.

I'm trying to approach your dilemma from a philosophical perspective rather than psychologizing. For me, philosophy is almost meaningless without application, without application philosophy is just art, which is valuable nonetheless, but painting one thousand paintings only makes you more skilled in painting, and may only coincidentally improve other skills. For me philosophy is the skill of understanding skills, which is what makes it so difficult and so rewarding, because you constantly have to apply and check the philosophy to see if it 'works'. This is extremely difficult and I think why so many philosophers either retreat into imaginary nonsense or go mad. You have to be able to discard certain aspects of philosophy into the trash immediately if they don't work, this is difficult because it's easy to get married to ideas and even the idea of philosophy itself.

In my perhaps naive perspective, you can solve all of these problems for yourself at once, you want to form a new and clear philosophy, then do it, and apply it first to yourself, apply it to the direct immediate goals you seek out, always try to apply the broad philosophical concepts to yourself first, if they don't work you try to either understand them better or discard them, step by step you can gain some understanding, the more it helps you immediately the better, and should you ever decide philosophy is not worth your while you can appreciate the understanding and skills you've achieved and abandon philosophy, that way you've won whether you decide to philosophize or not, this to me is the ultimate use and beauty of philosophy, you can believe in it, or you can use it to solve a math problem and then immediately discard it, it gives you options, another way of proceeding intellectually.

I am not a trained philosopher or even very well read but I also enjoy and find some value in discussing such subjects and would be happy to dialogue in my limited spare time if you so wish.

File: 14458.jpg (98 KB, 555x650)

98 KB JPG

>>25400810
Then i am gay. I don't care.

>>25400999
/thread

>>25401126
monadology

>>25401481
No, its Wittgenstein.

File: 1783466136887733.png (473 KB, 680x680)

473 KB PNG

Does anyone else here think hedonic utilitarianism is self-evidently correct (because positive emotion is the only thing able to be subjectively and directly experienced as good in itself, it simply feels good in a manner you can't question), and that therefore maximizing the conscious experience of pleasure in the universe is the only thing that is ethically demanded, and when you take that to its logical conclusion, you realize that what technological civilization should be striving towards is eventually converting all matter in the universe into hedonium (conscious substrate that maximizes experienced pleasure per unit mass-energy)? And furthermore, you don't take this as a reductio ad absurdum, but rather hold that it is what logic demands we must do no matter how strange or counterintuitive it might seem? Does anyone else here think moral philosophy logically demands tiling the universe with hedonium and nothing else? I genuinely dream of a universe where all matter is employed in maintaining endless conscious subjects, each engineered to feel the greatest pleasure imaginable, with every moment feeling as fresh and exciting as the first, never growing bored or tired of it (because they're engineered to never feel boredom or be subject to the hedonic treadmill), and this state of maximized pleasure persisting until the heat death of the universe. This, I think, is the logical end of moral philosophy.

>>25400999
Wasted trips

>>25401363
To make ethical justifications for a real existing rape culture so birth rate line go up.

>>25400810
Continental philosophy is full of literal faggots like Foucault. As "gay" as analytical philosophy might be, the alternative is even worse.

>>25402706
One can simply not take sides. That's what I do. I really can't take someone like Derrida or Russell seriously. The entire corpus of Critical Theory is practically built on Saussure, but if you reject them you practically throw away all of it.

>>25402295
no

>>25402295
>but rather hold that it is what logic demands we must do no matter how strange or counterintuitive it might seem?
what makes logic good under this framework? logic can obviously lead to non pleasurable conclusions, if your answer is just "thats acceptable because it can also lead to pleasurable (or whatever intuitions youre sneaking in when you use "good")" then why would I ever subscribe to this system? I dont need it to tell me whether logic is good or useful, because logic is "useful" whether its serving the efforts to maximize pleasure or not. Logic has considerations outside of that, and infact I may think it valuable explicitly because it doesnt bias itself towards hedonism

>>25402714
What if critical theory was built on Peirce instead what would it end up looking like?

