/lit/ - Literature

Don't worry about it

Analytical philosophers hate questions, continental philosophers hate answers.

>>11083221
If you're just getting into philosophy it's not really of any importance

>>11083221
Mainly a divide between what areas and questions they deem important. For analytical think more "language puzzles and logic" and for continental more like "symbols and structures". But I might be wrong.

Don't "get into philosophy" with enlightenment philosophy. No matter who you ask, a great deal of it is bullshit. You won't be able to evaluate what is bullshit and what isn't unless you already have a solid philosophical foundation, which is why you should study ancient/medieval philosophy first.

>>11083221
It's a really overblown divide which broke down in the mid 20th century. It just has to do with different questions they're interested in.

>>11083251
Is there some kind of chart of where to begin with the Greeks?

>>11083251
Fuck off Kant destroyed your scholastic dogmatic autism.

>>11083269
Kant's refutation of scholastic philosophy was basically "I'm too brainlet to understand this, therefore no one can understand it and it's wrong"

>>11083266
>>11042192
>>11054391

>>11083269
> the enlightenment was based reeee

>>11083296
Yes I'm sure the reason nobody has given a shit about scholasticism for the past 200 years is because it's misunderstood, fuck off.

>>11083332
citing the machinations of the mob in a philosophical discussion, wew lad

>>11083332
>no one has given a shit about scholasticism in the past two hundred years
wew lad
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-scholasticism

>>11083344
>Paganism isn't dead, my sister is a Wiccan!

>>11083357
Philosophy is judged by whether it's correct or not, not whether it's """relevant""" or """dead""", as if truth could die. Once upon a time, philosophy was more than just a fashion statement.

>>11083357
In the last 200 years we have also decided that the Japanese are interchangeable with Aborigines, women deserve to be treated like men, and a man who has chopped his dick off and taken hormone supplements is a woman.

Modern people aren't wiser than their ancestors.

>>11083366
What kind of truths has philosophy begotten recently?

>>11083366
Can you accept that maybe Aristotle just wasn't right about everything? That's reasonable.

>>11083384
Truth isn't "begotten". It's eternal and unchanging. Truth 1,000 years ago is Truth today and Truth 1,000 years from now.

>>11083233
underrated

>>11083385
Yes.

>>11083392
Okay but provide some examples

>>11083392
My nigga.

>>11083396
E.g. the contingency of the world, the eternity of God, the Unity of God, the infinity of God, etc

>>11083404
God is nothing but a concept of the mind

>>11083408
name a truth that actually changes.

>>11083408
Then what is the prime mover? Every observable thing, which you empiricists love so dearly, has a cause. It is a uniform property of the entirety of observable existence, and yet you have absolutely no interest in determining the cause of existence. Shameful.

>>11083408
God is the Truth. Without an ultimate Truth as a standard, relative and contingent truths are also thrown out the window hence rendering your claim meaningless.

>>11083415
shut up brainlet faggot read some epistemology

>>11083413
t. didn't move past Aquinas
probably didn't even read Aquinas
>>11083415
t. Jordan Memerson

>>11083422
For epistemological claims to be considered "true" there must be a standard for determining what truth is. That standard is either the final standard, hence the Truth itself, or it is in turn dependant on another standard prior to it. Such a chain of reasoning must eventually trace itself back to God.

>>11083423
>Abandon truth, get with the times
I've never once heard anyone effectively refute this argument. Be my guest.

>>11083423
memerson is a psychological reductionist, i.e. he's closer to this poster's views than mine
>>11083422
>>11083408

The difference between continental philosophy and analytic is the tradition behind them. They are two different "attitudes" towards philosophy if that makes sense. Analytic philosophy is much more empirical and more concerned with, like anon said above, things like math and language. The writing style tends to be very formal and organized, reflecting analytic ways of viewing problems.
Continental on the other hand is much more "romantic" for lack of a better term and discusses problems like existence, ethics, politics, etc. and this romantic approach generally shows in its more "flowery" and creative prose.

>>11083427
did you get picked on in high school? honest question

>>11083435
There's a great deal of analytic phil that deals with ethics. Continentals are too cynical to ever approach it systematically.

