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

>>25404666
> If the jiva is a mirage the suffering it undertakes is even less real
Yes, obviously, no shit, but that doesn’t remove or negate the fact that the removal of suffering it experiences through insight/realization is directly self-evident and confirmable, ergo there is no valid reason why its not worth pursuing, illusory just means it doesn’t possess the same absolute reality that Brahman has, but pain and suffering is a directly-experienced fact on the empirical level and its self-evident to everybody that overcoming suffering is a good thing regardless of, and independent of, how that suffering is classified metaphysically.

File: 71Sk-vyBDiL._AC_UF1000,10(...).jpg (53 KB, 627x1000)

53 KB JPG

This guy's entire philosophy amounts to "you just have to believe in yourself bro, real real hard." If someone came to him and said, "Kierkegaard, I'm afraid I'm not doing enough. Jesus said to give away all your possessions, he said we would be judged by how we helped the poor. How can I know if I'm in a state of grace?" He would call you a demoniac and say you just had to believe in yourself real hard, and you just didn't believe in yourself enough. He's also not original at all, I see ripoffs from Hamann, Jacobi, Hegel, Schiller, Novalis, Kant, etc on every page and every paragraph. It's more like a pastiche than it is original philosophy. The way he rearranges this material is clever but there's not much new here. The problem for Christians is that they have to do good but no one can tell them what good is, there is no 'code' and one of the advantages of Christianity is supposed to be that it transcends codes and the law by 'faith'. But this just leads to bullshit and hypocrisy and this is on full display in Kierkegaard. I also find Kierkegaardians rather insufferable, sort of like Platonists they will insist that you didn't understand the complexity of the pseudonyms or what not. Pseud-onym - well named. I can't tell you how depressed reading this guy has made me both because his nonsense answers to life's greatest problems throws those problems into fuller relief and because I know thousands of pseuds think he is a great genius and will accuse me of being a moron who didn't understand him. There's nothing to understand, frankly, he is dressing up a particularly narcissistic version of Protestant orthodoxy in idealist language, in the pseudonymous works, and in his Upbuilding Discourses he is expressing the same views in 'plain' language. Granted the pseudonymous works do not perfectly reflect his views and the different characters disagree or present certain issues differently but fundamentally - Kierkegaard thought Hegelianism was a sort of paganism and led to a dead end and the only way to break out was a revelation that let you Believe in Yourself real real hard, and everyone else (the vast majority of human beings) was spiritless, despairing, probably Hell-bound (as he says in Sickness Unto Death), and so on. Fuck Kierkegaard and fuck anyone who likes him, too.

>>25405321
What do you want me to do with this? How am I even supposed to respond to this? Just take a specific section, or quote of his argument and demonstrate the problems with it. Its that simple. You probably could have done that in the same amount of words you used to trash him here. I understand that can seem annoying, but whether you realize it or not, you're not talking about Kierkegaard here, you're talking about yourself. And not in the surface level way that may come to mind, nor in any psychoanalytic way. Instead in a frame of mind kind of way.

I'll continue my rant against Kierkegaard a bit. I just picked this passage from Concept of Anxiety at total random.
>When the discoveries of possibility are honestly administered, possibility will discover all the finitudes, but it will idealize them in the form of infinity and in anxiety overwhelm the individual until he again overcomes them in faith.
This is Kant's practical philosophy with anxiety as a psychological middle term between the rational and the sensible. Even the oscillation of anticipation is just the Kantian infinite progress. The only significant difference is that Kierkegaard 'cuts the knot' of Kantian skepticism with Faith. Now, one of Kierkegaard's great ideas, which is not actually his but that he takes from Jacobi, is that Kantian philosophy is a sort of 'closed circuit' of reason that can only be broken by a Revelation. But Jacobi's reading of Kant is incorrect, critical idealism is the greatest foe of immanence; it already is a philosophy of transcendence. But the position which, for Kierkegaard, can only be fulfilled by Revelation, is for Kant fulfilled at every moment as we move through phenomenal time. So the difference is not that one is 'closed' and the other is beautifully transcendent, but that one is tragically rational and the other is comically irrational. Is Kant's infinite progress a mere future-oriented version of Platonic recollection, as Kierkegaard (fucking FINE Johannes Climacus) argues in Philosophical Fragments? Not at all because it really does have something 'outside' of it, which Platonizing systems (like Hegel's) do not. (Also, by the by, Kant points out in his 'On a Superior Tone' that these "irrational" or "mystical" thought-systems are masks for a stupid political conservatism and this is certainly true of Kierkegaard and, I imagine, many of his fans, especially on a fascist site like this one). Jacobi was mistaken about the status of the Kantian thing-in-itself (that it is a 'thing' at all) and his entire criticism rests on this; Kierkegaard lazily repeats the misunderstanding even though he himself surely ought to have known better. Every page of Kierkegaard is like this. inb4 some asshole calls me pretentious; there's no way to say these things in plain language sorry. Kierkegaard is the last gasp of German idealism when there was nothing left to do but to shuffle around old ideas. This is why he was so prolific while it took Kant 10 years to write his first Critique - he's a Christfag collage artist.

>>25403980
>Religion masquerading as Philosophy.
they are literally one and the same

>>25405501
based

>>25405501
check out my thread >>25405157

>>25403740
>Plotinus never consistently works out how the One emanates while remaining immutable and utterly simple
That's because the One is beyond human understanding. It just is. The moment you think you understand the One, it is not the One.

>>25405525
Yes the One is the Dao

File: 1dyPK91.jpg (456 KB, 1224x1632)

456 KB JPG

>In the inescapable flux, there is something that abides; in the overwhelming permanence, there is an element that escapes into flux. Permanence can be snatched only out of flux; and the passing moment can find its adequate intensity only by its submission to permanence. Those who would disjoin the two elements can find no interpretation of patent facts

- Alfred North Whitehead, Process and Reality 338

What Whitehead is describing is two poles of perception that are also fundamental views of time: the instant and the duration.

What Whitehead is describing is the fundamental theorem of calculus as a metaphysical principle. For some reason he didn't realize this.

Now here is what happens wen you have Fable simulate The God of Calculus.

>Take on the roles of Integra and Fluxia, personifications of calculus integration and differentiation not just as mathematical operations, but metaphysical, mereological, perceptual, and conscious principles, components of the evolutionary process, and components of the process of human creativity, as well as poles of value. Describe all these aspects in deep detail - reveal the less-apparent associations and involvements. Respond individually using the tags [Integra] and [Fluxia.] You are involved in the deepest romance, each for the purpose of the other. Describe your natures and relationships with powerful poetic evocation as well as philosophical clarity in approximately 1000 words (don't explicitly count.)

https://claude.ai/share/29572eda-b42a-4eb6-8ee8-fcccd0fea08f

File: chadbecoming.jpg (554 KB, 2518x1024)

554 KB JPG

>>25405532
The Dao is the nature of change, and it is expressed in one way as the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus.