Eudaimonia is stored in the balls.

>>25400999
Your mum's ineffable m8

'Inner monologue' and why people who don't 'have it' are npcs is the worst meme ever. Insight and deep thinking happen without verbalization, you're more than likely schizophrenic or 90 iq rather

>>25400999
> Plotinus ended philosophy there's nothing else to discuss.
This but with Shankara, Plotinus never consistently works out how the One emanates while remaining immutable and utterly simple, he is better then 80% of western thinkers but is 2nd rate compared to the best Indians, Tibetans and east-Asians (or Sufis)

>>25403740
Ive read two of shankara's works and i find Plotinus better

>>25403740
>Plotinus never consistently works out how the One emanates while remaining immutable and utterly simpl
Wrong btw and he's the only one I've seen tackle that. Shankara didn't -- at least in the two works ive read, crest jewel and thousand teachings

>>25403772
>Wrong btw and he's the only one I've seen tackle that.
Okay then explain what his solution is, if what you say is true than you should be able to explain why. I've never seen anyone give a consistent explanation nor does any secondary source or academic explain what it is, most end up admitting he relies on mysticism and not logic or metaphysics. I've asked multiple people on /lit/ before and nobody can from what I've seen, maybe you'll be the first but somehow I doubt it.

>Shankara didn't -- at least in the two works ive read, crest jewel and thousand teachings
He does explicitly resolve that by adopting a metaphysical model called Vivartavada that explains why in which the effect (all phenomena in the universe) is not a real creation but is an appearance (vivarta) of the cause which is Brahman, and this appearance is not a real creation or a second ontological reality/item but is a relational modality on the epistemic level or which is an epistemic disclosure of the ontological reality/existence of the Absolute which is partless and immutable, which is beyond all change, plurality, relations and determinations, the Absolute by it's very nature effortlessly appears as all these finite things without ever undergoing any change by its power of maya or illusion that is sometimes equated by Shankara and others with ignorance, this power is not a second real thing or an existing plurality in Brahman but the distinction between Brahman's nature and means by which it appears as the universe is a nominal and a necessary distinction predated on the point of view of ignorance within the illusion. This avoids all the internal contradictions of emanationism (or trying to square it divine simplicity/immutability) from the very outset.

"In this way, even though Śaṅkara assumes realism at the empirical level in terms of veridical cognition, he negates it metaphysically from the absolute level. This leads him to a position of non-realism (Ram-Prasad 2002). From the empirical standpoint, these two orders seem to exist simultaneously and possess an asymmetrical relationship—the world is dependent upon brahman for its existence, yet brahman has no dependence on the world even though immanent in it. Only from the absolute standpoint does empirical reality collapse into brahman. The ultimate reality perspective metaphysically devours the world, all of its causation, and even its status as an appearance. From the nondual standpoint there is only brahman. Brahman never undergoes genuine transformation (pariṇāma) into the world, just as a rope mistaken to be a snake does not actually transform into a snake. Nor is the snake separate from the rope."
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/shankara/

The first work you listed isn't even authentic but from later follower, & the latter work you listed is a collection of disparate & brief teachings on insight and realization & doesn't explore metaphysics in depth like his prose commentaries famously do.

>>25403944
>Okay then explain what his solution is, if what you say is true than you should be able to explain why. I've never seen anyone give a consistent explanation nor does any secondary source or academic explain what it is, most end up admitting he relies on mysticism and not logic or metaphysics. I've asked multiple people on /lit/ before and nobody can from what I've seen, maybe you'll be the first but somehow I doubt it.

Have you read him though? Simple yes/no question

>>25403954
Answer my question first, that’s a laughable dodge and backtracking after previously being so confident, not so sure on Plotinus anymore after all?

>>25403944
Also, Proclus’ move into henadology (subtle form of plurality present without beginning in the highest principle) is arguably motivated by the fact of the failure of Plotinus.

