/lit/ - Literature

The world could show nothing to me

>>16556177
Look at the size of that noggin, does he keep an extra arm in there or what?

If I dislike Foucault, will I feel the same about postmodernism as a whole or are they individual enough to like one and not the other?

Where should I start with him?

Where do I start with him? I'm interested specifically in his idea of time.

Logic and reason are inventions, just like art and religion and science. We think of logic as this linear, inevitable, and immortal thing that precedes our existence because it exists objectively, without depending on our presence to be a reality, but it’s logic and reason that are only present when we think about them and consider them real. They are imaginary, unobservable entities, almost identical in this sense to language and (if I may) God.

Proof? If you try to disprove me, you’re using logic and reason to do so. Even if I’m using logic and reason to disprove logic and reason, it means that they disprove themselves and only survive long enough for their host(s) to figure this out. Everything begins with intuition, and any belief requires a leap of faith to actually be grasped. Only intuited knowledge--which is sometimes the hostile opposite of logic and reason--can be trusted in any meaningful way; in an important sense, it’s intuition that’s indestructible, not logic.

Zen koans are designed to exhaust the analytical mind and reveal the illusion of logical thinking so the student can get on with his real journey to enlightenment. They are unbreakable riddles that should get the student to think intuitively, so his original mind can answer them properly. No Westerner could ever answer a Zen koan. They’re indoctrinated with the mechanistic colonial philosophy of our ancestors--who, by the way, should have become nameless by now.

It should also be noted that there is no single logical argument in existence that is actually indestructible. Even if it’s as air-tight and impenetrable as a mathematical equation, there’s a way to demolish it. Everything below that (which is where most of science and philosophy takes place) is less than ‘absolute’--they’re arguments that depend on presuppositions and evidence and epochs and ignorance. Reading philosophers is a lot like watching children fight over the made up rules to their made up game. Getting stuck behind an impenetrable argument is like being trapped behind a wall without seeing the open gate right next to you.

What’s more fruitful than being a philosopher? I’d argue that imagination and creativity are the most direct ways of exploring ourselves and the world we live in. Whether you’re a scientist or a philosopher or a theologian or a mystic, you have to dedicate yourself to something static and indifferent to your existence. Why would I give my life to understanding a universe that doesn’t know I’m here?

Give me more than William Blake. John Keats only had this as a passing thought. Give me Eastern thoughts that sound something like this. I’m ready.

Just read matter and memory and have some questions. If memory is not in the brain, where is it? If pure memory and pure perception make a difference of kind, how does one act on the other?

literally what the fuck is a multiplicity or a duration

what do i need to know before i jump in? if i read just one of his texts, which should it be? also, anyone have a good source that discusses his arguments with einstein?

btfo