/lit/ - Literature

Plato would drop to his knees and convert to Ōmeteōtl on the spot

>>14380131
From what I remember its very reminiscent of Heraclitus, so yes and no.

>>14380131
aztec pholosophy? yeah dude sure

>>14380131
qrd

>Aztec philosophy

That depends upon what you mean, Aztec Philosophy is more than just "process philosophy but with human sacrifice". Could he argue against the process philosophy? Sure, he did. I personally don't find Plato's arguments very convincing in light of having actually read the Aztecs' arguments, but then it's pretty widely accepted that Plato either didn't have first hand access to Heraclitian texts or didn't understand them, so it's not like he was "at his best" here. I personally believe the former, Heraclitus was basically ignored by the rest of the Greek philosophical community, to the point where DUDE HERACLITUS IS SO OBSCURE LMFAO was an ancient meme. In particular, he seems to treat Heraclitus and Parmenides as almost a single entity, and argues against the Heraclitus-Parmenides and only separates the two in order to pick apart individual aspects of their philosophy rather than actually coming at either. Ultimately, in either case it comes down to whether you find the argument for Platonic forms existing. If you do, you side with Plato, if you don't the Aztecs are essentially 100% spot on; every philosopher from a non-Western school essentially comes to process philosophy, even if they don't recognize it, because of this.

I don't believe that Plato's ideas are illogical or somehow invalid, mind you, I just find the Aztecs to be more convincing. The Aztec's answer is more empirically convincing in the light of modern physics, which neither the Aztecs nor Plato could envision. However, both Platonic and Aztec philosophy both rely on concepts that can't really be scientifically dissected. You cannot measure the forms via material tools, and the material is just teotl teotling with teotl so you can't prove Teotl is there anymore than you can prove the forms are there. In both cases, ~reason~ and ~empiricism~ fail you.

>>14380604
Thank you for giving an actual answer, are there any other books you might recommend for understanding Aztec philosophy?

>>14380131
He would probably write some dialogues explaining why human sacrifice is really bad.

>>14380635
Other than Maffie's work? Not really. The problem is that Maffie is the first author I've seen who really understands the actual process philosophy behind Aztec philosophy. Others go into morals, ethics, governance, etc, but they don't come at it with the idea of process philosophy behind them. This isn't bad if you just want a rigid statement of facts about the Aztecs (and indeed, ALL New World societies and civilizations, as everyone who got there pre-Eskimo adheres to process philosophy), don't get me wrong. But to give an example, the Aztec city planning was rooted in their process philosophy. Other societies use rigid boundaries to separate sacred and profane, but that would be silly to the Aztecs as there is neither sacred nor profane, there's just teotl teotling teotl. The Aghori of India, who wallow in shit and engage in cannibalism because Brahma is everywhere, would be right at home with the Aztecs for that reason: Teotl is everywhere, the foulest shit is fertilizer for the most beautiful flowers. In their urban planning, you don't see strict delineations of function, you get gradients. Their "temples" are huge ziggurats festooned with platforms, surrounded by open courts for this very reason. Even their sports were rooted in this philosophy.

Dissecting Aztec society without getting into the process philosophy would be like talking about the Greeks without mentioning that they believed that their gods were constantly affecting the mental states of literally every human on the planet, or about the Romans and not bringing up sacred nature of law and contract.

>>14380745
Now having said that, I only speak English. There IS more on this in Spanish, and there are codices in both English and Spanish out there that are first hand philosophical texts by the Nahuatl people themselves, dating to the Classical period. The problem is that this is a really niche subject. Like, look at this dude here >>14380569. Yeah, we know he's wrong because the Aztec did have a very complex philosophical tradition, but as far as everyone is concerned the Aztec were a bunch of cavemen with bones in their noses who butchered each other for no reason what so ever. Maffie cites a LOT of sources, many of which are in Spanish or Nahuatl, and I just couldn't find any of them online. If you're hardcore, you could ask some professors at some university, they'd be happy to help (I considered it). That was almost a year and a half ago, however, and I distinctly remember there being some codex (in twelve parts), and digital uploads were going to come ~soon~ (1.5 years ago). I've been meaning to revisit this, but just haven't gotten around to it.