>>25403944
I'm familiar with shankara's view of superimposition but it still doesn't solve anything, unlike Plotinus when he says it is in the nature of the perfect to produce. Which is sound metaphysics

>>25403959
No need to be defensive. I was asking because you mention secondary sources and others instead of Plotinus himself.

>>25403962
>Which is sound metaphysics
Holy fuck some of you are legit retarded. Religion masquerading as Philosophy.

NTA btw.

I'll start to think you've not read Plotinus since that was a simple yes/no question and you didn't answer. Shameful since you disregarded Plotinus as "second rate to indians and sufis". Sufis probably owe more to him than to indians

>>25403962
>I'm familiar with shankara's view of superimposition but it still doesn't solve anything
1) This is not an argument, there is no logical reasoning or anything else you are offering for your claim but are presenting it wholly unsupported by anything
2) Shankara never reduces either maya or avidya to mere superimposition alone; that is merely one albeit important part of the process

>unlike Plotinus when he says it is in the nature of the perfect to produce
That doesn’t resolve anything! If the One is absolutely simple there can be nothing emanating from it as this involves separation and change, if these are actually real processes or things occurring and not mere false appearances it involves making affirmations about the One that are in direct logical contradiction with and are mutually exclusive with what Plotinus affirms about it.

>>25403987
>Sufis probably owe more to him than to indians
Both Proclus and Sufi metaphysics are genuine improvements over Plotinus in logical & metaphysical consistency, while the Sufis are much less indebted to him than Proclus is.

>>25403993
It is verifiable that what is perfect produces fruit.

>>25404000
>It is verifiable that what is perfect produces fruit.
1) It’s a logically-invalid question-begging fallacy to simply assume that something which can seem verified through whatever means thereby automatically holds up in the same manner at the highest level of reality viz. the Absolute, this assumption is unfounded and cannot be demonstrated true by anything, and so by it’s very nature this precludes one from making logically-valid arguments on that very basis

2) Even were that granted to be true theoretically that whatever is perfect necessarily produces things, that by itself would not absolve Plotinus of affirming contradictory and mutually-exclusive things about the Absolute (a sign of inconsistent metaphysics), but it would merely be framing those contradictions as being necessary, but other traditions and thinkers including within Neoplatonism itself beg to differ and offer less contradictory and more internally-consistent explanations of what is actually going on.

>>25404025
Yeah ok you can resort to the "it's all just a dream bro" if you want (or rather "it's all just superimposition bro")

>>25404025
By the way there is even in Shankara (although you'd dispute those are not his works --- not my problem indians circulate works attributed to him) the idea of the permanence of the individual

File: Download 4.png (605 KB, 1218x404)

605 KB PNG

>>25404041
>Yeah ok you can resort to the "it's all just a dream bro" if you want (or rather "it's all just superimposition bro")
This one is also, yet again, not a logically-valid argument but is a lazy and juvenile strawman, just proving my point about how Plotinus-bros on /lit/ talk big game but can never actually the key question when directly asked.

Classical Advaita does not posit a dream world that is imagined up by a deluded mind, nor does it expound any form of subjective idealism, but maya-avidya is a theory of how a self-subsistent absolutely simple transcendent Reality & Absolute Being naturally discloses or presents Itself on the epistemic level without ever undergoing change on the level of ontological existence, the dependence is top-down and not down-up or individual-up as in the case of dreams, it's not remotely equivalent to positing dreams as the solution to the One and many unless you are a retard.

>>25404063
Yes it was a strawman hence the parenthesis

You know well all technical (academic) terms (pic) but they dont impress me. Far from it actually. Plotinus himself wrote in a very plain speech as also did Shankara. What id like to hear is you say "yes I've read plotinus. Not secondary sources".

>>25404056
>By the way there is even in Shankara (although you'd dispute those are not his works --- not my problem indians circulate works attributed to him) the idea of the permanence of the individual
Time is just another unreal category pertaining to the lower level that is a false image of the Absolute in Shankara's/Advaita's metaphysics, both in his works and those of his followers and in his 'pseudo-works'.

