/lit/ - Literature

>mfw realizing philosophy isn't just about being right or wrong
>philosophy is about the pure acts of thinking, discourse, and reason themselves and the edification that comes with such practice
just in awe of this gnosis bros

Why is there anything? As Schelling well knew these questions unsettlingly lack answers. They model for speculative idealism what Derrida describes as the “object” of radical disgust, the disturbing remainder that “does not allow itself to be digested, or represented, or stated—does not allow itself to be transformed into auto-affection by exemplorality. “It is an irreducible heterogeneity which cannot be eaten either sensibly or ideally,” Derrida argues, “and which . . . by never letting itself be swallowed
must therefore cause itself to be vomited” (Derrida, “Economimesis” 21).

Schelling is disgusted by Hegel’s refusal to think and to speak about disgust,
to confront the aporia about the origin to which philosophy is most deeply
summoned.

Schelling had once spoken of God’s agonistic self-creation in precisely these theosophical terms: as an originary purgation, a contracting expulsion whose “motivation” may be self-purification but whose uncanny effect is
ambivalently and interminably to attach the Absolute both to the abject and to the process of abjection (Stuttgart Seminars 208).Without necessarily recommitting himself to the terms of that genesis story, Schelling contrasts
Hegel’s “releasing” with Boehme’s “vomit” because the latter reembodies the conditions of creation whose difficulties and resistances to thought Hegel’s negative philosophy has spirited away into the neutral and neutralizing language of relaxation. Whatever accounts positively for creation, it is not primly about “releasement” but raucously about unthought urges, forced losses, unconsciousness abysses, and the sheer messiness of being
mortal.

just in awe of this gnosis lads

>Why is there anything? As Schelling well knew these questions unsettlingly lack answers. They model for speculative idealism what Derrida describes as the “object” of radical disgust, the disturbing remainder that “does not allow itself to be digested, or represented, or stated—does not allow itself to be transformed into auto-affection by exemplorality. “It is an irreducible heterogeneity which cannot be eaten either sensibly or ideally,” Derrida argues, “and which . . . by never letting itself be swallowed
must therefore cause itself to be vomited” (Derrida, “Economimesis” 21).

>Schelling is disgusted by Hegel’s refusal to think and to speak about disgust,
to confront the aporia about the origin to which philosophy is most deeply
summoned.

>Schelling had once spoken of God’s agonistic self-creation in precisely these theosophical terms: as an originary purgation, a contracting expulsion whose “motivation” may be self-purification but whose uncanny effect is
ambivalently and interminably to attach the Absolute both to the abject and to the process of abjection (Stuttgart Seminars 208).Without necessarily recommitting himself to the terms of that genesis story, Schelling contrasts
Hegel’s “releasing” with Boehme’s “vomit” because the latter reembodies the conditions of creation whose difficulties and resistances to thought Hegel’s negative philosophy has spirited away into the neutral and neutralizing language of relaxation. Whatever accounts positively for creation, it is not primly about “releasement” but raucously about unthought urges, forced losses, unconsciousness abysses, and the sheer messiness of being
mortal.

just in awe of this gnosis lads

>Why is there anything? As Schelling well knew these questions unsettlingly lack answers. They model for speculative idealism what Derrida describes as the “object” of radical disgust, the disturbing remainder that “does not allow itself to be digested, or represented, or stated—does not allow itself to be transformed into auto-affection by exemplorality. “It is an irreducible heterogeneity which cannot be eaten either sensibly or ideally,” Derrida argues, “and which . . . by never letting itself be swallowed
must therefore cause itself to be vomited” (Derrida, “Economimesis” 21).

>Schelling is disgusted by Hegel’s refusal to think and to speak about disgust,
to confront the aporia about the origin to which philosophy is most deeply
summoned.

>Schelling had once spoken of God’s agonistic self-creation in precisely these theosophical terms: as an originary purgation, a contracting expulsion whose “motivation” may be self-purification but whose uncanny effect is
ambivalently and interminably to attach the Absolute both to the abject and to the process of abjection (Stuttgart Seminars 208).Without necessarily recommitting himself to the terms of that genesis story, Schelling contrasts
Hegel’s “releasing” with Boehme’s “vomit” because the latter reembodies the conditions of creation whose difficulties and resistances to thought Hegel’s negative philosophy has spirited away into the neutral and neutralizing language of relaxation. Whatever accounts positively for creation, it is not primly about “releasement” but raucously about unthought urges, forced losses, unconsciousness abysses, and the sheer messiness of being
mortal.

just in awe of this gnosis lads

>>12980888
>took this long for someone to say Dante

You are all turds.

>>12952862
>Western philosophy chart that skips strait from ancient Greece to Descartes.

