/lit/ - Literature

>>23071700
Imagine sperging like this instead of using your Will to Power to ignore bait that upsets you

>>18363630
>>18363581
although I forgot to say why for Parmenides.
Parmenides bitch-slaps anyone who thinks Plato hadn't "already thought about X" as regards to the forms or logic, every common critique of him are all dispelled by Laws and Parmenides, same with his Theaetetus and Sophist. The dichotomy Monism and Dualism, One and Many, are half of the whole ordeal of Plato's works; Platonism is the very overcoming of BOTH of them. If you call yourself a 'monist', without a clarification of what exactly you mean with "monism", you are not a Platonist; for the statement 'the One is All' or 'All is One' is NOT the negation of the true differences and multiplicity of that Allness; it's not who you are that is an undivided distinction to the One it's who you could be.
The self and infinite plurality of selves are not dissolved or fused in the One.

§4.3.5. But how will one soul still be yours, another this person’s and
another another’s? Will its lower part still belong to an individual, and
its higher part not to that individual, but to that which is above? If that is
the way it is, there will be Socrates whenever the soul of Socrates is in
a body, but he will perish exactly when he comes to be in the best state.
In fact, no Being perishes, since even in the intelligible world the
intellects there, just because they are not divided as bodies are, are not
lost into a unity, but each abides in its own identity in differentiation
from the rest. So, the same applies to souls, too, in their turn, depending
as they do each on an intellect, being expressed principles of the intel-
lects, and being more diffused than they are, having in a way become
much from little, and being in contact with the little which is, in each
instance, less divided than they are. They want to be divided, even
though unable to proceed to a full state of division, preserving as they
do both identity and difference, and so each remains one, and all
together are one.

>>16822522
>>16822319
Did you forget Islams golden age where they found, translated, and improved upon many fields of science and math?

Oh wait, you're just a faggot cherry picker who sucks priest cock.

>>16784379
>literal suicide cultist
You're already lost. I hope to God one day you look in the mirror and awaken from this nightmare

>>16392081
When on high the heaven had not been named,
Firm ground below had not been called by name,
Naught but primordial Apsu, their begetter,
And Mummu-Tiamat, she who bore them all,
Their waters commingling as a single body;
No reed hut had been matted, no marsh land had appeared,
When no gods whatever had been brought into being,
Uncalled by name, their destinies undetermined––
Then it was that the gods were formed within them.

Lahmu and Lahamu were brought forth, by name they were called.

(10) Before they had grown in age and stature,
Anshar and Kishar were formed, surpassing the others.
They prolonged the days, added on the years.
Anu was their heir, of his fathers the rival;
Yes, Anshar’s fi rst-born, Anu, was his equal.
Anu begot in his image Nudimmud.
This Nudimmud was of his fathers the master;
Of broad wisdom, understanding, mighty in strength,
Mightier by far than his grandfather, Anshar.
He had no rival among the gods, his brothers.

(20) The divine brothers banded together,
They disturbed Tiamat as they surged back and forth,
Yes, they troubled the mood of Tiamat
By their hilarity in the Abode of Heaven.
Apsu could not lessen their clamor
And Tiamat was speechless at their ways.
Their doings were loathsome unto. . . .
Unsavory were their ways; they were overbearing.
Then Apsu, the begetter of the great gods,
Cried out, addressing Mummu, his vizier:

(30) “O Mummu, my vizier, who rejoices my spirit,
Come here and let us go to Tiamat!” They went and sat down before Tiamat,
Exchanging counsel about the gods, their fi rst-born.
Apsu, opening his mouth,
Said to resplendent Tiamat: “Their ways are truly loathsome to me.
By day I fi nd no relief, nor repose by night.
I will destroy, I will wreck their ways,
That quiet may be restored. Let us have rest!”

Liberated from the dark cave of ignorance and opinion, brought up to the light of knowledge, the knowledge of the Forms and of the source of the Forms, the Form of the Good, the philosopher in Plato's Republic must then return to the cave, descending into it so as to put the knowledge thus acquired in the service of the prisoners in the cave. In short, the philosopher must become king. But why should the philosopher descend? Why must the philosopher become king?
We sense in Plato's text a reluctance in the philosopher to return to the cave (519c–520a). Must the philosopher return by reason of a social obligation arising from the fact that the purpose of the philosopher's ‘liberation’ (i.e. education) is the common good? Does this mean that the good of the philosopher is to be subordinated to the good of the city (cf. Rep. 519e)? Or is the return imposed by the need to prevent evil persons from appropriating political power (cf. Rep. 347c)? In other dialogues, Plato suggests less negative grounds than this for the return of the philosopher to politics. In the Symposium, the love of beauty expresses itself in the desire to procreate, and the highest form of procreation is that which gives birth to a wisdom which concerns the ordering of cities and households.231 And if we compare the maker of the world (or ‘demiurge’) of Plato's Timaeus with the maker of political order that is the statesman (and many pointers encourage this comparison),232 then, as the demiurge makes the world because of his goodness (Tim. 29e1–30a2), so too might the true statesman be inspired to act.