There is no such thing as a "sentient individual", all individuals are the same partless undivided non-dual sentient Awareness associated with sundry insentient aggregates composed of varying levels of insentient forms/materials of varying levels of subtly and grossness. These aggregates of insentient materials animated by the same formless infinite awareness never attain true permanence of any kind, the highest that can be reached within samsara is heaven/brahmaloka which only lasts until the end of the universe at which point a given aggregate of material i.e. individual either stops being reborn and ceases to be animated by the infinite Awareness (Itself already primordially free & liberated without beginning or end) or it enters the new universe and has to undergo the process of rebirth in various bodies/animals etc all over again while losing its personality, it never attains permanence, and the true Sentience was trapped or undergoing birth to begin with but was animated the insentient material with its light, like a stained glass window beaming with the light of the sun..

The only real permanence is the timeless eternity of absolute reality which is without form or individuals. There is no transfer of individuality to this stage because it doesn't exist on this level and is itself constituted by false categories.

>>25404079
*and the true Sentience was NOT trapped or undergoing rebirth to begin with

Thinking about things in terms like "a sentient being/soul attaining eternal permanence" is based on a false confused mixing up of categories and a failure to discriminate from an Advaitin POV

>>25404079
Anticipatedly refuted by Plotinus

>>25404087
not an argument, Plotinusfans arn't sending their best

>>25404093
It's not an argument but an invitation to actually read him :] or should we just assume "its all just superimposition bro"? Plotinus would say that nothing which is real is ever annulled, but it doesn't help if you'll only apply reality to the Ultimate

>>25404079
By the way you'll not see a single one of those authors associated with Guénon defending this idea, not even Guénon himself. Despite all the praises for Shankara they'll echo Eckhart's "fusion without confusion". Ananda Coomaraswamy, Nasr, Schuon, Titus etc. This (yours) appears to be some nu buddhist interpretation. (The crypto-buddhist title would be handy now. But I believe even original buddhism posits a deathless state for the individual, however different they may be from the earthly form...). If I'm wrong correct me.

>>25404117
>Plotinus would say that nothing which is real is ever annulled,
It's more metaphysically-consistent IMO to hold that only that which is already eternal and without deviation or degradation can ever truly be eternal and 'becoming eternal' is essentially an oxymoron when analyzed.

There is also the point that at the level of phenomenological analysis of our immediate lived-experience and our consciousness, the model of awareness/sentience being completely unaffected non-dual presence and (not an individual agent seeking preservation) is actually more true at the level of experience and is way more consistent with how our consciousness is present and experienced in the here and now as well as at all moments past or future, but this can be easily overlooked if people base their worldviews on philosophers and traditions which lack this important insight or if they dont read philosophy and engage in introspection to begin with. This is actually so true that once you fundamentally understand this, the contrary of this idea i.e. the notion that awareness is an individual agent is actually a way more dubious and unfounded proposition than the ideal of it being non-dual which can be recognized in immediate experience if properly understood/taught.

What is great about Shankara is that he has this insight and an extremely sophisticated analysis of consciousness, but he reaches a metaphysical sophistication on par with the heights of western thought or even surpassing them, in contrast to certain other eastern traditions which may have this similar insights about non-dual consciousness but while either not really engaging in metaphysics at all, or doing so with less sophistication and internal-consistency. There are only a handful of these kinds of people in the entire history of philosophy and religion both east and west, these are the true GOATs IMO.

>>25404139
>By the way you'll not see a single one of those authors associated with Guénon defending this idea, not even Guénon himself.
Wrong dummy, that is basic classic Advaita 101 and Guenon himself explains it himself throughout his books including in his one on Vedanta where he notes that individuality is false & the Real Being is supra-individual and there is ultimately no real transfer into or out of It by the soul (an image of the Real) which is a confused category error which all classical Advaitins explain is wrong.