I, like an idiot, forgot to mention with regards to their city planning: there is no sacred and profane delineation, but there IS a concentration of teotl (ball courts, temples, etc). Thus, you tend to see the cities as being spectrums based around these sacred concentrations. Even mundane things flow together, urban core turns into suburbs turns into rural farms. Cities themselves were just huge masses of habitation, there weren't strict boundaries between the city-states.

>>14380745
Thank you for the answers, I'll look into Maffie's work, and probably get into the subject more afterwards.

>>14380604
There’s a theory that Plato was actually a Hericlitean all along, and the other stuff he invented was basically a psyop to transform civilization through false (by catalytically potent) ideas

So what is Teotl? Logos?

>>14380745
>>14380773
damm can i have some pics

>>14380604
How does Mayan philosophy differ?

Aztecs are the Hindus of whiteheadffags

>>14381165
tl;dr it's the same thing in practice. All of the Paleo-Siberian descended peoples adhere to this philosophical structure. Don't think that the Aztecs = Mayans, however, they are NOT the same people and have big differences. Most of it lies in the religious and mythological narratives behind Teotl.

>>14380912
Teotl is the stuff that everything is made of. Teotl is not a stuff in the sense of a noun, but rather a verb. Teotl is subject, object, and verb. Teotl is a literal "building-block" stuff, however, it's not like Platonic emanation wherein things have an independent existence from other forms and once emanated can more or less be understood as a unit. You never step into the same river twice, because there is no you, no river. Think Platonic forms, but there's a form of you for ever split trillionth of a second. Now split that trillionth of a second into trillionths. Then realize that it's continuous. Nothing ever really ends, nor begins, because the countless things that lead to it and will lead to it intertwine endlessly, forming it. The man you are when you leave the river is just as much changed by the river as the river is by you leaving it. Everything is made by teotl, teotling teotl in patterns. These patterns are just teotl, and do not exist outside of teotl. Teotl is all that is, because everything is change. Everything is movement, on some timescale. Something that doesn't change doesn't exist, because teotl is everything and teotl is always changing (it teotls teotl, after all), and everything is changed by interacting, so every change is a two-way street.

Note that the "tl" is pronounced in Nahuatl as if you were to go "ch" with your tongue where it goes for "T".

>>14381203
wiki says teotl is closer to "god"

>>14381241
>>14381203

So Brahman?

>>14380131
>Mexican intellectuals

>>14381203
Sounds Buddhist

>>14381273
Americope

>>14380604
>>14380745
>>14380773
>aztec philosophy is process philosophy
this is your brain on eisegesis

>>14380604
>Heraclitus was basically ignored by the rest of the Greek philosophical community, to the point where DUDE HERACLITUS IS SO OBSCURE LMFAO was an ancient meme
He wasn't called obscure because he was ignored, you hack. He was called obscure because of his lack of clarity and perplexing thought and writing.

>>14381241
It's not. Teotl doesn't want anything, or do anything other than teotl teotl. In the Pantheistic sense of "God as a mechanism" then yeah, that's sort of like it, but you don't pray to Teotl, sacrifice to Teotl, or have a personal relationship with Teotl anymore than you do with the strong electromagnetic force.

>>14381253
Sort of. It's a combination of Brahman and Mana if you HAD to describe it via old world terms.

>>14381758
All metaphysical systems that aren't Platonic Realism eventually go to process philosophy.

>>14382375
You're free to read the sources provided.

>>14382447
Yes, he was ignored. Whether that's because he was unfairly maligned, 2deep4u, or just wrote poorly, we'll never know.

>>14383608
Glad i'm Platonic then. I dont want to believe process Philosophy

>>14382276
heidegger BTFO

>>14380604
>Process philosophy but with human sacrifice
Based?

>>14380131
>defeating philosophies
it's like saying "power drills defeat screwdrivers". Actually, it's more like saying "fire defeating the wheel" That's not how philosophy works dipshit

What is process philosophy

>>14381203
Sounds a lot like Delueze. I gather they also deny symbolic order.