>>11083514
Nope.

>>11083427
>For epistemological claims to be considered "true" there must be a standard for determining what truth is
fine statement
>That standard is either the final standard, hence the Truth itself, or it is in turn dependant on another standard prior to it
love the classic pseud move of "if i capitalize letters in regular words to give them more prominence it makes me look deep." There is no reason to believe however that a standard must be dependant on another standard. Where is the logic here? This is just the classic medieval religious argument of "the universe MUST have a creator cause it was put in motion and a thing in motion must have a beginning" its fucking meme tier dude
>Such a chain of reasoning must eventually trace itself back to God.
are you fucking retarded? where in the actual fuck did this come from? Lets write out your argument in a step by step format:

1. To say something is "true" we must relate that concept of "truth" to a standard
2. That truth is related to an external standard which has a standard prior to itself
3. Therefore God is the only standard for truth

This argument makes literally no fucking sense. Yes we must have a "standard" for what "truth" is otherwise everything would be relativist. But premise 2 does not lead from argument 1. You need to first argue that all standards are reliant on a previous standard, which is a stupid argument which makes no sense. So your argument falls apart after the establishing premise, but then out of nowhere you basically just make the claim that everything must be objectively grounded in a god? Why? There are many "truths" that have absolutely nothing to do with some diety. The grass is green, the sky is blue, you are a dumb faggot, these are all facts which we can clearly infer from interacting with the world. There are in fact many different ways of coming up with standards to deduce what is true and what is not.

>>11083233
this but unironically

>>11083544
Also here are several prominent theories of truth which are non-objective:

- correspondence theory of truth: what is true is what is immediately correlative with reality. this is the view that most greek philosophers take and the majority of philosophers take this position. For example if I touch this table it is true that I have the knowledge that i have touched this table. Its directly correlative to reality so its "true."
- coherence theory of truth: X is true if X is supported by a coherent system of beliefs and facts which form a self-sufficient system of "truths" (this is more popular as a theory of knowledge but some philosophers use it for truth as well - personally i find it not convincing)
- pragmatic theory of truth: what is true is what works in practice. Basically a sort of extension of the correspondence theory.

Your argument is stupid and defunct. There is absolutely no reason that there must be a god in order to have a standard for truth. You didn't even provide an argument you just made a dumb statement which argues based on itself, it just argued itself by stating itself as a truth. How is my using my sight to infer that grass is green dependant on god? It is not. There is no reason for objective god-based "truth standards" literally get the fuck off of this board.

>>11083544
Capitalizing Truth distinguishes it from relative or contingent truths. I'm identifying God with Truth. They are synonymous and interchangeable.

>>11083558
not an argument

>>11083552
>correspondence theory of truth
And what makesnthe correspondence theory of truth true? Do you use the correspondence theory to justify the correspondence theory? That's circular reasoning.
>coherence
Coherence alone is obviously insufficient, sunce coherence and truth are simply two different things. Something can be coherent and untrue.
>pragamatism
conflating utility and truth. They are two separate things.

>>11083558
no under 18's allowed on 4chan

>>11083565
True, it's a definition, not an argument. Now that you know the definition of the terms you can read them back into the argument.

>>11083565
this is not an argument
>>11083571

>>11083579
absolutely epic takedown you are a galaxy brain genius my good sir tip of the hat to you!!
*edit: thanks for the gold fellow redditor Peterson fans!

>>11083531
This

>>11083296
>tfw too intelligent for critical reasoning

>>11083531
thats why i tried to define them as different attitudes rather than define them as two things that are separated only by the questions they're concerned with

>>11083590
>peterson fan
>>11083431

also ive been here way longer than you newfriend

>>11083574
It's not a definition, it's an attempt to set up a shallow equivocation by arguing "truth" exists, calling it "God," and then substituting the definition of God with the conventional theistic Christian conception of him, non of which is entailed by the argument.