>>16147100
>>16147234
>>16147025
given micah 7 and the message of forgiveness and redemption.
That gehenna is eternal signifies that he removal of sin, once it has occurred, will be permanent. You won't be able to god back into sin because as Maximus the Confessor teaches our nature now participates the divine energies, all creation does, aka in the Good: which makes us co-actors of Good.

>>15778071
Based and Platopilled.

>>15758368
>no, the infant Dionysus is kidnapped and devoured
only because he left his throne, he being the heart of all souls, his myth is the legend of every soul's being down here. Just like he stepped down we all>>15758376
Unless you're a Guardian who is down here to guide souls to Olympus.

>>15665169
This.

>>15656990
But I DID start with the Greeks.

>>15653999
>>15653446
>>15653538
>>15650934
>>15653250
>It is in reply to this that they say generation participates in the power of acting and of being acted upon, but that neither power is connected with being.
And is there not something in that?
>Yes, something to which we must reply that we still need to learn more clearly from them whether they agree that the soul knows and that being is known.
They certainly assent to that.
>Well then, do you say that knowing or being known is an active or passive condition, or both? Or that one is passive and the other active? Or that neither has any share at all in either of the two?
Clearly they would say that neither has any share in either; for otherwise they would be contradicting themselves.
>I understand; this at least is true, that if to know is active, to be known must in turn be passive. Now being, since it is, according to this theory, known by the intelligence, in so far as it is known, is moved, since it is acted upon, which we say cannot be the case with that which is in a state of rest.
Right.
>But for heaven's sake, shall we let ourselves easily be persuaded that motion and life and soul and mind are really not present to absolute being, that it neither lives nor thinks, but awful and holy, devoid of mind, is fixed and immovable?
That would be a shocking admission to make, Stranger.
>But shall we say that it has mind, but not life?
How can we?
>But do we say that both of these exist in it, and yet go on to say that it does not possess them in a soul?
But how else can it possess them?
>Then shall we say that it has mind and life and soul, but, although endowed with soul, is absolutely immovable?
All those things seem to me absurd.
>And it must be conceded that motion and that which is moved exist.
Of course.
>Then the result is, Theaetetus, that if there is no motion, there is no mind in anyone about anything anywhere.
Exactly.
>And on the other hand, if we admit that all things are in flux and motion, we shall remove mind itself from the number of existing things by this theory also.
How so?
>Do you think that sameness of quality or nature or relations could ever come into existence without the state of rest?
Not at all.
>What then? Without these can you see how mind could exist or come into existence anywhere?
By no means.
>And yet we certainly must contend by every argument against him who does away with knowledge or reason or mind and then makes any dogmatic assertion about anything.
Certainly.
>Then the philosopher, who pays the highest honor to these things, must necessarily, as it seems, because of them refuse to accept the theory of those who say the universe is at rest, whether as a unity or in many forms, and must also refuse utterly to listen to those who say that being is universal motion; he must quote the children's prayer,1 “all things immovable and in motion,” and must say that being and the universe consist of both.

>>15639833
he's a worse doctor
Unless the rich man is a philantropist, through which the doctor by healing him aids millions.
Or alternatively, by curing this rich man's disease he discovers new methods which advances the medical sciences.

>>15497861
Baudrillard, Debord, etc.

>>15359684
if beauty is subjective then so is all change, if devolution wasn't real then the basis for evolution doesn't exist, objective change doesn't exist

>>15350738
>EVERYONE IS PLAYING PRETEND
Yes. the refusal to accept the immediate and apparent "reality" is at the heart of faith, for everything meaningful is behind and within projected onto the formless and meaningless matter.

>>15328131
I don't know hebrew so I just assumed the jews weren't as backbiting as this, to warp their own texts to disagree with everything older than the masoretic which is far younger than the Septuagint and other jewish texts of the psalm 22.
Clearly the masoretic is adulterated