Still, it's just as stupid and none the less a primitive philosophy.

>>14380131
>Aztec philosophy
No such thing.

>>14383793
It's Whitehead's reinterpretation of pre-Enlightenment Platonism i.e. his reading of Timaeus.

>>14383608
>you don't pray to Teotl, sacrifice to Teotl, or have a personal relationship with Teotl anymore than you do with the strong electromagnetic force.
Firstly, so how does this philosophy explain conscious beings such as Gods or humans.

This philosophy only enforces my belief that the Aztecs were a primitive people directed only by their base urges, lacking a fundamental self consciousness of order. Considering also that this philosophy is wrong in the ultimate sense it is at best a spiritual expression, a statement of their psyche.

So essentially Deleuzian Process-philosophy?

>>14383816
They had gods you know

>>14380131
From what I know,

Plato would dismantle this so very easily. Even apart from the forms, we denote a manifestation manifested and unable to be un-so. This infers the definite of conclusions, and the necessary play of a value hierarchy. The only progress to greater self consciousness can come through action, which implies for the living or not a simultaneous-nous of being. In other words, the conviction to what-is, the being there by all, not only refutes the Aztec philosophy by its own propositions -- they are that Teotl expresses itself in a certain way only in exterior, or mask, the mask to a mask so as to deny a total value factor while maintaining the manifested at all -- but also the general idea of a denial of symbolic order.

There is also the statement of celebration and tradition. That they do so, that is do things denoted as valuable with something like shit, as a symbolic way of denoting the being there. Still primitive but shows that they are human and as a result function the same way.

>>14383879
That's part of my question doofus.

>>14384022
>we denote a manifestation manifested and unable to be un-so
Restate this.

>This infers the definite of conclusions, and the necessary play of a value hierarchy.
Wrong. Intransitivity is a primitive concept that's integral to understanding complex ordered systems, especially WRT valuation.

>The only progress to greater self consciousness can come through action
Yes, doing things requires action. This is a worthless assertion in both its vagueness and repetition.

>implies for the living or not a simultaneous-nous of being
Support this extrapolation, quantify nous.

>the conviction to what-is
Another meaningless clause

>not only refutes the Aztec philosophy by its own propositions
This does not follow.

>they are that Teotl expresses itself in a certain way only in exterior
Unsubstantiated.

D-

This is a poorly written post. Your overuse of dialectical neologisms without quantification preemptively nullifies any assertion you try to make. Extrapolations are useless when they are pulled from vague axioms, even more so when the conclusions lack concrete meaning in and of themselves. In other words, what you've written is all rhetoric with no substance. See me after class.

>>14384452
>line-by-line-refutation
has there ever been a more middlebrow format of critique

>>14384480
I think it’s effective for clarities sake. I mean, even in the Republic, Socrates goes line by line allowing the listener to either agree with his logic, ask for clarification, or disagree.

>>14384480
It worked in the neopets forums.

>>14384545
It's lazy as a rhetorical device and encourages nitpicking.

>>14384452
>Restate this.
We denote a manifestation manifested and unable to be un-so.

>Wrong. Intransitivity is a primitive concept that's integral to understanding complex ordered systems, especially WRT valuation.
But is it not something at a given time?

>Yes, doing things requires action. This is a worthless assertion in both its vagueness and repetition.
And action maintains coherence. We must also be able to speak of single actions in your worldview rather than just a 'whole'. Hence self refuting.

>Support this extrapolation, quantify nous.
My mistake, as in "meaninglessness". Or was there perhaps a hidden bigbrain latin phrase here?

>Another meaningless clause
Rather not, I am supplying the base of philosophy in that which is simply "there". It does not have its own base Naturally the question of time arrives here.

>This does not follow.
It will.

>Unsubstantiated.
Lad do you not understand Aztec philosophy?

>Your overuse of dialectical neologisms without quantification preemptively nullifies any assertion you try to make.
Well that is simply wrong precisely because it still makes a statement.