>>11083574
>truth is god
This is a meaningless statement. If I say that the phenomenal world must be grounded in something eternal and unchanging, this is true, since causality rests upon the contiguity of objects in time. Yet this truth still tells me nothing about the absolute nature of reality beyond the human experience. You cannot discuss anything about God in terms of true and false or existence and non-existence or something and nothing.

>>11083296
Hmu when you can know something noumenal LOL

>>11083609
No, I didn't stutter. I'm using them as synonyms. If you like you can take the word "God" out of the original argument and substitute "the Truth".

>>11083544
>the universe must have a creator cause it was put in motion and a thing in motion must have a beginning
this is literally true and calling it meme tier isn't a refutation

>>11083611
Knowledge is not only experiential. We also have metaphysica knowledge.

>>11083618
You can't apply causality to something which is beyond time. To say that God "caused" time to exist is nonsense; time is a condition for causality.

>>11083567
>And what makesnthe correspondence theory of truth true? Do you use the correspondence theory to justify the correspondence theory? That's circular reasoning
No it's not. The argument is purely correlative. I look at X in front of me. I say "X is in front of me." It is derived from a self evident proposition. There is no need to refer to a reasoned "theory" of any sort. This is why correspondence theory is the most popular theory of truth. There are also a priori truths such as mathematics which are not dependent on the existence of a diety. 2+2=4, this is an a priori truth that corresponds with reality it doesn't need to refer to any "standard"

>>11083626
These are the first two lines of the Critique of Pure Reason. You don't know what you're talking about Kant will explain everything for babby if you just read it.

>>11083635
Time is an image of Eternity. It is Becoming striving after Being.

>>11083653
That's great but you still can't talk about causality without presupposing time. You diminish your own conception of the Godhead by speaking nonsense about it.

>>11083618
>this is literally true and calling it meme tier isn't a refutation
>the universe must have a creator
>this is literally true
really activating my almonds

>>11083635
>time is a condition for causality
All things have cause. If nothing generated time, time wouldn't exist.
The only thing capable of "causing" time is something which exists outside of time, the prime mover.

>>11083644
All mathematics is derived from the concept of Unity which is, again, identical with God, which is identical with that ultimate Truth. You can't have multiplicity without unity, otherwise what are you multiplying? The One is prior to the multiple. lern2metaphysics.

After all, how do you know that 2+2=4? If it's purely tautological then it's meaningless.
>the argument is purely correlative
No it isn't. "Is", the concept of Being, is not correlative to some empirical phenomena, and is necessary for such a statement as "X is in front of me" to be possible.

>>11083657
In essence you're saying that, ontologically, nothing can exist unless it is situated in time, but obviously God is something conceptually capable of existing outside of time.

>>11083673
Time isn't a thing. Do you realize how absurd it is to say the phrase "caused time to exist"? Think about it. Succession lies within time, not outside of it, therefore it is meaningless to say that something preceded succession.

>>11083684
I'm saying if the term existence doesn't refer to things situated in time, then you destroy the meaning of the word altogether. For this reason you cannot apply it to God, by saying that he exists or doesn't exist.

>>11083701
Not alll causes are temporal. Some things are logically prior to others, and therefore dependant on them. That's another sense in which the word "cause" can be used.
>>11083701
Existence in time is a special mode of existence, not existence as such.

>>11083712
Causality presupposes time and space. Explain how one thing can necessarily lead to one another without contingency and temporality. No one says that 2 plus 2 "causes" 4.

>>11083701
Would you hold that time is limited or endless?

>>11083720
If something is logically, ontologically, or metaphysically prior to something else it can be said to be the "cause" of it. This is a normal use of that word in the context of philosophy. If it triggers you so much, then substitute for some other word that irks you less. I'll stick with "cause".

>>11083721
Oh, this brings up another argument for God. The limited implies the limitless. The limitless/infinite is prior to the limited/finite. Otherwise what are you "limiting"? If you are further limiting something else that is limited than that limited thing, by definition, is a limitation of something else. Eventually this has to lead back to the unlimited, i.e. God.

>>11083721
Neither. You can't describe time by what it imposes on things.

>>11083731
Show me an instance of the word in this context.

>>11083743
So you are saying that God is that which can be limited?