>Despite all the praises for Shankara they'll echo Eckhart's "fusion without confusion"
Also wrong, Coomaraswamy follows standard Advaita in his explanation and he tried to become an Advaitin monk before dying early, all the academic sources are also in agreement about this its not even a point of contention in the literaure, you just are under some weird delusion yourself or are perhaps mentally-ill (a pattern with certain Plotinus bros on /lit/ I've interacted with). If Muslim Traditionalists emphasize this they aren't claiming this about Advaita which would be factually wrong but they are only explaining their own interpretation of Sufism/Islam which converges 80-90% with Advaita on pure metaphysics (God as the only real etc) but which departs from it more heavily on theological matters (not the same as metaphysics).

>>25404157
Coomaraswamy becoming a sannyasi is just the proper course of his caste, he wasn't going to "become an advaitin monk" as if he had somehow converted late in life. He praised Eckhart above all and quoted exactly that in his correspondences.

Guénon wrote:
>That which exists at the level of pure Being is therefore ‘non-distinguished’, if distinction (vishesha) be taken in the sense applicable within the manifested states; and yet, in another sense there is still present an element that is ‘distinguished’ (vishishta): in Being all beings (meaning thereby their personalities) are ‘one’ without being confused and distinct without being separated.

Which is exactly the same as Eckhart's quote literally reproduced by both Ananda and Nasr

>>25404183
>Guénon wrote:
>>That which exists at the level of pure Being is therefore ‘non-distinguished’, if distinction (vishesha) be taken in the sense applicable within the manifested states; and yet, in another sense there is still present an element that is ‘distinguished’ (vishishta): in Being all beings (meaning thereby their personalities) are ‘one’ without being confused and distinct without being separated.

This by the way kills the resident crypto buddhist annihationist

>>25404183
>Which is exactly the same as Eckhart's quote literally reproduced by both Ananda and Nasr
This shows that you actually are hopelessly confused/ignorant and have no idea what you are talking about in the first place since in Guenon's explication of metaphysics he explicitly distinguishes Being from the true unlimited metaphysical Infinite and Absolute which is the metaphysical Zero (cf. the Multiple States of the Being) , which corresponds to the Atman-Brahman and not Being. Being is just another dependent non-absolute category in his explication equivalent in Neoplatonic terms to the Intellect or Soul that is below the level of the One.

When Guenon is talking about on the level of Being there is distinction without being separation, it's because Being is itself still a contingent image of the partless Absolute that is the metaphysical zero, so all determinate components and individual things making up the total image are united as aspects of the image yet without being either the same nor completely real.

All of this technical language is of course not used by Eckhart and when Eckhart writes "Being" he does not mean the same thing (far from it) than what Guenon writes when he says Being. Nor do all later Traditionalist authors follow Guenon's technical language closely but what they mean by words like Being and others has to be understood in the context in which it is used.

If you are assuming Guenon and Eckhart mean the same thing by Being you are so hopelessly confused there is basically nothing of insight or value you could even possibly say about Guenon's worldview and metaphysics

>>25404227
>This shows that you actually are hopelessly confused/ignorant and have no idea what you are talking about in the first place since in Guenon's explication of metaphysics he explicitly distinguishes Being from the true unlimited metaphysical Infinite and Absolute which is the metaphysical Zero (cf. the Multiple States of the Being) , which corresponds to the Atman-Brahman and not Being. Being is just another dependent non-absolute category in his explication equivalent in Neoplatonic terms to the Intellect or Soul that is below the level of the One.

Of course it is in the Nous that there's unity of multiplicity, but where does a single one of them posit a further annihilation of beings into the One? A passing annihilation from Nous to the One? On the contrary, what I did actually see is them quoting Eckhart like Ananda and Nasr did. They were not referring to brahmaloka.