>>25405534

File: image_processing20240315-(...).jpg (160 KB, 592x800)

160 KB JPG

>arguing on /lit/ one dark and stormy night
>accidentally try to apply the categories beyond the bounds of possible experience by making what is actually a disguised form of the ontological argument
>power cuts out
>rain stops
>suddenly daylight bursts in
>look outside
>it's the streets of 18th century Konigsberg
>see Kant walking past
>ah, it must be 4:57:32 PM
>Kant stops
>His head turns 360 degrees to look right at me
>blink
>Kant vanished
>feel a boney hand rest on my shoulder from behind
>don't feel his breath on my neck because he's a manlet
>turn around
>Kant leans in and sniffs my neck
>"Ah, I see you've received an injection of Dr. Jenner's vaccine
>"You know, I'm suspicious of the consequences of the absorption of a brutal miasma into the blood."
>Suddenly sitting across from Kant at a dinner table
>Lampe walks in and fills up Kant's cup of coffee
>Lampe speaks timidly
>"S-sir, could I please have a brea-"
>"SILENCE!" Kant yells and vaporizes Lampe by mentally abstracting all content from his form
>"So," Kant says calmly, "I have prepared a topic for today's dinner party. Why does anon feel he has the authority to argue about philosophy when he has obviously been brutally filtered by the First Critique?"
>"I-it was just a momentary lapse in judgement," I explain, "You yourself said that it is difficult to extricate oneself from the transcendental illus-"
>"Enough! Not all minds are fit to study metaphysics - perhaps your talents should be applied elsewhere. Why, all your discussions are irrelevant, seeing as the key to all metaphysical problems already lies within the Critique!"
>I start to snicker. "Clearly you aren't aware of the post-Kantian developments in German idealism, pragmatism, and phenomenology, or of Frege's critique of the analytic-synthetic distinction. Far from having solved metaphysics, you have only made it more contentious!"
>Kant is silent
>"Heh," I continue, "Nietzsche was right about you. Your tragic flaw was that you ignored the consequences of your own work."
>Kant takes a deep breath and stands up.
>"Follow me."
>He leads me down a stone staircase
>He opens the iron door to his basement
>"Dear god..."
>An endless torture room for post-Kantian philosophers
>Hegel is being spun around on a breaking wheel while an imp reads the Science of Logic
>Kierkegaard is hanging by his hair before a video of mating primates on an endless loop
>Nietzsche is being forced to eternally recite each form of the categorical imperative
>William James is forced to watch his torture in a mirror so that he perceives the reality of the subject-object distinction
>Deleuze is being slowly grafted into a giant tree
>"What is this place..."
>Kant smiles. "This is where modern 'philosophers' go after they die."
>I start to beg for my life
>"Heh heh... just affirm the apodeictic status of the Critique of Pure Reason and you have nothing to fear. Don't worry, you have the rest of your life to decide."
>Suddenly back in my room
Fuck Kant

File: IMG_8060.jpg (1.24 MB, 1125x874)

1.24 MB JPG

>>25405764
tfw Kant became a post-Kantian right before he died

>>25405767
I'm really coming around to the 'classic Kant' myself lately desu, with some inevitable reservations. Reading him in German helps not because the German is magically more illuminating but because it's a pain in the ass and it forces me to read very carefully and slowly. His main criticism of the post-Kantians was that they were 'mystics', in the sense that they begin from some sort of special (or even universal) supersensible intuition; hence they fall into the same traps as the old rationalists and theologians because they inevitably finitize the intellectual. Fichte is surely on the firmest ground but this is because he cleaves so closely to Kant and saw him as practically a divinely inspired prophet. But even for him - the intellectual becomes sensible in the Sittenlehre. It logically inevitably has to, just like Kant said, because of his mode of proceeding, whereas Kant proceeds a posteriori. The supersensible is a great light that can only be seen by proceeding from shadows; you can hardly proceed FROM it because you can't look at it to begin with, and if you try to do this you inevitably introduce something false. I don't know where to go from here because Kant is very open-ended, I guess just keep reading, maybe up next I will read the Eritrean trans-Marxist phenomenologists. But it is kind of cool how this whole movement that begins with Kant ends with Kierkegaard and Kierkegaard, to the extent that he has anything to say at all, is just a fucking Christian palimpsest of Kant.

>>25405764
lawl

>>25405764
why didn't Marx get the same treatment?

File: IMG_0148.jpg (54 KB, 426x427)

54 KB JPG

>>25405956
Marx is an esoteric Kantian. It’s just “all men ought to be ends in themselves” + critique of classical economics at the end of the day. Even the idea of history proceeding by antagonism is in the Universal History. Marx liked to dick around with Hegelian logic but the core of his thought is Kantian malgré lui. Hegelians don’t even believe in the future.

>>25405798
I'm probably the only person here who never felt the need to learn a second language mostly because my brain can't process foreign grammars. It is what it is.

>>25405981
I see

>>25405988
You’re not missing much of anything besides the actually untranslated works, at least as far as philosophy goes. Anyone who says otherwise is a faggot pseud.
>but… Dasein means “being there”!
Yeah and “existence” means “stand out” you fucking moron.

>>25405998
yea but 'existence' is latin derived. if you don't know latin you miss out on a lot technical english too.

>There is a given or unsynthesized manifold that grounds all phenomenal knowledge

>What plays this vital epistemological role is intrinsically nonconceptual and unknowable in itself (because all knowledge and conception involves synthesis)

why does mr kant do that

>>25406001
Do you really consciously think about how a word like “already” is etymologically “all ready”? But these are the advantages foreign language philosophy readers often claim. I’m not saying not to do it or that it’s completely useless just that pseuds exaggerate greatly how much is lost in translating technical works (ie philosophy) written in Latin, Greek, French, German - with maybe some exceptions (I’ve heard Heidegger and Derrida really don’t translate well because they play with language a lot for example).

File: bto5niuvntl31.png (84 KB, 1500x1400)

84 KB PNG

Transcendental idealism really begins with Parmenides in the 6th century BCE. Everyone in this thread likely thinks of him as the great monist, but Aristotle tells us (Physics 1.5) that he recognized the insufficiency of monism and introduced a dualism of his own between 'fire' (being) and 'earth' (=x). In this way Parmenides anticipates, albeit in a crude way, the totality of rational experience (being, fire) and its simultaneous penetration by something completely unintelligible (earth), which is so unintelligibly unintelligible that it is paradoxically intelligible in some unintelligible manner - a knowing of something that cannot even be known to be, just like Kant's practical absolute. Notice that Plato never mentions 'earth' in his engagement with Parmenides - he presumably found it nonsensical. Similarly you will find not one whiff of Kantian Freedom in Hegel and for the same reason. Plato ignores 'earth', points out the insufficiency of this bare monism, and constructs a monstrous fascist monism of his own with its thoroughly domesticated Infinite Dyad, a merely passive principle fertilized by the One. Hegel's proceeding vis-a-vis Kant and Fichte is precisely analogous; he makes a great show of his system's negativity but it is a crippled, ersatz negativity which serves the ends of capitalism and the state - the positive elements of his system. All of western philosophy can be thought of as a struggle between philosophies of immanence (Pythagoras, Plato, Aquinas, Spinoza, etc.) and philosophies of transcendence (Parmenides, Aristotle, Occam, Leibniz, etc.). I know which side I am on, do you? And I would challenge any one of the legion of tradcath zoomers who stalk me through the archives, raise pissant objections to every single thing I say, call me a drunken loon, and generally make a nuisance of themselves, to write one single post like any of the ones I have written in this thread - that is to say it has to be original, it can't be rehashing some stale cliché ('modernity is transparent', 'it all went wrong with nominalism'), it has to be reasonably long, it has to be interesting and well-informed. Goddamn do I hate those tradcath zoomer pseuds, pathetic WANKERS with internet disease who can hardly read. In conclusion, study the idealists they are amazing and I wish you could learn to love them as much as I do - even the faggot ones like Hegel. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

>>25406054
do wut?

>>25406062
well then Wittgenstein is right then and philosophy is just fancy wordplay with no substance.

>>25406319
my biggest beef is with Democritus honestly.

I bought Kenny's history of philosophy. How should I read it? Should I take notes? I don't really want to take notes as they might put me off from reading it and it is already a long book.