>>11083750
>Show me an instance of the word in this context.
Are you actualy this ignorant of philosophy?
>>11083752
No, the limited is limited relative to the limitless. By definition the limitless cannot be limited.

>>11083613
Hmu when you explain why you can apply the category of existence to noumena but not the category of causality

>>11083701
>if the term existence doesn't refer to things situated in time, then you destroy the meaning of the word altogether
imagine being this enamored of the world of Becoming

>>11083750
How is time the imposer of the dichotomy of limited and limitless? For one, no thing under time is limitless which means that you could only say time is the imposer of limit. So hypothetically if time were the imposer of limit, what of limitlessness? Does it not exist? Would time itself be limitless?

>>11083767
>God is limitless
This doesn't really say anything.
Time is "limitless". Space is "limitless". Both are conditions for limitation. Yet I do not say that time and space are God.

>>11083788
Time and space are not limitless brainlet

>>11083785
Trying to say that time is limited or limitless is like trying to say that a war is victory or defeat. War is a condition for victory or defeat, whereas time is a condition for limitation or limitlessness.

Limitless is just another word for indefinite. We can say that matter subsists indefinitely, but this only has meaning in time.

>>11083788
>Time is "limitless"
Time is clearly not limitless, otherwise there would be no "parts" to it. The limitless cannot be divided into sections since that would be imposing a limitation on it. Time is divided by moments and into past, present, and future. The same applies to space, which is divided into sections. and distinguised by directions.

>>11083701
So everything within time is subject to the law of succession or causality, but time is not. That's where we're at, right?
What caused things to exist within time? Time can't be the cause of existence, because time is not a cause, it is a necessary element of causality. What caused all existing things in the universe to obey causality? What is the original cause?

>>11083799
>Limitless is just another word for indefinite.
No those are two different things. But I'm glad that you bring upnthe word indefinite, because that's precisely what we could say about time if, hypothetically it "just kept going and going". Same goes for space. Neither are limitless, however, as shown by this post
>>11083801

>>11083799
>Limitless is just another word for indefinite.
Absolutely wrong.

Limitless is a synonym of in-finite, not in-definite. It's funny because describing things as indefinite actually implies limit so you're just strengthening my point.

>>11083802
>what caused all existing things to obey causality
This is the same thing as asking "what caused time". The question has no meaning.

>>11083812
It is absurd to say "time is unending" or in other words "indefinite." See my response to the other comment.

>>11083832
What caused things in time to exist?

>>11083830
Infinite implies limit as well.

>>11083847
>not-finite implies finite
never change, /lit/

>>11083832
Ok, I don't know what other comment you are referring to but I think there is a debate to be had over whether time is indefinite or not, and I don't have a settled position on it. I don't think it's a logical impossibility, at least. However, it is definitely not limitless, and limitless and indefinite are also not the same thing.
>what caused time
Do we have to point out to you again that not all "causes" are temporal? Again, if that use of the word "cause" triggers you than reword the sentence in your head: e.g. "time is dependant on eternity which is the principle prior to it, and which alone renders it possible".

>>11083847
the infinite is necessarily prior to the to the finite. It's literally the definition if finite. Etymologically it means to "finish" i.e. to cut something off, to limit it. It requires something prior to it (i.e. the infinite) be a tenable concept.

>>11083847
Alright little guy here's the thing, when we say infinite we mean it as an objective and absolute descriptor. Indefinite is not, it implies a subject with a lack of knowledge or perception. Colloquially infinite may be used with this same "unable to comprehend the scope" sentiment, but we are speaking in philosophical terms so obviously it is not meant in this way.

>>11083845
>>11083858
>>11083861
>>11083877
>>11083889
It doesn't matter how many times you reaffirm the argument or rephrase it: you cannot speak about God within dualities. Existence vs non-existence, being vs becoming, prior to vs after, cause vs effect. You are trying to conceptualize God. Why? God is not an idea. You must learn the limits of your own reasoning power. If God were reducible to a principle, or a reason, or a deduction, or a definition ***God would not be God*** anymore but something circumscribable, differentiable, etc. Stop these absurdities. Kant did not kill God, he killed man's fantasies about him. St. John of the Cross urged his disciples to quiet their own reason, to dispense with all logical and scientific conjecturing, and to enter into deep silence and darkness. You will not gain anything by "proving" that which is beyond all proof. You cannot look at the noumenal reality. "You" don't "look" at such "things".

