/lit/ - Literature

>>12234679

ffs just read Guenon

I need some serious answer

What is metaphysics? Whats the best introduction?

>>12234759
Metaphysics is a huge subject, so you need to specify what you need. Mereology? Ontology? Phenomenology? Cosmogony? Causality? Theology? Identity? Time?

>>12234679
It’s kind of a confusing question. Heidegger changed what metaphysics means for everyone who came after him and was influenced by him. As such, Heidegger-influenced thinkers don’t really write proper metaphysical texts, or deal with metaphysics in a more traditional way. The people who do write such texts are in the analytic stream, and basically work in complete oblivion of Heidegger. They are post-Heideggerian in a chronological sense, but they don’t write in the wake of Heidegger, they aren’t cognizant of the “break” Heidegger signalled in philosophy, and it doesn’t factor into their work. They are happily humming along in more or less the same mode that metaphysical thinkers stretching all the way back to the Greeks were humming along in.

>>12236339
>>12236363

I don't know guys. I have made my way through Heidegger and I was hoping there was some book that is influential in the field written in the last 30 years. I'm interested in something radical, that maybe tries to address subjective idealism. Definitely not something with a pragmatic attitude.

Bro

DESCARTES PUTAIN

I need a serious answer

>>12236339
>he conflates metaphysics with mereology, ontology, phenomenology, causality, theology, identity and time
gunna be a yikes from me

>>12236561
Zizek's Less than nothing
Sloterdijk's Spheres series
Harman's OOO (if you side with Heidegger on ontology)

>>12236646
Calm down my dear French Jew.

>>12237649
Thank you very much

>>12234720
fippybippy

>>12234679
This is on a level above Heidegger's metaphysics

>>12238123
I know. But I want to get into the contemporary western metaphysics . To start a dialogue you have to speak the language of your interlocutor

>>12236646
kek

>>12237649
if you have to read any of these post-"metaphysics" memelords just read Meillassoux

>>12237635
I really don't think you know much about it, my dude.

>>12236561
>I have made my way through Heidegger
The point isn't to read him from cover to cover. Wege - nicht Werke, and all that.

Also, I seriously doubt you 'made your way' through Heidegger. There's like sixty books worth reading in the GA. I can understand not reading all of it, but try and put some effort in if you're looking to do philosophy.

All metaphysics after Heidegger and Wittgenstein has been either:
a) subjective idealism, typically reifying Heidegger's architectonic and bewilderingly confusing his lack of commentary about the facticity of the external world as some kind of metaphysical commitment to its unreality
b) degenerate scientific naturalism, with its materialist-monist substance ontology still intact, half-conscious for a few thinkers but mostly unconscious as the research program continues to bear fruit (i.e., engineering applications; new ontical "discoveries" that cover up the lack of metaphysical novelty or depth)
c) degenerate naturphilosophie that substitutes the materialist-monist substance ontology for some trendy new ontology of panpsychism or "mimesis" or "firstness," etc., without fundamentally addressing the problem that substance ontology is substance ontology, and they are still doing ontical science, not metaphysics
d) "traditionalist" mystics who confuse dianoia for noesis, i.e., who confuse stereotyped ontical muthoi about super-sensible forms with their occasional (and purported) mystical ekstasis and (purported) direct intuition of the logos, and think that the latter somehow solves the problem of the former mere apophaticisms being always still muthoi

(a) is moribund and dangerous because it promotes laxity, (b) is dangerous, (c) is very dangerous because it's (b) in disguise and lends itself to degenerate transhumanism, (d) is moribund and promotes laxity

>>12238699
Dangerous kek

>>12238699
how do you know whether someone is being dogmatic or reifying or ontical? I understand in a general way how to tell but isnt there a danger of being subject to sophistical abuse of others' perspectives and a kind of solipsistic absorption? I'm saying this because I am in tune with much of what I've seen you post but things like
>They are happily humming along in more or less the same mode that metaphysical thinkers stretching all the way back to the Greeks were humming along in.
seem suspect to me, respecting the 'stretching all the way back', not the 'they'. I would also contest the exhaustiveness of (d) as alternative to a, b, and c. Traditionalists and 'mystics' are an easy target as real and numerous as they might be even in 'authentic' foreign contexts (I have never been sympathetic to advaita-smelling 'traditions').

>>12234679
Metaphysics is dead you fucking moron.

For the past 80 years at least all contributions have been made by famous Physicists. I don't think there has ever been a famous metaphysician in modern times. That should tell you something.

>>12239289
Hello, faggot. It's me.

>>12239281
Best cover

bump

>>12234679
Western Philosophy died with Spengler, nothing will fill the void you feel unless you're in the Sino-Slavic region where a new Culture is blossoming.

