/lit/ - Literature

>>14968686
>For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.

>>14967012

Consciousness is one and unchanging; it is only when the objects get associated with it that they appear in consciousness and as identical with it in such a way that the flashing of an object in consciousness appears as the flashing of the consciousness itself. It is through an illusion that the object of consciousness and consciousness appear to be welded together into such an integrated whole, that their mutual difference escapes our notice, and that the object of consciousness, which is only like an extraneous colour applied to consciousness, does not appear different or extraneous to it, but as a specific mode of the consciousness itself. Thus what appear as but different awarenesses, as book-cognition, table-cognition, are not in reality different awarenesses, but one unchangeable consciousness successively associated with ever-changing objects which falsely appear to be integrated with it and give rise to the appearance that qualitatively different kinds of consciousness are flashing forth from moment to moment. Consciousness cannot be regarded as momentary.

For, had it been so, it would have appeared different at every different moment. If it is urged that, though different consciousnesses are arising at each different moment, yet on account of extreme similarity this is not noticed; then it may be replied that, if there is difference between the two consciousnesses of two successive moments, then such difference must be grasped either by a different consciousness or by the same consciousness. In the first alternative the third awareness, which grasps the first two awarenesses and their difference, must either be identical with them, and in that case the difference between the three awarenesses would vanish; or it may be different from them, and in that case, if another awareness be required to comprehend their difference and that requires another and so on, there would be a vicious infinite.

>>14912300
>Nah. The Monists get as far as the third word of Genesis, and are refuted by everything after. Christ is the answer to the monist's desire for union with God, yet without the pernicious requirement of negating everything else as an illusion.

>>14908152
>accept Thomism, the filioque, and the papacy
"No".

>>14891091
>The Logos did not die because that's impossible according to your own theology.
The Logos did die in the flesh, according to the human mode of being He took on. This, however, does not mean that the Divine Essence died. We can say that God died because He united his divinity to His humanity, without mixing them. Moreover, His action of dying does not take away from either His divinity or His humanity.

>>14880563
>He never claimed to be God. If you disagree, cite the chapter and verse.

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

>>14873669
>

>>14824437
>Everyone should fear having their traditions relativised to hell.
Brother, do not despair.

>"Those who might be tempted to give way to despair should realize that nothing accomplished in this order can ever be lost, that confusion, error and darkness can win the day only apparently and in a purely ephemeral way, that all partial and transitory disequilibrium must perforce contribute towards the greater equilibrium of the whole, and that nothing can ultimately prevail against the power of truth."

Who else here doesn’t read? I come on here to argue philosophy, yet I haven’t read a single book or novel since early high school. The only philosophical insight I need springs from my own mind. Any other non-reading chads lurking?

>"Those who might be tempted to give way to despair should realize that nothing accomplished in this order can ever be lost, that confusion, error and darkness can win the day only apparently and in a purely ephemeral way, that all partial and transitory disequilibrium must perforce contribute towards the greater equilibrium of the whole, and that nothing can ultimately prevail against the power of truth."

- (ﷺ) عبد الواحد يحي

>One of the deep prejudices that the age of mechanism instilled in our culture, and that infects our religious and materialist fundamentalisms alike, is a version of the so-called genetic fallacy: to wit, the mistake of thinking that to have described a thing’s material history or physical origins is to have explained that thing exhaustively. We tend to presume that if one can discover the temporally prior physical causes of some object—the world, an organism, a behavior, a religion, a mental event, an experience, or anything else—one has thereby eliminated all other possible causal explanations of that object. But this is a principle that is true only if materialism is true, and materialism is true only if this principle is true, and logical circles should not set the rules for our thinking.

Grab yourself a copy of Shakespeare's plays and a collection of Chekhov's short stories, son.

>>14590372
>projecting your degenerate immoral fetish onto everyone else
Friendly reminder you are a freak and if you expressed your thoughts to real life people they'd rightfully want to put a bullet in your head.

>lol this board is dumb

*ahem*

VENEZUELA