/lit/ - Literature

>>18619905
>when your entire metaphysical system is just a return to mommy

>>18321989
>

What was guenon's thoughts on monads?

What the fuck is a monad (leibniz)

What’s a book that will make me realize the reality of existence and drive me completely insane? Like some kind of logical cognitohazard.

>>16692754
anyway look up on sleep cycle and arrange yours accordingly.

>>16633526
now it makes sense....

This is God. Say something nice about it.

>>16341076
>>16341101
>Time, which comprises past and future is, in its entirety absolutely continuous. Through this continuity, which makes duration, it stands in contrast with eternity, which is on the contrary the intemporal ''instant'' without duration, the true present of which no temporal experience is possible. Eternity is reflected in the 'now' which at any given time both separates and unites the past and the future. Even this 'now' inasmuch as it is really without duration and consequently invariable and immutable, in spite of an illusion of 'movement' due to a consciousness submitted to the conditions of time and space, is not really distinct from eternity itself, to which the whole of time is always present in the totality of its extension. One can compare the relationship between eternity and time to that between the center and circumference: all points of the circumference and all the radii are simultaneously visible from the center, without this view interfering in any way with the movements taking place on the circumference or along the radii.
>Time itself would be inconceivable without this intemporal instant that is eternity, just as space would be inconceivable without the ''non-dimensional'' point. It is clear that the one of the two terms that gives the other all its meaning is also the most real in the true sense of the word.

>The essential nature of spatial shape is definable as an assemblage of directional tendencies: at every point in a line its directional tendency is specified by a tangent, and the assemblage of all the tangents defines the shape of the line. In 3-dimensional geometry the same is true of surfaces, straight line tangents being replaced by plane tangents; it is moreover evident that the shape of all bodies, as well as that of simple geometrical figures, can be similarly defined, for the shape of a body is the shape of the surface by which its volume is delimited. The conclusion toward which all this leads could be foreseen when the situation of bodies was being discussed, namely, that it is the notion of direction that without doubt represents the real qualitative element inherent in the very nature of space, just as the notion of size represents its quantitative element; and so space that is not homogeneous, but is determined and differentiated by its directions, may be called 'qualified' space. Indeed homogeneous space has properly speaking no existence at all, being nothing more than a mere virtuality. In order that it may be measured and this means -to be effectively realized-space must necessarily be related to an assemblage of defined directions. These directions moreover present themselves to us as radii emanating from a center, which thus becomes the center of a three-dimensional cross.

>The geometrical point is quantitatively nil and does not occupy any space, though it is the principle by which space in its entirety is produced since space is but the development of its intrinsic virtualities.

Hey /lit/ are you a dualist or a monist?

>>15896480
daily reminder that all great ancient philosophers saw pagan religion as a simplistic achaic tool to better manage the state and the proles and that high questions of metaphysics and philosophy tend to call on some monothiest conception of absolute divinity.

see for instance:

Plato
Aristotle
Circero

>>14790854
It's monism.
Then again, materialism is monism.

They don't have a good answer for where the dot came from.

>>14245849
>dude limit yourself
>make up a game. pretend its minecraft
There is a frontier for human progress to return to God. We are straying from that path and no amount of techno luxury will help. We are robbed spiritually. If people are going to eat up shit television and anime told you about romantic revisions of primitive life then it's safe to say that we're never going to achieve unity with God


tl;dr Start with the Greeks

>>10936284
No, you can't have multiple principles that justify themselves.

>>10868642
I would merely contend that an Abrahamic conception of God doesn't meet that platonic ideal. A personal being that recognizes things that happen as being somehow odious and which punishes it cannot be the ultimate divine principle.

What is the greatest argument against monism?