>Extrapolations are useless when they are pulled from vague axioms, even more so when the conclusions lack concrete meaning in and of themselves. In other words, what you've written is all rhetoric with no substance. See me after class.
Okay brainlet. Schools already out, you just made me do this because we finished the year criteria and had nothing else to do.

I'm going back to Kant and Plato.

>>14384480
No.

>>14384583
incredibly based

>>14384480
Not an argument. Not only did I provide you with a uniformed, structured critique at the end of the post, but the disjointed flow of the paragraph necessitated isolating specific 'liberties' taken. The insidious nature of a vague argument is that -- by virtue of wide angles of interpretation -- any refutation that would reply by implication is easily skirted around by shifting the perspective of interpretation.

In taking a scalpel to your argument, I have cut you off at the pass by isolating the problematic components of your argument. I'll take your reversion to stylistic complaint as your forfeiture.

>>14383793
This is a very accessible introduction: https://imgur.com/a/ZtLDYJT

>>14384633
First of all "not an argument" isn't an argument either. If you choose to engage with rhetoric then using that specific rhetorical device makes you just look like a fool. Also, your post even after that flaw sounds like you're a fag and your shit's all retarded.
Also not that guy

>>14384583
You unironically sound illiterate. I hope you don't go to some school i once respected.

>>14383816
I'd recommend you actually read the book instead of just forming an opinion based on how close to BASED trad catholicism or whatever. The actual process philosophy stuff isn't that long, and the language is accessible. It also goes into depth on the philosophical WHY of Aztec human sacrifice which I can see you're hung up on. Don't worry, Yahweh won't send you to hell for being a little curious (you are using a heathen's philosophy to disagree with that of the Aztec's, after all).

In any event, the answer is, you can break teotl up into chunks. These delineations are completely arbitrary. Where does a tree end? The atoms that make it up? When does an atom stop being part of a tree? When does it stop? Are all atoms that have ever been, are, and will ever be part of the tree "part of the tree"? This has ramifications in morality and ethics, as everything is just part of a fractal ecology. Nothing ever ends, it just fades in and out. A person isn't just a single agent, as it is in the Liberalism you espouse, but rather a hyper-complex bundle. You can't separate a man from his family, lineage, or political affiliation. You are forced to confront the multitude of connections in any given thing. We can notice this fading, this concentration, however, as we are just teotl teotling teotl, and say that it isn't important, or that we can let our interest fade. In particular, the idea of intelligence as concentration of teotl. Thus, teotl doesn't just teotl teotl, but can realize teotl teotling teotl.

That is why I say that no, you are the one denying reality, truth, and order, by creating non-existent mental constructs so you can abstract away reality and put it into neat little boxes.

>>14384694
My point being that even if the ultimate "system" may change the turtle word, if one image is of a quality at a time, then it is in that point eternally true. I used the term mask to show only the mental value changes(for the Aztec belief) or at least within the time we may comprehend the physical does not change so further mask over a mask, exterior over exterior, who knows if there is a centre or if it is merely an aesthetic point in the Op pic>>14380131 . However we also see that the psychological quality of the physical action/image/mask does not also change lest the object itself change hence not changing. One may also make the argument that the immaterial, is more eternal than the physical rather than just equally coinciding with it. The moral for example. Such a sublime thing it is that transcends over any single object. And this is why the Aztec philosophy is more the expression of its peoples than an actual philosophy. An immoral primitive people acting only by their base un-thought urges, and this "philosophy" which only shews the format of experience of an intelligent being(that is above animals) but lacking in the greater self consciousness and further intelligence. You may say the moral does not exist(it does), but it takes a higher moral conception to create greater civilisation and culture(the progression of self consciousness), which is reflective of a superior and more beautiful mind, the European. Now faced from one definite idea(morality) to another(race and our superiority).

This is why I consider the shit smearing merely a symbolic and ceremonial representation, and worship, of the ultimate divine rather than a literal portrayal of it. What the Aztec believes here is of no consequence to to the psychological reasoning behind it.

If you think I have mixed the immaterial and potential up, and other things, you are mistaken for the lumping of mass knowledge together only seems that way.

>>14380131
>>14384694
>>14384739
You use Platonic terms and this is Plato's refutation of Aztec "philosophy".