>>11083905
Language is symbolic, words and concepts point toward and indicate the symbolized but are not identical with it. You are correct that ultimately we have to move past them, but language is not merely arbitrary and conventional. There is a real analogy between symbol and symbolized, especialy with regard to divinely revealed languages, e.g. sanskrit, arabic, hebrew etc

>>11083928
this

>>11083905
We all agree on this point my guy.
Language can never encapsulate the fullness of God, that's why any adjective we give to him is analogical, and that is why our reference to his entirety can only be apophatic.

>>11083928
I never said it was arbitrary. I'm saying that which the words signify is still not God. Defining God as "limitless" or "unmoved" and so forth is speaking like God is some part of aspect of the phenomenal universe. God is not the universe, nor anything you can say about it, nor anything symbolized by something else, be it words or images. Take the wheel of time in Eastern systems. This wheel of time posits the nature of reality. In the center lies that which ties everything together and provides the condition for the cycles of history. What is this center? Is it God? Is it some work of God? We can speak about it as a "condition" but this is all we can really assert about it, no? We know and can know nothing about that which lies "beyond"? Do you see how I cannot even talk about it, because as soon as I do, I fall back into the the vain effort of trying to describe something in terms which really only describe the world.

It is vain to say or think anything about God. Even that which lies above the cloud of unknowing—is this God? As soon as I ask this, I am back on the earth, looking up at the stars through the atmosphere, through my own eye.

>>11083966
>apophatic
Exactly. The word "infinite" is itself apophatic. It's in-finite, not finite. When you negate finitude you're left with God as the only reality.

>>11083973
"limitless" is precisley something which cannot be a part of the manifested universe. It's an apophatic term. I'm negating that which isn't God, not saying something positive about him. Limit-less, no limits.

>>11083966
Yes but you don't know what you are saying. You are speaking nonsense. This is why philosophy is in such a sad state of affairs. We are still having this existence vs nonexistence debate. It is supreme silliness and profitable to no one. It is better to unerstand the limitations of your own reason that to let it run wild and fall into vain conjecturing. It is not a "refutation of God" to admit that no proof of him is conceivable. It is a merely a recognition that the infinity which I can imagine in my own mind is a mere projection of the faculty which my sense of time provides for me as a means of forming a causal understanding of the phenomenal world, but this infinity is not God.

>>11083994
You can't imagine the infinite. It's not a positive thing to be imagined but rather a negation of everything that can be imagined. Anything which can be imagined is necessarily finite.

>>11083990
Really try to imagine what you mean by the apophatic usage of "limitless". You will only find that you are just looking into the abyss of your own mind, not at God. Nor is there any reason to imagine that God bears a likeness to anything you can imagine in your mind.

>>11083251
>>11083302
I want to read the Epics anyway, but why are they required for the philosophical stuff?

>>11084007
If you want an apophatic description of God, it is easier just to use Bohme's "God is nothing".

>>11083973
>Defining God as "limitless" or "unmoved" and so forth is speaking like God is some part of aspect of the phenomenal universe.
No it in fact implies the complete opposite. Everything of the phenomenological universe is "limited" and "moved", God is not. Not limited, not moved, etc. Entirely ontologically distinct.

>>11084009
Dude you cited John of the Cross who was a Christian who believes in an incarnation of God, a Logos, an Icon of God (as the Eastern Church would have it), that is an Image, or, rather THE Image of God. This goes back to my statement about the real analogy between the symbol and the symbolized. The image is in real analogy with the thing it depicts.

>>11084027
>God is not. Not limited, not moved, etc.
And add also "not limitless, not unmoved" and we are in full agreement.

>>11084020
God as "nothing" has disagreeable connotations so I would never phrase it as such.