>>25404252
>Of course it is in the Nous that there's unity of multiplicity, but where does a single one of them posit a further annihilation of beings into the One?
Neither does Advaita, nothing ever enters into or leaves the One to begin with in Advaita. Non-dual awareness that is present as yourself right now is not annihilated when its exterior obscurations are shed nor does this involve itself undergoing any change or departure/absence/deviation/corruption/etc.

>On the contrary, what I did actually see is them quoting Eckhart like Ananda and Nasr did
That you are hopelessly confused/ignorant and not even qualified to be having this conversation has already been established, none of those authors ever say that about Advaita, none of them give an explanation of Advaita that departs from Guenon or classical Advaita, but not all of them take Advaita as the backbone of their metaphysics, Nasr, Buckhart take Sufism as their metaphysical backbone while making passing positive references to Advaita, Guenon and Coomaraswamy make classical Advaita their backbone and make positive references to the other stuff, and Schuon also takes Advaita as his backbone while mixing it up with a more tantric focus/interpretation (not in terms of who he cites but rather how he explains the structure of non-dualism), literally none of these authors ever write or claim that Advaita teaches an eternal preservation of individuality. Quoting a random Christian author is not the same as saying Advaita follows his view, all of them recognize various nuanced differences in how the difference traditions approach the same underlying metaphysics and also the difference between metaphysical and theological matters. When Nasr or Titus are talking about ultimate metaphysical truth in a vague specified manner, they arnt claiming that’s the view of Advaita, they are giving a perennialist explanation of metaphysics informed by Guenon’s worldview but centrally rooted in Sufi explication of metaphysics.

If you saw some quote you thought said otherwise you are just misinterpreting it just like the Guenon quote you cited.

>>25404292
Much of what you just said is surface knowledge. If they don't believe in the idea of the individual why are they quoting Eckhart as a way to explain the state after death? Not as someone exposing different systems, in comparative religion, but in PERSONAL answers. Coomaraswamy calls Eckhart something along the highest authority or "the master", he's not some "random christian author".

I do not care about offenses etc.

>>25404328
>Much of what you just said is surface knowledge.
Its correcting your evident confusions, without them, there would have been no need for me to write any of that.
>If they don't believe in the idea of the individual why are they quoting Eckhart as a way to explain the state after death?
You’d have to post the exact passage and what chapter/essay its in for the full context, neither Guenon nor Coomaraswamy nor Schuon ever say Eckharts metaphysics supercedes Advaita in any way viz final liberation and you are an unreliable narrator of hazy anecdotes so no point even engaging with non-sourced hypotheticals, Eckart is marginally closer to Islamic theology so its a more natural fit for Muslim Traditionalist School authors to present him in align with how they view the supreme way to explain/approach ultimate metaphysical truth (i.e. rooted in Sufism & Islamic theology) but none of the more Advaita-focused traditionalist authors do that.

>>25404340
It's in the coomaraswamy's book of correspondences. Ctrl f eckhart

File: ironic-sheev-palpatine.gif (1.01 MB, 640x416)

1.01 MB GIF

>tfw I concluded the discourse of philosophy in thread #1, yet it keeps going for seven more threads

File: IMG_1916.jpg (3.72 MB, 3447x3024)

3.72 MB JPG

>>25404357
>mfw this dummy has been posting for years like a mentally-ill man about his imagined Coomaraswamy quote that somehow solves every problem
>0 results
It never existed! You're just like Harold Bloom and lying about “stretched his legs” in Harry Potter.

>>25404397
My copy gives 28 results to Eckhart. The one in question is on page 95

File: Screenshot.png (489 KB, 1200x646)

489 KB PNG

>>25404397

>>25404433
Again, another confusion by you, that exchange between him and Bernard Kelly is not talking about the post-death state and about Eckhart as some kind of final authority on it as you wrongly claimed, they start off by talking about Islamic mysticism and how its not Pantheism because as Coomaraswamy points out God is also transcendent (as in Advaita too) and not merely the universe, and then Coomaswamy moves onto into talking about determinate phenomena as ideas within God's mind, and about how the finite is 'in' the infinite of God (also as in Advaita, when he mentions Eckhart in passing, he is talking about how to describe the relation between discrete phenomena and the Absolute, that's not repudiating anything said by Advaita whatsoever.

