/lit/ - Literature

.

>>16170492

>>16170492
Underrated Socratic.

But what happens when one of us posts a picture that contradicts another?

>>16170517
Based Buenoist

>>16170492

>>16170492

>>16170541
lit royal rumble.
Obviously the right wins

me.

>>16170492

>>16170507
>Luke 20:35- They which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage.
What did he mean by this?

>>16170672
That after the resurrection marriage is abolished. Marriage is a purely earthly institution. In heaven we will be as angels and therefore we won't need to get married.

>>16170601
>Philosophers vs economists
Agreed, Ayn Rand already refuted all of them.

>>16170694
Not him but surely it must have some greater meaning.

>>16170703
I don't think so, but if you have an interpretation I'd like to hear it.

>>16170517
(pbuh)

>>16170672
the continuation of this passage points to more or less what >>16170694 says. i think it could be implied that there will be no marriage as in man will be complete, since marriage is kind of a union of opposites, in marriage there is a duality of sexes and angels are above this duality.

Me

>>16170492
Humbert.

>>16170718
>27 Then came to him certain of the Sadducees, which deny that there is any resurrection; and they asked him,
>28 Saying, Master, Moses wrote unto us, If any man's brother die, having a wife, and he die without children,
that his brother should take his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother.
>29 There were therefore seven brethren: and the first took a wife, and died without children.
>30 And the second took her to wife, and he died childless.
>31 And the third took her; and in like manner the seven also: and they left no children, and died.
>32 Last of all the woman died also.
>33 Therefore in the resurrection whose wife of them is she? for seven had her to wife.
>34 And Jesus answering said unto them, The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage:
>35 But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage:
>36 Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.
>37 Now that the dead are raised, even Moses shewed at the bush, when he calleth the Lord the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.
>38 For he is not a God of the dead, but of the living: for all live unto him.

I think the context explains it, every being has his own soul. And furthermore, that this world is one of practicality, as prior to this quote is the one of Caesar.

>>16170875
Failing to greentext here annoys me because I was sure I backspaced "children," and "that"... but Ahh, I remember now, I pressed enter instead of spacebar.

>>16170875
The Sadducees didn't believe in the resurrection; they asked Christ this question as a trick question, they wanted a gotcha moment, so they asked him about a woman who marries seven times in her and who'll she'll be married to during the resurrection (for them these sorts of questions made the resurrection improbable); Christ responds that the question is irrelevant because in heaven we'll be as angels and we won't marry or be married; marriage is abolished.

That's it. I think you're extrapolating wrongly from this section. It's a theological question about the resurrection and marriage. The most interesting part of this is that it gives us a glimpse of our supernatural state in heaven (equal to the angels); the harsh part of this section is that our marriages on earth won't be extended into heaven. But in our supernatural state, I don't we'll really take this into account.

>>16170492

>>16170601
Brah those ancient Greeks were soldiers, they can fuck shit up

>>16170615
Oh, thank you.

>>16170902
Not at all, Christ wasn't just showing a fallacy anon, he was doing that and using it to show something supremely wrong in their conception of what is Resurrection, i.e. Heaven I dunno they roll into each other.

I see something that is directly related to the authenticity of the individual as he stands before God, before being. Many like to speak of the Egyptians as if all of the later developments of the Greeks were merely a re-branding of them, as if Egypt had something of the genetic code of that whole development of being or whatnot, but it really does seem to me that they stand more so as a level of development which was used and continued on from, rather than "the source" esotericists like to proclaim so often. However if a religion can be said to have included something of the blueprint where later developments in anything may be said to have been its recent inheritors, it is the Christian religion. The individual is alive as his own individual.

>>16170984
wrong and cringe pseudo esotericist

>

>>16170999
>mentally ill and oversocialzed tranny
lmao stfu retard

>>16170902
>>16170984
You yourself say it is nothing but "a theological question of marriage", but then after that agree that he is positively saying something that is supreme of what Resurrection, fundamentally is. It is not much matter of an argument, if he can be said to be saying we are equal to Angels those who are to be Resurrected then, as well as be refuting a silly Theological question, because then he is also stating something supreme about the individual, who in worldly things takes no part that are not of itself.

>>16170991
No, I just don't believe the extent of meaning of Christs words here are "well duhh retard that's a stupid question, also i'm going to tell you that we are going to be angels anyway for no reason".