>>11084027
>God is nothing
Assuming you mean that as not-thing, then it's exactly the same as the apophatic terms I used. They all converge on the same point.

>>11084034
Not limitless is a synonym for limited you absolute brainlet. If you're that cynical/skeptical about language the stop discussing these ideas with us as from your point of view it's completely self-defeating.

>>11084049
>the stop
then stop*

>>11083653
>le magian mystic man xdddd

What does this even mean? A conceptual notion doesn't strive after anything

>>11084010
I suppose, strictly speaking, they aren't. But they describe a world of better men, braver, stronger, more honorable. It gets memed a lot in the modern world, but it actually does help to understand the cultural context which ideas emerge from. And there is actually a fair amount of philosophy contained in the Epics, just not philosophy qua philosophy.

>>11084058
>le nominalism man
Why discuss notions at all?

>>11084049
>You can't understand God.
>He is limitless.

You are the one vainly erecting idiocies.

>>11084061
Who said I was a nominalist? Making a category mistake and calling it mysticism is vacuous nonsense

>>11084066
Saying he is limitless is the same as saying he is not limited. I'm pointing at limited things and saying "nope, not God". That's what apophaticism is. Stop typing.

>>11084075
>"nope, not God"
Yes and that's why you are a heretic.

>>11084074
It's not "mysticism" it's philosophy and to quote your own post
>What does this even mean?
i.e. you are ignorant of the meaning of that statement and hence are in no position to criticize it. Read the section entitled "Time and Eternity" from the Enneads.

>>11084066
Do you really think that anyone here is saying they in their current state can comprehend the entirety of God?

>>11084084
Are you God? If I say that you, a limited being, are not God by virtue of being limited, does that make me a heretic?

>>11084085
Yeah, how about you warrant it for me because I'm not going to read Egyptian nigger scribbles

If it's philosophy, it's poor philosophy

>>11083221
The most obvious difference between analytical and continental philosophy is their respective writing styles. If you're the kind of guy that likes to know what words mean and hate when people use buzzwords without ever defining them, you're an analytic kind of guy. If you feel like trying painstakingly to make your thoughts completely clear is a futile exercise in autismo, you're a continental kind of guy.

>>11084088
Why should we believe that we can understand one thing about him?

>>11084095
Do you see the pit which you have walked into? This is what I am trying to get you to avoid. You look at me and say, "not God". You are looking for God in a duality. You see but you do not believe.

>>11084102
>If it's philosophy, it's poor philosophy
lol how can you call it poor philosophy if you, self-admittedly, are ignorant of the meaning of that statement. You're literally in no position to make that judgement. That's like me walking into a biochem class (a subject I know nothing about) and saying "lol this is dumb wtf are u fags talking about".

>>11084113
>>11084095
>>11084084
>>11084075
how many levels of esoteric theological squabbling are you guys on right now, holy shit

>>11084113
Fuck off with your boring god bullshit; stop derailing the thread you absolute faggot. Go sacrifice a goat to your favorite deity or something.

>>11084113
>You are looking for God in a duality.
No, I'm precisely rejecting the possibility that God is a duality, or that anything which partakes of duality could be God. Wait a sec, are you saying that God is NOT dual, i.e. that he is nondual, i.e. that he is a Unity, i.e. that he is limitless, i.e. that he is infinite? Gotcha sucker.

>>11084118
Right, I suggested you demonstrate the meaning. Clearly you cannot.

>>11084131
That is what he's saying, but he's trying to say it by not saying that's he's not not saying it.

>>11084133
>wants me to explain Neoplatonic philosophy on an imageboard
Yeah, I don't think you realize how damn complex Neoplatonism is. There is no bite-size version. If the short post above didn't make sense you can look up the full explanation. It's only one short chapter.

>>11084131
>anything which partakes of duality could be God.
>God is not such and such

You still aren't escaping duality. Do you see how meaningless these conjectures of "God is this" and "God is not this" are? If you really knew God you would not look at me and say "this is not God".