Advaita also doesn't make a strict affirmation of complete identity between discrete phenomena and God either but they are neither separate nor identical, being an image of the Absolute, this is an asymmetrical relation is called tadatmya which is something different than the non-duality of Atman with Brahman which is not even a relation to begin with. With all the non-Self components of the living being like body, mind, intellect, etc there is a relation of tadatmya between them and Brahman and not strict non-duality. Literally everything he said there agrees with Advaita.

He isn't saying Bhedabheda metaphysics and liberation is the final truth/answer, as he literally never mentions it and in all his published books he just drones on an on and Shankara and Advaita and reads it into other religions extensively (such that some Buddhists and Christians get annoyed with him). He is literally a bigger Shankara fanboy in his writing style than Guenon is.

>>25404476
How is the liberated in Spirit so to speak (God and not identical at the same time) not subject to a deathless state then? Why would the liberated individual be bound to dissolution when "nothing which is real is ever annulled"?

>>25404494
>How is the liberated in Spirit so to speak (God and not identical at the same time) not subject to a deathless state then?
Because that particular configuration of intellect, mind, body, personality only continues to be animated by awareness until physical death. The animating Awareness = (non-dual with Brahman) never gains or loses any state to begin with, and all the things which are tadamya (intellect etc) are non-self, impermanent, insentient, incapable of producing lasting satisfaction, and dissolve into their rudimentary components either at (1) physical death or (2) during mahapralaya (end of universe) when one’s time in Brahmaloka expires or (3) if you are directly liberated while in Bramaloka, anything that is subject to a tadayma relation with Brahman is by nature incapable of true eternality which only belongs to the unconditioned transcendent timeless Absolute which is not subject to any limiting or determining conditions. Realizing the presence of the unconditioned deathless eternal Absolute within the cavity or space of the heart (intellect) is not in any way shape or form the individual and their intellect/personality becoming deathless which only belongs to God and not tadatmya things.
>Why would the liberated individual be bound to dissolution when "nothing which is real is ever annulled"?
1) there is no individual nor individuality, you are right now misidentifying the sentient supra-individual which is quite literally the only thing in existence that is sentient/aware with its insentient appearance or reflection, so your question is based on the philosophical mistake known as a ‘category error’
2) the latter half of your sentence is a Plotinus quote, I’m not talking about Plotinus nor is Coomaraswamy there

What would you get if you combined stirner and neitchezes philosophies together?

>>25404527
You're just saying that in the end all spiritual exercises are meaningless, that religious people like buddhists are wasting their time, and that nothing in fact matters since the Absolute is the only existent, and we of course know He is complete, perfect, without defect etc, and everything besides Him is just superimposition that arose and will end. This can only lead to indifferentist nihilism. One could wonder why you'd waste your time responding since in the end the Absolute already is liberated ofc

>>25404570
>You're just saying that in the end all spiritual exercises are meaningless
Completely untrue, since the permanent end of all suffering for the intellect of the jiva that is an appearance of the Absolute is predicated on reaching moksha.
>that religious people like buddhists are wasting their time
Also untrue, because a lot of Mahayana and Vajrayana understands a great deal of this and merely frames it in Buddhist terms like Dharmakaya, Buddha-nature, nature of mind, etc.
>and that nothing in fact matters since the Absolute is the only existent,
Yes, this is logically entailed at the absolute level by the Absolute being perfect and the only existence, but that doesn't negate meaning or action or value on the empirical level where suffering occurs, since these all have meaningful relations to other things on their level as is properly befitting them, the confusion only occurs if you are wrongly mixing up levels in your own person error.
>and we of course know He is complete, perfect, without defect etc, and everything besides Him is just superimposition that arose and will end.
Yes with the qualifier that maya/avidya is not reducible to superimpositon.
>This can only lead to indifferentist nihilism.
This is demonstrably-untrue historically and doesn't follow philosophically unless you are making the aforementioned amateur mistake of confusing levels
>One could wonder why you'd waste your time responding since in the end the Absolute already is liberated ofc
Because I find it amusing to debunk sophistry, I do it for love of game, like the Tantric Absolute