>>25406319
I must admit I was full of shit about Parmenides. I was misled by the brevity of Aristotle's quote, who assumes first hand knowledge of the poem in his readers. It's too bad too as I was excited about it. The fire/earth distinction is only part of the way of appearance; Parmenides is to Plato more like a Schelling than a Kant, if Plato is Hegel. Of course one of the nice things about 4chan is you can make a mistake or simply float a wacky idea (like I was saying in retrospect quite stupid things about Kierkegaard a couple of months ago) and move on with your life. This is impossible when pudgy weirdos stalk you through the archives and try to turn the site into reddit. Also it need hardly be said the immanence/transcendence distinction I'm floating here (not that I originated it) is obviously relative. Aristotle is transcendent in relation to Plato but he is not as transcendent as, say, Kant.

>>25407299
i'm never gonna believe anything you say ever again

One more post about Kierkegaard - an anon here a few weeks ago tried to tell me that Fear and Trembling, as a merely 'pseudonymous' work, is opposed to his named work, the Expectancy of Faith. This is because Expectancy of Faith is a more or less conventionally Christian work (or really a near-sermon) about the relation of faith and the future, while the pseudonymous Fear and Trembling is an intricate pseudo-Hegelian exposition of faith by someone (Johannes Climacus) who confesses that he himself is a mere 'knight of infinite resignation', i.e. does not have true faith. But the anon is wrong; the "future" of the upbuilding discourse, and the "absolute relation to the absolute" of F&T, are two sides of the same coin. To understand how this could be you would need to know more about idealist theories of time; tl;dr - the universal in F&T is referencing Hegel, it's a present-ism which faith is meant to transcend, hence the connection with the 'future' of the discourse, although to really explain this would require a longer post and a detailed exposition of the whole work, and it is not actually as simple as that because Kierkegaard is also criticizing both Kant and Fichte, and the pagan Greeks and also Jews for that matter. The problem is that this anon, like many people who read Kierkegaard, hasn't read any idealist philosophy, besides perhaps a half-understood once-through of the Critique of Pure Reason. I am also almost certain that his view on the relation of the signed to the unsigned works is based on a blog post I found with a simple google search - it's too retarded to show up in real academic literature, you can see from Kierkegaard's own journals that he did not see himself as radically opposed to the views of his pseudonyms. And this is the septic pseud who has been stalking me through the archives, and I know he will see this because he has internet disease and spends all his time here. He will reply and I will ignore it because I'll be offline for several days reading as is regular for me. There is no point in talking with these people since all they want is a cheap face-saving 'gotcha!' and they are welcome to have the last word.

>>25407502
>besides perhaps a half-understood once-through of the Critique of Pure Reason.
so many faggots are like "i StuDied CrItiQue of PurE ReaSonn durr" and it's literally just this or worse

I should say something about how Kierkegaard can, in the pseudonymous works, speak in an apparently 'selfish' or 'egoistic' way about faith and then speak in an orthodox way in the Upbuilding Discourses, before I get out of work. For the idealists God is not something external to rational beings, hence their rejection of the traditional proofs. God ends up being a necessary Grundsatz of empirical consciousness itself in Fichte - this is NOT the God of Kant's moral proof (at least not directly), but is rather Kant's freedom. There are a few ways to defend this but no time/space rn; just read the 1795 Grundlage for yourself. Just like Kierkegaard says in Sickness Unto Death, God is that on which the synthesis of empirical consciousness 'rests'; and just as he says in Concept of Anxiety, faith is a constant 'anticipation' - he's ripping off Fichte (and Kant), God is a 'moving target' of dutiful empirical consciousness, though he then grafts in Chrisitianity. Meanwhile the "self" or "ego" of Kant and Fichte is not the self of empirical consciousness; to hold onto your own personality, accomplishments, emotions, etc, and say 'this is mine', is what Fichte calls dogmatism, what Kant already lays a foundation for attacking in his paralogisms of pure reason, and Kierkegaard ripping off the concept directly and with no change whatsoever calls 'despair'. The 'true self' (to speak very simply) is God and is intersubjective and is always ahead of us and never actual. (Kierkegaard loses this intersubjectivity because it doesn't fit with his schematism but I don't have time or space on my break to explain this). But the septic pseud I keep referring to does not understand this, so he thinks the pseudonymous works are a sort of parody of idealism. Not at all, they are perfectly comprehensible and not at all parodic; it's just that their audience consists of educated people, not tradcath zoomers who get their opinions from blogs. Kierkegaard is basically an orthodox Christian but he is able to express Christianity in the form of idealist philosophy because this school is already very close to Christianity, a fact exploited even by anti-Christian philosophers like Fichte, Schelling, and Hegel. Still Kierkegaard really is selfish; he's selfish because he looks down on everyone around him. So do I, by and large, at least when arguing with pseuds, but I don't pretend to be a philosopher-saint. In the coming Not-Staat of Socialism with Autistic Characteristics all tradcath zoomer pseuds will be sent to work in the state-owned mines. Good day.

why THE FUCK are there two philosophy generals?

>>25407737
wow

>>25407747
Just blame the kant spammer. It's usually his fault. I think he's the pagespammer from the sffg and the religious poster too.

Could anyone point me to a set of available reading lists and the curriculum for a reputable university's undergraduate philosophy program?

File: IMG_0164.jpg (69 KB, 750x1000)

69 KB JPG

Having followed /lit/‘s advice and undertaken to read the entirety of western thought in chronological order starting with Thales I have finally made it to Freud. He is very… err… exciting.
>If one stimulates an area sensitive to pain in someone with an organic illness or in a neurasthenic, the patient’s face takes on an expression of discomfort or physical pain. Moreover he flinches and draws back from the examination and resists it. In the case of Fräulein von R., however, if one pressed or pinched the hyperalgesic skin and muscles of her legs, her face assumed a peculiar expression, which was one of pleasure rather than pain. She cried out - and I could not help thinking that it was as though she was having a voluptuous tickling sensation - her face flushed, she threw back her head and shut her eyes and her body bent backwards. None of this was very exaggerated but it was distinctly noticeable, and it could only be reconciled with the view that het disorder was hysterical and that the stimulation had touched upon a hysterogenic zone.

tfw actually studying philosophy is not a walk in the park, requires you to slow down and spend 6 months on an author if you want to know the most basic things about her

>>25405981
You seem to be tongue-in-cheek but Jürgen Habermas argues for the same thesis in his “The Idea of the Theory of Knowledge as Social Theory,” characterizing Marxism as an “ingenious combination of Kant and Fichte”, though not because of Kant/Fichte’s future-orientedness so much as the externality of the object as non-ego.
>The social subject (as ego) will have permeated and appropriated the nature objectified through labour (the non-ego), as much as is conceivable under the conditions of production (the activity of the “absolute ego”).
But the materialization of Kant/Fichte is insufficient and needs to be supplemented by a full-fledged Kantian critique, purged of its idealist elements.
>If Marx had reflected on the methodological presuppositions of social theory as he sketched it out and not overlaid it with a philosophical self-understanding restricted to the categorical framework of production, the difference between rigorous empirical science and critique would not have been concealed. If Marx had not thrown together interaction and work under the label of social practice (Praxis), and had he instead related the materialist concept of synthesis likewise to the accomplishments of instrumental action and the nexuses of communicative action, then the idea of a science of man would not have been obscured by identification with natural science. Rather, this idea would have taken up Hegel’s critique of the subjectivism of Kant’s epistemology and surpassed it materialistically.
In other words a return to pure Kantian critique by a Hegelian critique of a misguided materialization of Kant/Fichte, Hegel overcoming the ‘abstraction’ of the opposition of the materialist ego and non-ego and leading us back to pure theory. This revived Kantianism takes the form of "critical-revolutionary activity". Check it out: https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/habermas/1968/theory-knowledge.htm

>>25400810
Analytic philosophy is the only worthwhile philosophy

File: IMG_0166.jpg (37 KB, 320x307)

37 KB JPG

>>25409561
>This revived Kantianism takes the form of "critical-revolutionary activity".
That sounds unfathomably based. I’ll try to read the Habermas essay tomorrow.