>>11084137
lmao, he doesn't know that he's saying the same thing as me is my whole point, he thinks he's on some transcendant high horse where language is completely useless

>>11084125
it was already established in the thread that the analytic vs continental debate is for wankers and true philosophers shouldn't concern themselves with it

>>11084133
Not him, but time's metaphysical place is that of the realm in which the world of Being resembles the world of Becoming, it is an image of eternity (the world of Being) but only an image, not the real deal, because obviously things within time are not Eternal.

Here's the part where you say "thats dum lel"

>>11084145
Oh? SHOULD I escape duality? Why is that, anon? Why should I escape duality? Is duality *gasp* INCOMPATIBLE WITH GOD. Is u sayin that God, hol up, is nondual n shieeet, ayo that be like the same thing as Unity, like hol up dawg, that's like limitless n shieeeeet.

>>11084144
I'm familiar with Neoplatonism. It's the era when the Greek philosophical tradition decayed into magic and mysticism.

>>11084157
Eternity doesn't exist. There can be no infinite succession of moments, as the infinite is a mere mathematical notion that is involved in all sorts of contradiction

>>11083775
fucking SICK burn

>>11084144
I don't think he even knows Plato frankly.
>>11084145
I'm definitely not saying that you aren't something which couldn't be limited to a concept that isn't eternally indescribable except by avoiding stating how indescribable it isn't, I wouldn't know how else to avoid not making you understand what I'm not trying to communicate to you.

>>11084166
>I understand Neoplatonism
>*historical reductionism*
my sides

>>11084165
Ease up king, don't want to coerce him to suicide.

>>11084165
Show me one instance where limitless has been interchanged for non-dual.

>>11084173
but where's the argument?

the analytic continental divide meant a little more back when the analytics still had an ongoing paradigm that anyone gave a fuck about, like ordinary language philosophy. nowadays analytics are basically fluffers for cognitive science and AI, or they do old dumb shit that nobody cares about anymore, like "modal logic." more and more these days ,it's becoming a vague catch-all category for "everything traditionally associated with analytic philosophy back in the day," plus its general concern for STEM/positivism being sadly distorted into ideological support for AI garbage.

analytic doesnt even cover the pragmatists anymore. all the pragmatists these days do much more continental than analytic things.

basically the only reason that the distinction still exists is that british and to a slightly lesser extent american and canadian philosophy departments at universities are still staffed exclusively by analytics. they prefer to teach the world they knew back in the 60s-90s even if that world has become mummified.

>>11084185
They're not *exactly* interchangeable but they are necessarily predicates of the same "thing". Duality is a division which is a limitation. To lack duality is to lack limitation.

>>11084188
Where's YOUR argument? Neoplatonism is not a "historical era in which Greek philosophy was subverted by interstellar kikes" or whateve hogwash you believe. If you want to criticize it you have to engage with it as a system of thought, which is what it is, hence to engage with its concepts directly. Making tangential historical remarks is literally not an argument.

>>11083544
way to have a pleb's understanding of "god"

>>11084145
>If you really knew God you would not look at me and say "this is not God"
If YOU really knew God you would not tell people that they don't know God because they don't call you God.

Fuck it, im done. Ok you guys win. Yes, neoplatonism is le degenerate nigger magic and language is bad doo doo me no like no more use words heidkduehegwididheuwuhhUeh

>>11084224
w-what

>>11084226
STOP USING WORDS LANGUAGE BAD GOD NO DUALITY BUT THAT DOESNT MEAN HE IS NONDUAL IT MEANS NEOPLATONISM IS NIGGER MAGIC

>>11084238
But He is nondual...
are u ok

oh godni think i blew a fuse in my brain whats happening to me someone help

>>11084197
See the second resposne

>>11084166

>>11084210
You'll notice that one of the biggest pitfalls of this kind of material is that they readily employ category mistakes. For example, time as a concept or idea is unextended and simple. Being unextended, it occupies no space. Therefore, it cannot strive or change in any way toward anything. Even if you grant that time is merely a quantitative measure of spatial duration, endless movement of a thing contradicts the laws of thermodynamics.