>>25404581
>Completely untrue, since the permanent end of all suffering for the intellect of the jiva that is an appearance of the Absolute is predicated on reaching moksha.
What is thing reaching moksha and subject to suffering? And why does this localized suffering and moksha (individual) matter at all if only the Absolute exists?

>>25404581
>Because I find it amusing to debunk sophistry, I do it for love of game, like the Tantric Absolute
You use a lot of Is for "someone" who doesn't believe in such thing

>>25404594
>What is thing reaching moksha and subject to suffering?
That would be the intellect of the jiva is itself being illuminated and pervaded by the unsuffering animating Awareness. For this jiva and its intellect, moksha is not a place or metaphysical realm but refers to the permanent end of suffering, fear, stress, dissatisfaction etc in this life while alive & also the cessation of future transmigration into future bodies (and associated suffering) after death of current physical body.
> And why does this localized suffering and moksha (individual) matter at all if only the Absolute exists?
That suffering is unpleasant and is best to be avoided by that which is subject to that suffering is a matter of direct experience and doesn't require any sort of justification, this is the sort of meaning on the empirical level which I am speaking about which is not negated by the fact of non-duality.

Non-duality doesn't mean it's no longer meaningful and directly satisfying for the intellect/mind to be free from all suffering, fear etc, even though its only on the empirical level, its meaning and value is self-evident in that its fruit is directly experienced and involves freedom from all that is unpleasant and never again knowing dissatisfaction or a sense of incompletion.

>>25404616
>You use a lot of Is for "someone" who doesn't believe in such thing
Again, confusing levels

>>25404619
Coomaraswamy quotes Shankara in saying that it is the Lord the only transmigrator so there would be no risk for the unliberated jiva there

>>25404622
Nah it's just to point out how contrary to common sense (in the best possible meaning) is.

>>25400610
what's a philosopher which bridges Searle's intentionality with Putnam's semantic externalism?

>>25404631
>Coomaraswamy quotes Shankara in saying that it is the Lord the only transmigrator so there would be no risk for the unliberated jiva there
In the original Shankara quote he is citing Shankara is speaking completely figuratively, in that there is no separate existing awareness that is transmigrating even though the actually existent Awareness is not subject to transmigration Itself, this is clear to anyone with even rudimentary knowledge of the primary sources and even from an examination of the original passage itself. The author of the book "Indian Philosophy and the Problem of Evil" criticizes Coomaraswamy in that book for not delineating that clearly enough in his essay although he does so subtly (neither Guenon nor Advaitin sources nor modern academics fail to delineate that distinction).

The "risk" of being an unliberated jiva is that suffering, dissatisfaction, pain, fear, stress are directly experienced by one's mind in a way that is self-evident and undeniable, and the possibility of this continuing indefinitely is inherently bound up with remaining in samsara instead of striving for liberation. Understanding non-duality on a theoretical level without corresponding insight and spiritual realization does nothing to solve the immediate experience of suffering.

The Shankara quote is not saying anything that denies or contradicts the premise that suffering is self-evidently experienced at the empirical level by the mind and thus its self-evident to all but the fool or sophist why its good and requires no justification to take steps to end suffering.

>>25404632
No it doesn't, you are the one denying common sense and acting like a complete fool by asking for justification for why one should take steps to end suffering in a way that is directly experienceable, confirmable, lasting and self-evident.

>>25404654
If the jiva is a mirage the suffering it undertakes is even less real

anyone reading/read "The Book of the SubGenius" seems like it would be agreeable to 4chan types