>>14384715
>(you are using a heathen's philosophy to disagree with that of the Aztec's, after all).
Well you're stupid cause Thomas brought him into the Church.

>>14384715
This has changed nothing between the difference of the order of nature, and the order of the covenant which is between man and all living things. A man is still a man. Another question, is space joined to itself? Is it a thing? Considering it has no atoms. Everything else was refuted here>>14384739

And did you- just use a skydaddies argument on me while talking about teotl?

>>14384593
Based based poster.

Is that a pot of honey?

>>14384633
>In taking a scalpel to your argument, I have cut you off at the pass by isolating the problematic components of your argument. I'll take your reversion to stylistic complaint as your forfeiture.
Okay autist.

It wasn't even me.

>>14384583
>But is it not something at a given time?
That isn't the part that is wrong.
>And action maintains coherence.
Denoting any discrete thing is predicated on coherence, this includes action.
>We must also be able to speak of single actions in your worldview rather than just a 'whole'.
You have presupposed my worldview, and done so incorrectly. Not only that, this does not follow from what you are replying to.
>My mistake, as in "meaninglessness"
So your assertion is "being" denotes simultaneous states of meaningfulness and meaninglessness?
>I am supplying the base of philosophy in that which is simply "there".
"What-is" is the noun form of "is", which in itself already denotes ontological truth. "Conviction to" is the worthless addition that forms a meaningless clause.
>Naturally the question of time arrives here.
Possible indication of an outdated sense of the temporal.
>It will.
Not without elucidation...
>Lad do you not understand Aztec philosophy?
...Which you seem content to dodge.
>Well that is simply wrong precisely because it still makes a statement.
No, a mere statement is not enough. This is quite literally the definition of "all rhetoric, no substance."


>>14384685
You're correct to an extent. "Not an argument" is indeed not an argument in and of itself, and (here is where you stop being right) in my post it does not play the role of the argument. Rather obviously, it's merely an introductory sentence that serves only to contextualize the actual content of the post. But I can see why this distinction might fly over the head of someone who replies in pop culture movie quotes.

You have only attacked the introductory sentence, despite it being the part of the post which matters least, while dismissing the substance of the post with a meme. That's beyond pathetic.

>>14384816
Well, it does taste sweet.
>>14384829
you still sound like a fag and your shit's all retarded

>>14384829
>That isn't the part that is wrong.
Then if it is definite, there is a value hierarchy. Nothing more must be said than this.

>Denoting any discrete thing is predicated on coherence, this includes action.
You've already lost the argument.

>You have presupposed my worldview, and done so incorrectly. Not only that, this does not follow from what you are replying to.
You say I presuppose incorrectly but explain not how.

>So your assertion is "being" denotes simultaneous states of meaningfulness and meaninglessness?
Bruh, it was an example of spelling.

>"What-is" is the noun form of "is", which in itself already denotes ontological truth. "Conviction to" is the worthless addition that forms a meaningless clause.
Yes but you see, it -- being "is" -- may infer, but it does not state. This is important for philosophy. Your mind would of missed it if it were simply left as an inference.

>Possible indication of an outdated sense of the temporal.
And now you presuppose me. Except I made no judgement about time.

>No, a mere statement is not enough. This is quite literally the definition of "all rhetoric, no substance."
And you are quite literally the definition of gay. Heh.

Happy nitpicking anon?

>>14384872
And this btfo tastes even sweeter >>14384739
>>14384796

bump

I won.

I achieved.

I came.

I conquered.

I- uh.. ugh...I COOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

N

I

G

G.

E

R

>>14384796
After reading your post, it's clear you don't actually get the point. Read a book.

>interesting thread
>cited sources
>actual discussion of a book
>suddenly the EBIN /lit/ discord shows up and throws a fit because guenon retrospectively lmfao'd Kant
typical, this board is awful

>>14385970
Oh yeah, how is it awful?