I particularly dislike this worn out meme.

One of the best people to ever be fat and also an amazing writer, rest in peace.

>Tolstoy's queenless beehive metaphor when Napoleon reaches an empty Moscow
So touching and aptly put. Share some of the best touching metaphors/analogies you've come across lads.

>being a filthy leftist
>voting Blue, ever

STOP RUINING MY COUNTRY YOU GODDAMN FUCKS

>No mind can reach a comprehension of His mode of being; the reason and soul know not His perfection. The mind of Intelligence is dazzled by His majesty, the soul's eye is blinded before His perfection. The Primal Intelligence is a product of His nature,--it He admitted to a knowledge of himself. Imagination lags before the glory of His essence; understanding moves confined before His nature's mode of being. His fire, which in haughtiness He made His carpet, burnt the wing of reason; the soul is a serving-man in His pageant, reason a novitiate in His school. What is reason in this guest-house? only a crooked writer of the script of God.

just in awe of this gnosis lads

>>12432317
The horror

>The procession of God into created effects means that all things have the one primordial cause, all things have the same beginning, and ultimately, all will have the same end. All things are, therefore, bound together in the unity of their cause: "the beauty of the whole established universe consists of a marvellous harmony of like and unlike ... an ineffable unity" (P. Ill &38A).

>This unity is not a synthesis resulting from strict logical thought processes whereby Eriugena can "resolve" the four divisions of nature into one, but is a unity that already pervades all diversity and difference. What does Eriugena mean by these strange statements that, as the alumnus notes, have the power to bewilder and strike us dumb with wonder? (P. Ill 6460).

>What Eriugena means can be said to sum up the central metaphysical foundation of the Periphyseon, which can be painted in very broad strokes as follows. God can be understood as darkness because of God's transcendence, yet this darkness is really lux excellentiam, an ineffable light that simply appears dark precisely because of its transcendent intensity.

just in awe of this gnosis lads

>What we call spirit exists by virtue of itself, a flame that fuels itself. However, because as something existing, it is opposed by Being, the spirit is consequently nothing but an addiction to such Being, just as the flame is addicted to matter. The most base form of the spirit is therefore an addiction, a desire, a lust.

just in awe of this gnosis lads

>>12295377
>Schelling comes increasingly to recognize (although never without equivocation), reality is much more than formal intelligibility; it is also an open-ended question of existence and of the brute confrontation with the enigma of the actual. On the way to developing what he eventually names positive philosophy, Schelling confronts the ineluctable operation of the negative within existence: this includes the unsublatable power and reality of evil acts, the irrational and other-than-rational, the irreducible remainders that haunt spirit with the memory of matter, as well as "the uncanny" and "the unconscious"—we might recall that the latter two terms are effectively put into the circulation of German philosophy by Schelling.

>The matrix of the dialectical process is not that of excrementation-externalization followed by a swallowing (reappropriation) of the externalized content, but, on the contrary, of appropriation followed by the excremental move of dropping it, releasing it, letting it go. What this means is that one should not equate externalization with alienation. The externalization which concludes a cycle of dialectical process is not alienation, it is the highest point of DIS-alienation: one really reconciles oneself with some objective content not when one still has to strive to master and control it, but when one can afford the supreme sovereign gesture of releasing this content from oneself, of setting it free.

>Which is why, incidentally . . . far from subduing nature totally to man, Hegel opens up an unexpected space for ecological awareness. For Hegel, the drive to exploit nature technologically is still a mark of man's finitude, in such an attitude, nature is perceived as an external object, an opposing force to be dominated, while a philosopher, from his standpoint of Absolute Knowledge, experiences nature not as a threatening force to be controlled and dominated, but as something to be left to follow its inherent path.

just in awe of this gnosis lads

>Homo economicus is not, however, a datum, but rather the target, or extrapolated optimal outcome, of certain definite historical processes, i.e. a telos. It is differentially actualized, in the private accomplishment of relative economic rationality, or advantage, and – more importantly – selected for at multiple levels, under conditions of capitalistic social organization. It thus models game theoretic competence, with the implicit heuristic: when describing how a game works, assume players who are able to play the game. The game will find, sift up, and train, such players if permitted to run. That is the basis of the true culture war inherent to capital formation. Implicit within capital is a template for the kind of people it wants, and which – given only time and opportunity – it will automatically produce.

just in awe of this gnosis lads

>The daring and startling claims of the Realdicalektik are that contradictions embrace both the phenomenology of the spirit and that of nature, and that each individual element harbors opposing properties within itself; in other words, that everything in nature is permeated with antinomies, is split and divided against itself

>Bahnsen's pessimism embraces existence and knowledge, the world and the individual. The axis of the world is pain and it is turned by the inexhaustible energy issuing from the dark 'Mothers' of the underworld. His eschatology offers no escape from the tortures inflicted on us by others and by ourselves. Neither can suicide liberate us, for after death the individual comes what it was before: an invisible act of the will, which re- quires but the occasion of a new impulse to become visible again. Life is thus a painful perpetuum mobile. Through the whole world stalks a never-ending discord, for the will carries the roots of dissatisfaction in its breast through all eternity.