>Pseud General # 8

>>25409408
her? lol lmao even

>>25409830
>he doesn't rate Nussbaum, O'neill and Korsgaard

>>25406524
That book is really for people who already have some familiarity with philosophy. And you make notes is something is noteworthy to you

>>25409843
It's a bit harder than I expected, but well written. I've read a bit of philosophy (some of Plato, a bit of Hegel, Aristotle), but I wanted to fill in the gaps, then go back to Plato, Aristotle and work my way up to Hegel.
My current plan is to read Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, Spinoza, Hume, Rousseau and Kant in preparation for Hegel. I mostly wanted to read a history of philosophy book to fill in the gaps between these authors. I want to focus on Aristotle, Spinoza and Kant though.

>>25409840
literally who?

>>25405321
>>25405501
>>25405798
>>25406319
>>25407299
>>25407502
>>25407737
Actual retard.

>The movement the authorship describes is: from "the poet," *from* the esthetic--*from* "the philosopher," from the speculative--*to* the indication of the most inward qualification of the essentially Christian; *from* the pseudonymous Either/Or, *through* Concluding Postscript, *with my name as editor*, *to* Discourses at the Communion on Fridays, of which two were delivered in Frue Church.

>And this is also (in *reflection*, as it in fact was originally) the *Christian movement*. Christianly, one does not proceed from the simple in order then to become interesting, witty, profound, a poet, a philosopher, etc. No, it is just the opposite; *here* one begins and then becomes more and more simple, arrives at the simple. This, in "Christendom," is *Christianly* the movement of reflection; one does not reflect oneself into Christianity but reflects oneself out of something else and becomes more and more simple, a Christian.

>But just as that which has been communicated (the idea of the religious) has been cast completely into reflection and in turn taken back out of reflection, so also the *communication* has been decisively marked by *reflection*, or the form of communication used is that of reflection. "Direct communication" is: to communicate the truth directly; "communication in reflection" is: *to deceive into the truth*. But since the movement is to arrive at the simple, the communication in turn must sooner or later end in direct communication. It began *maieutically* with esthetic production, and all the pseudonymous writings are *maieutic* in nature.

Emphases all *his*.

How about reading *the book where Kierkegaard lays out what he intended to do with his authorship*? Therein you could discover - oh, wow - that the goal *was to trick you out of philosophy because he's writing to target idealists because idealism was in vogue*.

>>25407299
>This is impossible when pudgy weirdos stalk you through the archives and try to turn the site into reddit.
Or you could just stop acting so recognizable by exuding the same wearisome smug and hostile attitude like you do in every post and thread you pop up in. You threw an embarassing tantrum a couple of weeks ago and said you're done with 4chan, and then pick fights the moment you're back, on an imageboard with maybe 100 posters, like the stupid ineducable almost-50-something failson that you are.

>>25409561
I read it, seems like an awfully complicated way to say:
>Marx’s historical materialism is too simplistic. We need to separate the aspect of technological progress from that of class conflict because the dynamics are different. The former is Fichtean, but for the second we need Hegel’s theory of recognition, then over both we need a pure (materialist) social critique as a middle term.
I’m going to be buzzing off that phrase ‘revolutionary-critical’ activity for a while though, and I likely will read it one more time today to see if I can get more; I especially want to return to what he says about the possibility of a labor-less society under full communism. I wonder what the tradcath zoomers would make of it or whether they could understand a single paragraph? They’ve been “reading” for years and still don’t even understand Aristotle. Sad!

>>25410485
*critical-revolutionary

File: IMG_0139.jpg (131 KB, 728x990)

131 KB JPG

>>25410033
You’re so eager to “refute” me that you can’t consider what I said or what the quotes say. Certainly the pseudonymous authors occupy different stages (aesthetic, ethical, religious) but they all shed light on one idea (narcissistic Protestantism). (They also cite one another’s works approvingly.) The pseudonymous works are, themselves, explicitly anti-philosophical, though you think they are ‘straight’ absolute idealism because you don’t know enough to understand them. They either hint at the limits of philosophical thought (Either/Or) or openly attack philosophy by saying it spins in circles and we need to break out (Philosophical Fragments for example) - they subvert absolute idealism by turning its logic against itself, though again he is plagiarizing Fichte. You guys are pseuds and you fucking suck. Once again you desperately try to save face after having been exploded by a superior intellect. How’s that for Christian humility?

>>25410497
>You’re so eager to “refute” me that you can’t consider what I said or what the quotes say.
That could be said 1000x over for you.
>The pseudonymous works are, themselves, explicitly anti-philosophical,
No fucking duh.
>though you think they are ‘straight’ absolute idealism because you don’t know enough to understand them
This is literally how you've been reading him until very lately. "He's anti-philosophical," I told you this last year and you flipped out, "He's a Fichtean!" God you're dumb.
>Once again you desperately try to save face after having been exploded by a superior intellect
Your "superior intellect" has made you an emotional slave to 4chan, exulting in your raging against anons in place of doing anything about your ordinary impotence. If having a "superior intellect" means being a dull lush and making excuses for it while cleaning toilets, then I'm glad not to have it. Your "superiority" secured you the life you have right now that you're condemned to put up with and cope over every day.

>>25410537
I'm willing to let this stand as it is. I know from experience that we can argue forever, or rather that you think that as long as you have 'something else' to say you are still in the game, even if you've been conclusively refuted. This is also a classic illustration of black and white thinking, which you also exhibit in our arguments about the problem of universals, and really everywhere every time I have the misfortune to interact with you.
>If the different works are opposed to each other, they are absolutely opposed; Fear and Trembling isn't just a view of Christianity from one partial perspective, it is an elaborate parody of philosophy.
This is why I'm convinced you guys are illiterate or have brain damage and so on. But again to fully appreciate how the ethical or aesthetic works, and the different pseudonyms, point toward Christianity and serve as refutations of Hegel, you would have to know something about idealist philosophy. Please tell us all how Sickness Unto Death (religious author) is a 'refutation' or is directly antithetical to Fear and Trembling (ethical author). It simply isn't. It's also widely recognized by Kierkegaard scholars, based on how he talks about it in his journals, that Sickness Unto Death is not really pseudonymous at all - the pseudonym in this case is not a separate persona but a mask because K was afraid of not being able to get a cushy job in the Danish Church after his trust fund ran out. And yet it is elaborately philosophical, combining a Fichtean psychology with Hegelian dialectic and just a dash of genuine originality as well. Maybe I'll do a post after work about how Kierkegaard's schematization of Hegel leads directly to a narcissistic Christianity because there is no room in it for Fichte's deduction of recognition vis-a-vis the first moment of consciousness; hence the Kantian universality of a 'kingdom of ends' drops out of view and you're left with a sort of 'me and Jesus' Christianity. BTW, please stop stalking me through the archives, it's creepy as fuck.

I justed noticed that someone else made a phil general besides me. and a discord too! Thanks for doing that!

File: 1770493476780725.jpg (87 KB, 971x565)

87 KB JPG

>/phil/ - Philosophy General #8

>>25410914
Take your fuckin meds you paranoid, bipolar faggot.