>>14384896
>Then if it is definite, there is a value hierarchy. Nothing more must be said than this.
Incorrect. Value (in the sense of meaning) is closely related to definite-ness, but hierarchy is a separate system altogether.
>You've already lost the argument.
There is no argument, simply a hole that you continue to dig deeper. If there is anything to be lost, it was lost when you first posted in this thread.
>Bruh, it was an example of spelling.
In good faith, I attempt to draw out a point from your mindless drivel, and this is the reply you muster? Very telling, anon. Very telling.
>May infer, but it does not state.
Actually, yes it does. The entire usage of the word "is" signifies ontological truth and nothing else. Go and study linguistics.
>This is important for philosophy. Your mind would of missed it if it were simply left as an inference.
No, trotting out meaningless neologisms to create a semantic smokescreen is not important to philosophy in the slightest, you charlatan. It's a tell-tale sign of someone who does not understand what they read, as in lacking that understanding they fail to recall the meaning of the work they engage with.
>Except I made no judgement about time
No, you made a judgement about the "question of time":
>Naturally the question of time arrives here.
which is more than enough to glean your own ignorance of the matter.

Do keep at it anon, I'm sure you'll hit one of these slowballs eventually.

>>14383793
back to highschool bub

This thread is one massive cope

Aztecs had higher civilization potential

This thread is now even more of a cope.

>>14380604
> I personally don't find Plato's arguments very convincing in light of having actually read the Aztecs' arguments
What arguments are those? I'm reading the book right now, and one of the "arguments" (p45) has its chain of support as the following:

1. Poem in original language.
2. Poem translated to English.
3. Poem interpreted by secondary sources from English.
Finally we reach step (4), the book you're talking about where:
4. Author standardizes an argument from (3) and not (1).

He's taken what was originally a poem, which aren't arguments, then tries to make it into some form of argument several steps removed from the source. That's really not "reading the Aztec's arguments". This isn't even reading a Platonic dialogue in translation, where you might still salvage an argument out of it in what ever translation you are using. This is taking something like a non-argument (that you didn't translate yourself) from a secondary source and using the secondary sources interpretation to make an argument out of it. This book is honestly embarrassing in terms of scholarship, and saying "you've read the Aztecs' argument" is not even true.

>>14385162
>>14385409
>>14385821
>>14385873
>>14385884
>>14385902
>>14385909
>>14385912
>>14385919
>>14385927
>>14385931
>>14385937

>>14385963
>After reading your post, it's clear you don't actually get the point. Read a book.
Lol what a fucking COPE. Nice argument schlomo.

>>14380131
I am legit interested in Mesoamerican philosophy, because I am hipster and an insufferable cunt. Where can I find original sources?

>>14387307
>(in the sense of meaning)
Saying this was pointless.

>but hierarchy is a separate system altogether.
If there are values, there is a hierarchy. A hierarchy of the unique aesthetic textuality, as well as of positive and negative.

>If there is anything to be lost, it was lost when you first posted in this thread.
*mic drop*

>how dare you correct my misunderstanding
Ok anon. In good faith I corrected you.

>Actually, yes it does. The entire usage of the word "is" signifies ontological truth and nothing else. Go and study linguistics.
You're trying to tell me understanding is of the sentence does not dominate the word? Not to mention you seem to miss that the word "is" is subordinate to the overall meaning of the sentence practically universally. Saying "what-is" causes one to put further focus on the word itself, thereby shewing the intended meaning of "is" whether subordinate or not. As I said, this is important for philosophy. One may also say "what-is" becomes its own word considering the nigh universal use of "is". And this is only one aspect of the complexity. Why are you so intent on arguing the most minute of details which are obviously wrong, just to disagree? Tell Heidegger that "being in the world" is stupid since it's meaning is already inferred in "being".

>No, you made a judgement about the "question of time":
Well what was the judgement?

>Do keep at it anon, I'm sure you'll hit one of these slowballs eventually.
I already completely btfo'd you in>>14384739
>>14384796

In this single post of yours who have addressed no actual philosophy. Just nitpicking, that is why this line by line response is extremely cancerous and shows your own autistic lack of creativity. You're a fag.

>>14389569
There's a guy on /his/ you should find, that is all I can say
good luck on our quest