>Emphatically affirming the will to live-to be sure, not with Nietzsche's Dionysian joy in existence, but because he believes the denial of the will to be an impossibility-Bahnsen the 'dysangelist ' is found at the end of his road battling- for the same flag that the life-drunken chanter of the superman has sworn by, but with the difference that Bahnsen is fighting for a flag that he knows is doomed to eternal defeat.

just in awe of this gnosis lads

>read the republic
>it's a soul shattering and ecstatic almost religious experience
whi else knows this feel

>Following the eternal act of self-revelation, the world as we now behold it, is all rule, order, and form; but the unruly lies ever in the depths as though it might again break through, and order and form nowhere appear to have been original, but it seems as though what had initially been unruly had been brought to order. This is the incomprehensible basis of reality in things, the irreducible remainder which cannot be resolved into reason by the greatest exertion but always remains in the depths … Without this preceding gloom, creation would have no reality; darkness is its necessary heritage. Only God - the Existent himself - dwells in pure light, for he alone is self-born. … Nevertheless, we can think of nothing better fitted to drive man to strive towards the light with all energy, than the consciousness of the deep night out of which he was raised into existence. … All birth is a birth out of darkness into light: the seed must be buried in the earth and die in the darkness in order that the lovelier creature of light should rise and unfold itself in the rays of the sun. Man is formed in his mother's womb; and only out of the darkness of unreason (out of feeling, out of longing, the sublime mother of understanding) grow clear thoughts.

just... just in awe of this gnosis lads

>>11748872
How do I reach this level of gnosis?

>>11736915
>it says that the carpet is the perfect junction between threadbare craftsmanship and art as decor. the world meets man at the soles of his feet, and the carpet interposes itself between man and earth, interrupting both haptic contact, but more importantly the contact between sight and ground. It turns something as trounced upon and ignored as a floor into a vista in its own—the floor becomes a view. Many persian and turkish rugs take influence from great medieval architects such as Brunelleschi. Artistry finds itself where painting could not, only in the rug
just in awe of this gnosis lads

>tfw too many books to fit on my shelves
>don't want to spend money on a bookcase, would rather buy more books

>Dig, without fear, with a sharp tool. Ask yourself: "What elements of my body can I justify with my will? Do I will my own breathing, or the inner combustion through which food is digested? Do I want my own form, my own flesh, this particular man, who lives in this fashion, happy or unhappy, noble or vulgar?" But since I ask these questions, should I not press further on? Do I really will "my" will, "my" conscience, "my" Self, or are they just there? That which I claim is caused by my will, I should also be able not to will it, and thus I should be able to live without it. As far as "my" empirical Self is concerned, do I own it or does it own me?

>Reader, since you have approached the "Science of the Magi," you must be strong enough for this truth: you are not the life in you. You do not exist. There is nothing you can call "mine." You do not own Life: it is Life that owns you. You endure it. It is a pure illusion to believe that this phantasm of a "Self is able to live forever, following the decay of the body. Can't you see that the relation with this body is essential to your "Self," and that any illness, trauma, or accident has a precise influence on all of its faculties, no matter how "spiritual" and "superior" they may be?

just in awe of this gnosis lads

>Kant had reified the limitation of human cognition by attempting to banish every thought of the beyond: we will always remain on "this side" of the boundary. We will never be able to reach the other side and therefore it is our duty to refuse all attempts to do so. We cannot, so we must not. But Kant's prohibition of what is already impossible did not exorcise the outside but only reified it as an unattainable beyond. Kant "remained afflicted by the very object he avoided." The driving motive and outcome of critical philosophy is an "anxiety before the object". Kant's greatness lies in unveiling the fundamental topology of thinking and its ultimate object. But unable to countenance the anxiety unleashed by his own insight … Kant conceals what he reveals. … The point is not simply that I am the one that makes myself anxious, that thinking torments itself in itself in its reflexive scrutiny. Anxiety arises rather because there is something in me that exceeds my grasp: there is another side of thought within thought itself - not an unknowable absolute but a secret or unknown knowing at the heart of knowing. [Hegel's] absolute knowing is the articulation of this immanent exteriority of thinking in its starkest form.

just in awe of this gnosis lads