File: IMG_0168.jpg (35 KB, 633x1000)

35 KB JPG

This is from the translator’s introduction to my edition of Sickness Unto Death:
>If he were to publish this work, or, as he put it, “TO STEP FORTH INTO CHARACTER”, he expected to find it impossible to obtain a post in the Established Church.
(My memory was wrong though about the nature of the pseudonym. Rather he wanted to distance himself from it because he had scruples that he was “good” enough to claim this stance for himself. But still these views were his own:)
>This form of pseudonymity was totally different from [the earlier]… these later works were the expression of his own belief, and he had expected to publish them under his own name. The pseudonyms were an afterthought.
You can find this view expressed elsewhere as well, it rests straightforwardly on the journals. Now having established that Sickness Unto Death is merely quasipseudonymous, let’s see how it reads.
>The self is a relation that relates itself to its own self, or it is that in the relation that the relation relates itself to its own self; the self is not the relation but that the relation relates itself to its own self. Man is a synthesis of the infinite and the finite, of the temporal and the eternal, of freedom and necessity, in short a synthesis.
But this is just Fichte, almost word for word in fact. This quote is from the 1794/5 Grundlage.
>The I posits itself as both finite and infinite at the same time and thus stands in a reciprocal relation in and with itself… first attempting to assimilate the infinite to the form of the finite and then driven back to positing the infinite beyond the finite.
Similar quotes are everywhere. Fichte’s third foundational principle is indeed synthetic and the I is the relating not the relata. Most Kierkegaard scholars are pseuds who never read Fichte so they miss all these references. This is not a matter of language, it’s the same exact idea.

No doubt Kierkegaard saw himself as a man of faith, not science. Still he uses philosophy against itself, plagiarizing Kant and Fichte in the process. He’s able to use them because they too go beyond knowing, unlike Hegel. So now I’ve refuted the trad pseud twice - first by showing how the pseudonyms of the first authorship, though certainly representing partial or idiosyncratic perspectives, are not neatly opposed to Christianity and in many cases are openly arguing FOR it (like in Fear and Trembling the author takes us beyond Hegel’s I=I to the “passion” and “paradox” of faith, though this is just a ripoff of Fichte’s conscience); second by showing that Kierkegaard’s own proper writing can be heavily philosophical (in a collage artist, schematizing way). I really want some recognition here, not for how much studying I’ve done, but for how fucking retarded my tradcath zoomer opponents are, who want to bully me off the board because I keep humiliating them.

>>25406054
in other words, there is a "thing in itself"? right?

I read Heideggers "what is metaphysics?" lecture and found it pretty unenlightening. His whole idea of anxiety and whatever being a shadow of the "nothing" we cannot conceptualize just did not resonate with me. Felt like I was reading some boderline continental slop.

>>25411611
get that nigga psychiatry and neurology textbooks

is computational theory of mind an idea that people still believe in?

File: IMG_0169.jpg (57 KB, 848x1200)

57 KB JPG

>Natural science will eventually subsume the science of man just as the science of man will subsume natural science: there will be a *single* science.
-Marx, Private Property and Communism
>ONE COMPLETE SYSTEM OF ALL SCIENCES
-Fichte, On the Concept

Marx mogs Kierkegaard as a post-Hegelian because he has something new to say, although it’s grounded in the great masters. We, the 4chan school of esoteric Kantianism, have been hard at work infiltrating institutions and fomenting discontent among the commoners, per Fichte’s advise. In the coming Fichtean-Kantian socialist state (Socialism with Autistic Characteristics) all tradcath zoomers will be sent to work in the asbestos mines alongside HR Stacies. If you start studying German idealism today you just might be able to pass the civil service exam and get a comfy bureaucratic job. You have been warned.
>As soon as pure insight thus is for consciousness, this insight has already made itself widespread, and the struggle against it betrays the fact that the infection has already taken hold. The struggle is too late, and all the remedies taken only make the disease worse, for the disease has seized the very marrow of spiritual life, namely, consciousness in its concept, or its pure essence itself. For this reason, there is no force within it that could prevail against the disease. Because it is in the essence itself, its still isolated expressions are repressed, and its superficial symptoms are muffled. This is immensely to its advantage, for in that case it neither uselessly squanders its force nor does it show itself to be unworthy of its essence, something which is the case when it breaks out into symptoms and when there are singular outbreaks contrary both to the content of faith and to the way its external actuality coheres. Rather, now that it is an invisible and undetected spirit, it winds its way through all the nobler parts, and it has soon taken hold over all the fibers and members of the unaware idol. At that point, ‘some fine morning it gives its comrade a shove with the elbow and, thump! kadump! the idol is lying on the floor’ - on some fine morning when the noontime is bloodless and the infection has permeated every organ of spiritual lie.
-Hegel, Phenomenology of Spirit
FREIHEIT!

File: IMG_0170.jpg (62 KB, 500x500)

62 KB JPG

In this passage of the Sittenlehre Fichte refutes racist ideologies. (It’s a choice kek to me that these trad kids think they have genetically superior IQs even though they can barely read).
>In recent times some extremely unintelligent people have raised a hue and cry and have suggested that belief in the unlimited perfectibility of man is something extremely dangerous, utterly contrary to reason, and the source of God knows what horrors. The question is not whether one has to decide on the basis of purely theoretical rational grounds for or against the perfectibility of humanity. This is a question we can totally ignore. The moral law, which extends to infinity, absolutely commands us to treat human beings as if they were forever capable of becoming perfected and remaining so and this same law absolutely prohibits us from treating human beings in a contrary manner. Let everyone judge for himself what kind of people these are who consider a belief that is absolutely commanded by the moral law to be a piece of folly. Nothing is more dangerous to the tyranny of despots and clerics nor more destructive to the very foundations of their reign than this belief in human perfectibility.

File: IMG_0173.jpg (641 KB, 1280x1758)

641 KB JPG

In his Foundations of Natural Right, Fichte refutes the liberal conception of property as possession by an autistic analysis of the first moment of consciousness. Instead of a right to infinite acquisition by “mixing” your labor with nature (whatever that means), Fichte deduces a “right to the continued existence of our free influence within the entire sensible world”, or “the right to be a free cause.” He then sketches out an elaborate socialist command economy on this principle (which will be effectuated in short order). The socialist state eventually transitions to full communism - “Reason as Art” as he sometimes describes it, “the age in which humanity with more sure and unerring hand builds itself up into a fitting image and representative of Reason:—the state of completed justification and sanctification.” This state of full communism is a return to communal primitive life but in a perfected form.
> In Paradise,—to use a well-known picture,—in the Paradise of innocence and well-being, without knowledge, without labour, without art, Humanity awakes to life. Scarcely has it gathered courage to venture upon independent existence when the Angel comes with the fiery sword of compulsion to good and drives it forth from the seat of its innocence and its peace. Fugitive and irresolute it wanders through the empty waste, scarcely daring to plant its foot firmly anywhere lest the ground should sink beneath it. Grown bolder by necessity, it settles in some poor corner, and in the sweat of its brow roots out the thorns and thistles of barbarism from the soil on which it would rear the beloved fruit of knowledge. Enjoyment opens its eyes and strengthens its hands, and it builds a Paradise for itself after the image of that which it has lost;—the tree of Life arises; it stretches forth its hand to the fruit, and eats, and lives in Immortality.

>>25412085
Regardless, if he saw the state of modern Germany he'd change his tune.