>>11084224
Not sure if same person, but Iamblichus was a literal indigenous Arab that would impersonate Egyptian priests to argue his points and attacked the Greeks as irreligious people because the earlier, philosophical form of Platonism didn't respect magical operations as philosophy.

>>11083332
Partially true. You left out the part about how Scholasticism is currently making a huge return in philosophy and has been for the past 15-20 years.

Also, just because a bunch of enlightenment, modernist, and post-modernist faggots forgot about Scholasticism in no way invalidates it's application as a philosophical method. I'd stand alongside Aristotle, Aquinas, Scotus, et al rather than Kant, Hegel, Derrida, etc.

>>11084247
w-what's happening to me...i feeel somehow...different...yes...YES...at last i truly see: language poo poo, nondual and not dual are bad words, neoplatonism is not a philosophy its a historical era where niggers interbred with kikes and gave birth to magic, at last i truly understand GOD but i dont actually understand because thats liek mysticism bro dont use words

>>11084252
>but Iamblichus was a literal indigenous Arab
yeah bro i only use white people philosophy, arab logic isnt as good as white people logic. I just find that the arab syllogism leaves something to be desired y'know? white people syllogism is airtight my dude

>>11084272
Hahaha, Iamblichus argued that the gods were "ineffable" and couldn't be intellected at all. So much for arabic syllogism. Imagining that cuck sitting in his arab hut with a bunch of painted rocks around him thinking he had reached apotheosis brightens my day.

>>11084253
You could try actually reading Kant. It's not like you have to choose one or the other. Kant wasn't right about everything. Augustine wasn't right about everything. etc

>because I perceive every phenomenon to have a cause this must be true
>because I perceive that every phenomenon I perceive has a cause, every phenomenon must have a cause
This is how stupid you sound.
If people read Hume and Kant this thread could have been avoided, but scholastic autism knows no bounds.

>>11084596
This trainwreck was "caused" by a scholastic urging people to ignore Hume and Kant lol

>>11083413
>>11083743

this fubbin nibba still dinking in aristotelian terms

shm desu famalamjam

this is why you read the greeks

>>11083221

>>11084596
name a phenomenon that wasn't caused. I won't hold my breath.
>>11084614
telling someone who wants to learn philosophy to read hume and kant is like telling someone interested in engineering to start with the diagram for a boeing 747.

>>11084794
hume is one of the most approachable writers you'll ever read in the canon imo

>>11084753
this is the first time an image on here makes me laugh out loud

>>11083296
where do i start with scholastic autism?

>>11083384
The sheer volume of interpretation, and the hopeless and chaotic struggle that ensues. Though there is a simple solution; authority.

However, all authority is backed by God and the divine, so we shall see if western man worships himself and his dystopias more than God.

>>11083392
Trump wasn't president 1000 years ago, so the claim that "Trump is president" would be false then...
So there are eternal truths and fluxy truths.

>>11085077
The thing is, even a phrase as seemingly simple as "Trump is president" rests on countless assumed axioms, all of which themselves can be drawn back to the Ultimate Truth.

Truth really is One.

>>11085109
To think that 'the one truth' would have the potential to cause all existence, including all aspects of it and all the potential...
God makes the most sense of all axioms because of the scope of the axiom.

>>11085109
ok, deconstruct please

>>11083775
>>11084167
Although, technically speaking, 'causality' is not a category, but is rather a "pure concept of the understanding."

>>11085210
Alright, here's just a few rapid-fire ones

>Trump.. who is Trump? Donald Trump? Melania Trump? Walter Trump, the mathemetician? etc.

>is ... what do you mean Trump "is" president? Is his intrisic essence "presidential?" Maybe you just mean he "current;y holds the office" of president? In which case, what are the political systems sustaining such a concept? US democracy, founded in the 1700s? Which itself was a result of Enlightenment thinking at the time? etc. etc.

>president... he's "president", but what exactly does that mean? He has executive authority over the United States federal government? Oh boy, that's just opened up about a dozen different axioms. Where does this "authority" derive from? What legitimacy does the federal government have, over say state governments? Is the "United States" even a single thing? etc. etc. etc.

You get my drift.