>>12234720
Guenon does NOT use metaphysics in the same sense as Heidegger (who EXPLICITLY says that all metaphysics is just ontology). As someone who has allegedly read Guenon you should know this.

Heidegger's work, if at all, is mostly just relevant to the Human element in Guenon's shitty, lazily-researched "The Great Triad."

Guenon is an absolute garbage researcher but an amazing metaphysician. It's a really annoying combination to slog through most of his work.

>>12240338
Tell me more about this blossoming culture, anon

>>12240347
Where can someone admire his amazing metaphysician skills ?

>>12238699
>traditionalist" mystics who confuse dianoia for noesis, i.e., who confuse stereotyped ontical muthoi about super-sensible forms with their occasional (and purported) mystical ekstasis and (purported) direct intuition of the logos, and think that the latter somehow solves the problem of the former mere apophaticisms being always still muthoi

You seem to have confused entry-level descriptions with the end-all be-all, the point is not to forward a complete metaphysical model of the universe but to directly experience the bliss of spiritual realization. There is no confusion of the ontic model or dianoia for the noesis of realization because the model itself explains discursive thought is not the means to reach noesis and that anything that can be held as an object of thought can never be it; the nature of non-dual awareness is delimited in the related primary texts too clearly for there to be any confusion about that. The ontic ideas used to illustrate certain principles are all explicitly negated by later teachings in the same texts and are only a means to an end, what the Buddhists call an upaya, you'd already know this if you had read any of the literature yourself. Ecstatic states and direct intuition are very much real and quite possible to experience if you read the right stuff. That requires willingness to dive into the unknown though, from the way you insinuate (purported) ekstasis it's clear that you have disdain for such matters, it's ironic that you have issues with these people but also bemoan scientific naturalism as degenerate. You think they're morons for not being able to get past basic materialism but then you're not comfortable when other people reject materialism even more than you do. Once you realize that the direct experience of these states transcends any sort of dick-measuring contest over pet-theories of metaphysics it allows you to begin to penetrate deeper into the real nature of things.

>One day they're really gunna get the metaphysics right just like you want kid, in a way that disprove , they'll cite Heidegger and all the other big names going back to Plato, they'll address all the issues from Kant down the line, they'll finally realize the metaphysical theory of everything that FINALLY gets it right and they'll be able to neatly package it as a new development in philosophy that finally solved metaphysics

lol

>>12234679

>>12238469
doesn't have a credible face

>>12239260
based spheres

>>12239260
why do german buildings always look cheap and plastic

>>12240338
>Sino-Slavic region
>a new Culture is blossoming.
wat? in what sense are they not full on the degenerate train like the rest?

>>12241796
Protestantism

>>12241796
>german
>is dutch
Also, german arch is amazing.

>>12241824
>>german
>>is dutch
what's the difference? also it looks like bad cgi to me

>>12241836
Difference is that they don't have anything to do with one another and the one you're claiming that's bad is Dutch, not German.

>>12241771
How do you meditate friend ?

The bible

>>12234679

>>12238699
your post omits process philosophy and OOO which carry on with Heidegger's unfinished business, and fit none of those
>his lack of commentary about the facticity of the external world
speaking of Der Skandal der Philosophie sounds like commentary, of course those are no heideggerians
>external world
sigh

>>12242359
Kek

>>12238699

So, what next?

>>12234679
Being and Event, how has nobody mentioned that yet.

Badiou starts off by saying that Heidegger is the last universally recognized philosopher, and that is his first premise.

>>12243367
Badiou is a pseud. Rehashed maoist platonism.

>>12236327
Metaphysics basically means "ulfalsifiable garbage". In other words, daydreaming of some pseuds.

>>12242530
Process is sometimes okay in spirit, but OOO straddles a and c. Terrible shit, not even on the level of ideas, just in terms of sheer sloppiness.

>>12243325
Not sure. It should probably sublate mysticism, onto-theology, and the scientific/critical spirit, without lapsing back into any one in an atavistic mode. Note the perennialist above, wigging out that someone rejects the scientism crowd but then also rejects his, falsely implying a rigid dichotomy, while ridiculing the mere possiblity of other stances and gesturing to the perfect wisdom of his texts. The other crowds all do the same too. Philosophy is exclusively practiced by a secular priesthood of these wannabe enlightened types, who only feel good when their roleplay is validated by someone deferring to them and entering the fold. It's a huge danger.

I went to literature after Heidegger

>>12243898
lol. care to quote the passage from being and event that endorses mao?

>>12243918
are you the guy from pic related?
if not, thoughts on pic related?