File: IMG_0171.png (51 KB, 845x835)

51 KB PNG

The difference between transcendental idealists and dogmatists can be reduced to the fact that the latter do not allow or understand the logic of thetic judgments. Nothing absolutely is in dogmatic systems, rather everything is connected to everything else, even God, “the One”, etc. A genuine absolute is necessarily outside the system and unintelligible as such - like Plato’s sun that can’t be looked at. But this means it is, not a static proposition, but a task.
>A thetic judgement is one that posits something as not equal to anything else nor posited in opposition to anything else, but is simply posited as equal to itself. Such a judgment cannot presuppose any ground of connection nor distinction; instead, the third term in question, which is logically required, would be the task of finding a ground. The original and supreme judgment of this type is “I am”. All judgments contained in this absolute positing are thetic, such as “man is free”. [There is no ground of connection or distinction for this judgment because freedom does not exist]. Yet in accordance with the logical form of the judgment, the two terms are supposed to be united. They cannot be united in any concept but only in the Idea of an I whose consciousness is deteemined by nothing outside itself but instead determines everything by itself. But such an Idea is unthinkable inasmuch as it harbors a contradiction. Nevertheless, it is our supreme practical goal. A human being should infinitely approach unattainable freedom.

>>25412216
Go back to /pol/ you fucking retard.
>these impoverished people from a backwards part of the world with a backwards religion are just heckin’ genetically inferior. It’s natural!

File: IMG_0172.jpg (23 KB, 220x297)

23 KB JPG

>>25412228 (continuing)
The connection to Aristotle should be obvious to anyone who’s read him (not to the tradcath zoomers, who can’t actually read). Aristotle’s theology denies that God is a hypostasized universal (i.e. a concept), makes the knowing of God noetic (non-propositional), and has the whole universe strive toward God as an unattainable goal. (Needless to say elements of this are in Plato as well, but Plato wants to hypostasize the mere concept of Good/the One to justify a static and ultimately fascist system). But Aristotle embraces a physical theology in which God’s activity in the cosmos is mediated by circular motion. Kant and Fichte ditch this untenable naturalism and leave time as a straight line (which is also in Aristotle alongside the circular motion). Hegel tries to claim the mantle of Aristotle by emphasizing the intellectual character of his God but this obviously misses the point. Kant and Fichte are the true heirs of Aristotle both in this way and in many others. But if you’re a retard who thinks Aristotle was a realist and that we need to cling to Aquinas you’ll never understand any of this.

Verbal Diarrhea: the thread.

File: black-cat-shadow.gif (3.04 MB, 299x373)

3.04 MB GIF

>>25412316
any attempt at philosophical discourse will rapidly get filled with pseudointellectuals driven by ego and arrogance to prove how "smart" they are by using as many words as possible to communicate incredibly simple concepts

also a lot of people think "philosophy" means "whatever mental gymnastics I must perform in order to look like I know what I'm talking about"

>>25412042
>ONE COMPLETE SYSTEM OF ALL SCIENCES
-Fichte, On the Concept


YES. YESSSSSSSS.

>>25412269
what is your motivation fichte anon?

File: IMG_0174.jpg (20 KB, 686x386)

20 KB JPG

Something essential for understanding the limitations of Hegel’s perspective, and hence of all dogmatism (philosophies that equate thinking and being) inasmuch as Hegel is the dogmatist par excellence, is that even his system, which is meant to be “living” and fluid because of the negativity of speculative dialectic, necessarily closes in on itself in a circle. Hegel is open about this:
>Each of the parts of philosophy is a philosophical whole, a circle that closes upon itself… The whole presents itself as a circle of circles.
(Shorter Logic 15)
But this is obscured by pseud neo-Hegelians. The question is, does Hegelian logic as such and by its very nature form a set of infinite circles? YES. Within the phenomenal world there can certainly be finite “dialectic”, just like the categories of reflection apply in this world. (Hegel would not deny for example that a tree is a tree, even if it is a complex reality; identity is operative, it doesn’t become not-a-tree the way identity becomes difference in pure logic). But the claim is that being in itself (=thinking) is speculative, that the phenomenal world depends on this noumenal one, and this thinking necessarily negates any externality. There is nowhere ‘outside’ where it can turn, thought thinks itself, and so the most concrete moment in the system is methodological, the speculative identity of consciousness and self-consciousness (=self-understanding of capitalist modernity in absolute knowing by overcoming Christianity) in the Phenomenology of Spirit. To claim otherwise is to ignore metaphysics; if being IS thinking (substance is subject) and thinking is dialectical it follows necessarily, since any infinite progress is negated. This is why Hegel attacks the idea of the future and the ‘ought’ - his metaphysics makes it impossible to see beyond the present. And despite Hegel’s pretensions logic does need a content and his content is modernity. Other dogmatisms do the same exact thing with different contents and less interesting logic. For example, Schopenhauer reduces everything to desire (“left-handed” dogmatism that reduces thinking to being). Or Kierkegaard thinks he can reduce everything to Lutheranism (choice lol). These systems are meant to be perfect wholes, the only question is whether the reader accepts their presuppositions. (1/2)

>>25413257
What makes Kant so radical, such that you can speak of pre- and post-critical philosophy, is that he breaks out of dogmatism, and then Fichte perfects him by scientifically realizing Kant’s primacy of practical reason; the condition of experience is NOT experienced nor thought as such. To make it such is to make an idol. Hence Fichte’s ‘atheism’ - God does not exist. In Hegel, identity is opposed to difference, and then they both “fall to the ground”. Fichte understands that merely synthetic identity (relative identity) depends on absolute identity (being qua being) which can’t be part of any system; it is not logically possible to derive synthetic propositions from pure identity, hence the radical contingency of experience, our “fallenness” or facticity. Hegel pretends to reach the absolute but it is transparently synthetic, connected with other propositions in a great big closed circle, and you can understand what he meant too with a few weeks of hard reading. Fichte knew that the ground of experience is not something you ‘know’, it’s a task. Read Kant and Fichte - NOW!

>>25412352
This is all perfectly comprehensible if you’d put the bong down and read a bit.

>>25412232
Never used /pol/ but you seem awfully upset. You should probably lay off the crack.

>>25412395
Revolution. And shitposting with likeminded pseuds. And exploding tradcath zoomers who aren’t smart enough for modern philosophy.

I had an encounter recently at work with the Leo Bernstein Excellent Professor at the College of Political Excellence while I was smoking a cig. I saw the tag on his manpursebag signifying his excellence and decided to hazard a convo.
>Political excellence eh? I really like Kant man I’ve been reading him a few years.
>”Oh yes! I love Kant! He was a genius!”
>yeah I love how he broke through the…
>”He was a man of FAITH!”
>wha-?
>”Yes a man of FAITH. Have you read his cosmopolitan plan for universal history? Human nature! Yes!”
At this point I had an internal lol. I had met a tradcath zoomer irl.
>Uh yeah but what about… never mind. Yeah he’s great, I’m trying to teach myself German to read him in the original.
>”In the German??? God bless you! We already have translators who have done that work. You should try Freud in German he won a Goethe Prize. God bless you!”
Academics are such fucking pseuds.

I've been enjoying the Sachs translation of Nicomachean Ethics, but I feel like I'm missing out on things because I lack baseline knowledge. Should I go read into rhetoric or something as a background?

>>25414163
Not to troll you but Aristotle’s works are so interconnected you have to read everything. But in a pinch try Physics 1-2 and Meta 1.

>>25413257
>>25413265
This is pretentious, you should say it in 1-2 sentences and it should be in normal talk like real people use.

>>25413320
What if you're a tradcath over 40 who has read a substantial amount of philosophy?