>>12243918
>OOO straddles a and c
no, not even close, back to Harman you go

>>12243918
>Not sure. It should probably sublate mysticism, onto-theology, and the scientific/critical spirit

Would that in practice end up looking like doing metaphysics by delving into the nature of things in a mystic/theologian sense of starting from first principles, but with a scientific and self-critical spirit? Because there are a lot of eastern texts in some schools that are exactly that, it's not all just a bunch of aphorisms making declarative statements. You have many people trying to figure things out from the beginning in a similar way to Aquinas, but integrating the insights from mysticism and sometimes asceticism etc; but in a very critical way that often includes them bringing up and refuting numerous counter-arguments and in a way that mentions the limits of language and so on. The way you described that made me think of some eastern thinkers and so I was wondering what you envisioned.

>>12243954
Also, kek at relegating ontology to fucking set theory. lmao, he's like a humanitard salivating at "the beauty of math"

What is metaphysics

>>12244086
It's sort of like blacksmithing.
Something that has been rendered totally obsolete by modern sciences and praxis and has been relegated to a curiosity niche sort of like the Historic Williamsburg where guys in tights and powdered wigs stand around outside buildings from the 1700s and talk about how they used to set the table and shit like that while collegial music school dropouts play drums and fifes in the distance.

>>12244140
>the funny boxes made of the same thing as the universe are qualified to definitely prove questions having to do with before and beyond the universe and are totally not capable of only providing information about what they directly interact with

Scientism is a religion don't let anyone tell you otherwise

>>12244030
>made me think of some eastern thinkers
which ones in particular?

>>12238699
>>12243918
Embarrassing.

>>12244242

The Mahāyāna, Vedānta and various ṣūfiyyah. Nāgārjuna is important in Mahāyāna, he has a self-critical onto-theological argument concluding that conditioned phenomena as well as the absolute are both empty of inherent existence (śūnyatā), and that there are additional process metaphysics-like aspects as well, he is grounded in Buddhism but seeks to demonstrate it through logic, he often uses the reductio ad absurdum. Most of Mahāyāna agrees with him or tweaks his ideas, although among Chán Buddhism and its derivatives some areas take opposing views and you also have the Tibetian Jo-nang school where Dölpopa explicitly argues that the absolute is not empty and that the Buddha, the Tantras and the Mahāyāna and Tathāgatagarbha Sūtras all actually meant other-emptiness. The Buddhist Yogācāra school also has ontology as one of its major focuses.

The Vedānta schools really flowered after the emergence of Mahāyāna, although its rooted in the pre-Buddhist Upaniṣads and Vedāntic thinkers were active from that era until the founding of the current schools. A major milestone is Gauḍapāda, who in his Māṇḍukya Kārikā on the eponymous Upaniṣad at times cites various Buddhist schools like Yogācāra and Mādhyamaka including the views of Nāgārjuna, at times agreeing with them but along with the other usual groups mostly refutes them and turns their own arguments against them. He also has a onto-theological first-principle analysis which agrees with Nāgārjuna on non-origination but which relies on logic to argue one can prove the eternal non-dual Paramātmāṇ that is also revealed by scripture, this attitude of applying logic to scripture is shared by most of Vedānta more or less. The central figure in Vedānta is Śaṅkarācārya, who agreed with Gauḍapāda's ideas while also introducing his own although most of his thought in the end derives from the Upaniṣads. In his writings explaining Advaita he makes heavy use of logic, referencing both epistemology and ontology and constantly comes up with hypothetical counter-arguments to his own that he refutes in turn. He followed a textual exegesis method called Anvaya-Vyatireka based on the principle of the the coherence theory of truth beloved by most of the German Idealists. The later schools of Vedānta share many of Advaita's ideas and methods while differing on doctrine more or less according to school. Both the later Vedānta schools as well as certain Yogic and Tantric thinkers like Abhinavagupta have various onto-theological treatises steeped in mysticism which often argue from the principle itself and not textual authority. In Taṣawwuf some of these same ideas are broached but in different ways, most notably Ibn Arabi who gracefully uses a symbolism-heavy cosmology to intuitively convey a poetic illustration of many of the same ideas and later ṣūfiyyah like Jāmī elaborate on this more in detail.

>>12243898
As is laid out in Badiou and Politics by Bosteels, Being and Event marks a break with Maoism for Badiou.

There is no ‘Maoist Platonism’, there is the late Maoist Badiou in Theory of the Subject, and then Platonist Badiou in Being and Event.

>>12244047
He’s doing no such thing. Set theory isn’t chosen randomly, it’s because of set theory’s ability to express pure multiplicity that he pursues it as an avenue for Metaphysics.

>>12234679
Derrida is the next 'logical' step after Heidegger who worked within metaphysics as the only tools available to its deconstruction.