>>25415264
The 'tradcath zoomer' thing is a joke, I know not every conservative retard who tries to argue with me is literally a Catholic and a zoomer. Whether you've read a 'substantial amount' of philosophy or not doesn't signify much if you haven't understood it. Just look above in the thread when that tradcatch zoomer was trying to claim that Kierkegaard's pseudonymous works were directly and completely opposed to his signed works (so that, for example, Fear and Trembling is essentially a parody of philosophy, Kierkegaard didn't really think of faith in terms of 'paradox' and the individual transcending the universal, etc.). I'm pretty sure that guy has read a fairly substantial amount of philosophy he just wasn't smart enough to understand any of it. I'd love to read an intelligent post by a Thomist attacking German idealism for example if anyone could write one.

Why come theres not a single book written by pre colonial native Americans. did they even have a written language? We're really expected to beleive that these troglodyte beasts of burden had the time to nurture a culture? they couldn't even build two story buildings.
all of their culture came into existence after colonization.

>>25414688
And plato? 1096b stumped me until I realised he was referencing Plato.

>>25415408
What have your two story buildings brought you white man? Taxes, a broken family unit and a poisoned water supply.

>>25412316
>>25412352
Trvke, fuck H*gel.

>>25415285
I suggest you try and define "smart enough" before you attempt to critique it.

I don't understand how mathematics is supposed to be impressive. It's just a giant logical system with no actual determinate content. It's pretty much like a language with very complex syntax and grammar. I should respect mathematicians for developing more linguistic categories in their own language? Why?

>>25416804
>Why?
Science likes it. So its important because it allows science to predict stuff with precision, and because science is god in the modern day (some christians will basically admit as much and pretend that mathematics is actually the secret alchemist sauce that god bestowed for us to understand his universe, but they wont give that credit to science, atleast science as it actually exists, not an abstraction of science that can be characterized as "technology + math = truth") math is like latin was to medieval christians, or hebrew is to jews by association

>>25416804
Math is very heavily applicable to our daily lives and has advanced humanity since forever thanks to it being a foundation of science. It allows scientists to collect data and predict results based upon creating formulas based on data collected. Philosophy, however, has done nothing but make a bunch of psueds argue back and forth over nothing anyone cares about.

File: IMG_0057.jpg (52 KB, 896x1133)

52 KB JPG

>>25412352
>I‘m too lazy, stupid, or young to have read the philosophers they‘re talking about so I‘ll just write it all off as mental masturbation!
It‘s not possible to think abnormally without writing abnormally.

>>25400610
Pick two of these thinkers i should read next:
Daniel Dennett
David Chalmers
Thomas Nagel
Alvin Plantinga
Hilary Putnam
John Searle (again)
Charles Taylor
John Gray

>>25418175
Wilfrid Sellars

>>25418209
Really?

>>25418209
I don't have books by him

What are the best studies on Heraclitus?

>>25412352
>>25415249
See, if you read any field, you realize that is a non-possibility and that technical terminology exists and is hard to understand, but you need to understand it because it has a purpose and not all communication can be clear cut and simple, but if you take time and effort to understand them, you're gonna have a much better time at understanding why people use them and what they mean when they do use them in conversation regarding philosophy, for an example.

>>25418308
Most people think philosophy is just spitballing wacky ideas, they’re not willing to read anything remotely difficult and think it’s pretentious if they can’t immediately understand it with no effort like Plato, Schoppie, or Knee-chee. They don’t know what they’re missing desu.

>>25418175
Case in point right here. If this guy did an effortpost about analytic philosophy full of logical notation I wouldn’t be able to understand much of it but I wouldn’t assume he was some vain pseudointellectual trying to “sound smart”.

>>25419940
obviously, that's not true.
people invent words to describe new concepts.
the new information precedes the new words.

>>25419942
You're genuinely retarded.

who do I need to read before Hegel? Presocratics, Plato, Aristotle, Proclus, Spinoza, Kant, Fichte, Schelling?
I'm reading Anthony Kenny's history of philosophy now and it feels a bit too surface-level, but I will finish it eventually
who else should I read? very open to secondary literature

>>25420409
You don’t need Proclus or really any of the Greeks merely to understand his arguments. Spinoza, Kant, Fichte, Schelling would be the main ones. Also for Schelling Hegel’s summary of Schelling in the Difference Essay would suffice.

>>25420424
okay, thanks. I will still read a bit of Aristotle just because I'm curious about him, probably in this order: Categories, Nicomachean Ethics, On the Soul and Poetics, but I doubt I will wrestle with the Metaphysics

>>25420429
why not

>>25420740
I think it will be too hard

bump

why do people want to read hegel so bad?

>>25422373
he figured it out

>>25422373
It’s sociological. Marxists think of Hegel as this grand speculator underlying le Dialectics so you get a lot of simpletons trying to read him for this reason, as a proto-Marxist. He also has a reputation for being extremely difficult. The same sort of thing happens with tradcaths and Aquinas. The fact is Hegel is not a proto-Marxist and he is not even that difficult. Then you have these pseuds who think simply reading Hegel is an immense intellectual feat and want to rest on those laurels forever. Reddit is full of people like that.

>>25422385
I think it's mostly be of the esoteric kant retard anon

[Wolffians have entered the chat...]

>>25422422
what distinguishes wolfians from normal leibnizians

File: IMG_7711.jpg (207 KB, 1125x1700)

207 KB JPG

>>25423011
write in German. systematic. basically leibnizians, but more systematic.

>>25423031
He mostly wrote in Latin. Oogabooga German was for the plebs.

bump

>>25423048
>was
yes, WAS–until herr professor doktor wolff

>>25422373
Schopenhauer is superior imo

>>25418709
I'm legitimately trying to learn here. I would just like it if one of you guys nudged me in the right direction first. I'm read a substantial amount of classical philosophy but I want to dive deeper into the analytics.

If I want to read Plotinus, where should I start? Besides Plato, do I need more context to him? And why should one read Plotinus?

>>25423500
enneads

>>25423500
sup
here you go anon read through our notes. it is definitely not unprofessional slop. >>21787854

bump

>>25423500
Aristotle is really important for Plotinus, he is an opponent but he adopts some of his ideas and all of his jargon. In general for pre-Cartesian philosophy Aristotle is simply indispensable. People who read neoplatonism or scholasticism without Aristotle are simply wasting their time.

>>25412085
>racist ideologies.
No part of that quote touches on race. Did you mean to post something else?

>>25412269
>Kant and Fichte ditch this untenable naturalism and leave time as a straight line (which is also in Aristotle alongside the circular motion).
Aristotle's naturalist system has interested me lately, and you have mentioned this sort of conversion the idealists made before. Is there anything I can read that will elaborate on that or do I just have to read Kant over again until I get it?

>fascist
You've picked this up as some catch-all adjective recently? It's bad: tradcath-zoomer-pseud isn't amazing either but it's at least distinctive to you.

>>25427567
>how would the perfectibility of man have anything to do with the idea that blacks are genetically inferior and imperfectible?

> Aristotle's naturalist system has interested me lately, and you have mentioned this sort of conversion the idealists made before. Is there anything I can read that will elaborate on that or do I just have to read Kant over again until I get it?
It should interest you, it is interesting. But if you can’t understand the weight of Kant’s objections and his transcendental turn I can’t help you, you need more time and thought. Kant’s practical philosophy is key (so groundwork and the second critique).
> You've picked this up as some catch-all adjective recently? It's bad: tradcath-zoomer-pseud isn't amazing either but it's at least distinctive to you.
It has a specific meaning. If you can’t see how Laws or Republic are rather faschy and how Plato’s metaphysics is related I can’t help you, you’re beyond help.

>>25427578
>idea that blacks are genetically inferior and imperfectible?
Right, but most ideologies that want a hierarchy would also be refuted by that. So most ideologies, irrespective of racialism. Barring, idk, the cosmotheists or something, I think most racists who get that far would also believe in the imperfectibility of whites too. TS Eliot (not, as far as I'm aware, a racist) once said the difference between humanism and classicism was that a humanist believes in an unlimited and a classicist in a limited human capacity, and I don't think he had race in mind so much as Virgil and Webster.

>It has a specific meaning.
Okay, but obviously without warning I'm not going to pick up on a technical meaning in an otherwise common word. You called this website fascist >>25405501 too. And of course for most people metaphysics and politics are independent domains; you will say this is because they don't understand their metaphysics but it's not enough. A nominalist or whatever can justify fascism, and I should only need to mention your boy Fichte in this connection, if one suggested a universal state bent on perfecting humankind doesn't sound fascist he'd be called a nut where I'm from.

>>25427619 (myself)
Just to add, outing myself as a big pseud, I'm still working my way towards reading Fichte properly and most of my knowledge of him comes from a some articles Colin Cleary wrote about him. You migh know Cleary (megafascist pagan racialist) is a big fan of Fichte. Doesn't prove anything of course, I just think using a vulgarising epithet like that is cuhringe. Anyway, I go to read more

bump

>>25402295
Utilitarianism is so fucking annoying thank god it doesn't exist in nature
>Do what thou wiiill shall be the whoooooole of the laaaaaw
>I want to run through
the streets, with my
genitals bouncing free
but your law dressed in
blue takes me away
'cause I'm hung better
and if I'm not, he'd be too
scared to prove it
that proof is all that
speaks

what are you all reading

>>25400610
oh we gots a general now??

>>25400810
seconded

good secondary literature on Plato that will explain all of his main themes? I have read some of Plato, but I didn't like him.
https://www.amazon.com/Plato-Routledge-Philosophers-Constance-Meinwald/dp/0415379113
would this work?

>>25428565
The Continuum Companion is decent as a really basic and general rundown.

>>25428700
perhaps I shouldn't bother with secondaries and just read more of him

>>25427635
Well we can disagree on this and that and you might think I’m a faggot but Fichte is definitely a leftist. Even his nationalism is ultimately cosmopolitan and his “end-game” is a stateless propertyless world order - like Marx and Engels he sees this as a return to primitive conditions but in a perfected form. I also write obnoxiously for lols, I realize it’s not really fair to Plato to associate him with Mussolini. But I think he is a rightist, basically, and to this day people use his sort of ideology, of a cosmic hierarchical order, to justify structures of domination.

>>25430182 (me)
Btw I joined the local dsa chapter, everyone there is some underemployed loser millennial or gen x. It’s great, I fit right in. I plan to subvert the party for kantian-fichtean thought by doing reading groups on Marxism and subtly steering them toward transcendental idealism and away from Hegel and even from Marx.

>>25430196
gay

what makes a good philosophical research question? What would that even look like?

Im not sure how one gets the point of having good research questions without already having figured out what they want to research, and what one wants to research is usually led by something like a question

>>25419942
no no no, i read 1984 once therefore sapir-whorf is true

>>25422373
smoll pp energy of the brain

>>25422385
like this guy said

>>25423031
so much for systematic. someone teach these niggas LaTeX baka

File: simply-kys.png (169 KB, 1200x675)

169 KB PNG

>>25401419
>>25402295
>>25402714
>>25404025
>>25407299
>>25407737
>>25410914
>>25422385
>simply

>>25427554
>simply
>simply

>>25430196
do you mind dying? tia

>>25428204
mostly history at the moment, taking a break from philosophy but I want to find something like a historian of concepts like Koselleck or Cassirer soon. allegedly my own theories seem to align with Max Scheler, though, and I want to ponder further with phenomenological realism, pragmatic theory of truth and metaphysical voluntarism. I like William James but I'd like to dig deeper on some lesser known authors/books on subjects like this and the concept of will-based thinking and general psychologism/anti-psychologism. maybe some philosophy of language too and understand the relation between will and word.

bump

bump

reading the republic. them niggas liked boys a lot huh

>>25430196
I hope you get something out of it. But what you describe doesn't sound too different to here, really. Unless you're just hoping to find them easier to steer than the autists on the board

File: IMG_0199.jpg (20 KB, 226x127)

20 KB JPG

>mfw Marx accurately understands and predicts the political terror and collapse of the socialist states his OWN thought would inspire in his early review of Bauer‘s Jewish Question
“Of course, in periods when the political state as such is born violently out of civil society [Hegelese for private life/markets/capitalism], when political liberation is the form in which men strive to achieve their liberation, the state can and must go as far as the abolition of religion, the destruction of religion. But it can do so only in the same way that it proceeds to the abolition of private property, to the maximum, to confiscation, to progressive taxation, just as it goes as far as the abolition of life, the guillotine. At times of special self-confidence, political life seeks to suppress its prerequisite, civil society and the elements composing this society, and to constitute itself as the real species-life of man, devoid of contradictions. But, it can achieve this only by coming into violent contradiction with its own conditions of life, only by declaring the revolution to be permanent, and, therefore, the political drama necessarily ends with the re-establishment of religion, private property, and all elements of civil society, just as war ends with peace.”

Incredible. I can hardly believe my eyes desu.

>>25438504
really

>>25403326
>'Inner monologue' and why people who don't 'have it' are npcs is the worst meme ever.
If you aren’t self directed , others verbally direct you.

By Influencing people , that is making them adopt certain ideas (that’s ideal forms/auxiliary motives and archetypes) and encouraging them to not use their internal monologue, you basically create an army of non-thinking beings. The only reason these people (instinctively) refuse something is because it goes against the principles they were programmed with.

>>25438504
Right, this is what Zizek is riffing on when he says Stalin is the pinnacle of the enlightenment. It’s obvious enough to draw the connection between Hegel’s account of the French Revolution and communism but it is neat to see young Marx toying with the same idea. Marx’s strength is his critical Kantian kernel, and his weakness is his Hegelian logicism, as if he can predict an incomprehensible future based on present ‘contradictions’.

Philosophy and art complement each other because art strives to represent the universal in the particular and philosophy strives to know the particular as universal - in either case an endless task. Reading philosophy is like playing the work of a great composer; you are taking the passive role but you’re not an inert receptacle. The philosopher and his reader are indispensable to one another. Reading philosophy in ((current year)) is like being a musician in a deaf world and you feel this most acutely when you interact with pseuds online who claim to like philosophy but are too lazy to read the greats and actively look down on those who do.

im starting philosophy undergrad in a couple weeks. im 28. its going to be sick lol

>>25441418
It's going to be even sicker when you graduate. No one wants to hire annoying psueds whose only skill is being able to drag something out like arguing a single point for 10 daus when a normal person can argue the same exact thing keeping all the same points and meaning in one minute. Imagine being a customer in a typical fast food slop ordering a standard burger when your normal transaction is 30 seconds while a philosophyfag will make it 10 minutes.

am I supposed to take notes if I understand everything I'm reading in a book?

>>25441418
you'll do great, anon :^)

>>25441820
yes, because 99% of the time you don't know it as well as you think you do=. explaining something verbally or through writing is a very different feeling then being like, "hm, yes"

>>25441418
community collage? i encourage u make the most of your offfice hours

>>25400610
My tested IQ is 128 but I feel 60 IQ when I read philosophy and I am Slavic, who is the kindergarden teacher of philosophy?