He is obviously NOT just refuting a silly question you imbecile because you showed that yourself, see>>16171005

>>16171004
cope

>>16171012
you are really really dumb, if you can't understand that simple passage from the gospels, you won't understand anything else in the rest of them
>>16171020
cope

>>16171032
Anon, you literally just showed that he is saying something about the individual after Resurrection, he is showing something supreme by refuting a silly Theological argument. You deny this, but you say yourself that the most interesting part is that he is saying we will be equal to Angels after this, except you seem to not care that this implies a detachment from all Earthly Sin and Suffering, that the woman is her own soul to stand before God. These are all things said in the Bible, why is it that you cannot understand it in such a context?

"The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage:
But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage:"

You've already agreed with my first point that he is positively affirming something supreme about Man in this world, however you insist on that explanation being nothing more than "marriage wont exist because i say so". However you've already gone back on what you've said, since before you said that he was saying nothing new here except a refutation, or at least you have pretended to believe both sides to avoid an argument. By the Dog anon! You cannot expect me to debate in such a manor.

>>16170492
no one has anything 100% right but pick, choose, and combine people in pic related and you'll be the closest to getting everything right you ever will be

>>16171093
i'm not that anon
> By the Dog anon!
geez dude stfu pls you are retarded

>>16171032
Also, what do you think "all live unto him" means? Why do you think he mentioned Moses and continued to affirm something about Resurrection instead of just leaving the refutation as that alone, which you believe all of it to be?

>>16171106
Okay so you're LARPing, you haven't read Plato to get the reference and you can't interpret the Bible either.

>>16171119
>you haven't read Plato to get the reference
plato didn't speak english retard
> you can't interpret the Bible either.
ur the pseudo esotericist satanist loser lmao

>>16170492
correct op

>>16171101
Putting Foucalt in there seems like a stupid choice, and no non-philosopher either. Also who's the Arab?

But I agree with your sentiment about most of these figures.

>>16170999
Ted is basically what you don't want to become before you go nuts

>>16171132
>bait

>>16171134
foucault is the nietzschean genealogical method applied to institutions and taken-for-granted concepts instead of moral feeling. his hermeneutics of the subject outlines historical contingencies of the concept of self in different cultures and how their attitude to self cultivation affected other areas of society and life. it's very spenglerian and it can fit in with Hegel's dialectical evolution of Spirit. the Muslim is ibn Arabi, he really doesn't fit but his metaphysics are those that the Traditionalists take interest in. it could be considered the mystical dimension that's missing from Aquinas' writings.
>and no non-philosopher either.
yeah you still need artists and poets to see the truth in a different light, but this thread was based on Philosophy from what I gathered. the reading doesn't end there.

>>16171171
Yeah I can see that, but I still feel as if there must have been a better person than Foucalt for the place. But I can appreciate it.

>yeah you still need artists and poets to see the truth in a different light, but this thread was based on Philosophy from what I gathered. the reading doesn't end there.
I always figured even for the purely philosophical list you should have one somewhat leader type figure who still might fit it in a correct way, such as I dunno Frederick or Jesus.

lol sure, just ask him
social "theory" is named the way it is for a reason

>>16170492
Which Baudrillard book do you recommend?

>>16170601
Schopenhauer thought private property to be immoral

>>16171101

Yes to Spengler. Reading Decline of the West right now.

>>16171101
Heidegger has to be on of the worst writers in the history of Germany, is complete nonsense and his disciples are stupid. Hegel is just guy who ridiculously claimed that concepts somehow created concrete objects, and his whole philosophical system is created over this fundamental error. The stupidity of this mistake makes me suspect that he did it on purpose to make a philosophy that would not offend the Kaiser and his highly religiously justified authority. Foucault is another abstruse figure, shitty writer too. Nietzche is more a prophet than a philosopher and I don't recognize the rest but I wouldn't take very seriously any recommendation coming from you

>>16171284
>I don't recognize the rest
I think that has said enough, of your philistine education and culture, for us to know.

>>16171284
>Hegel is just guy who ridiculously claimed that concepts somehow created concrete objects, and his whole philosophical system is created over this fundamental error.
lmao

>>16171171
cringe.

>>16170941
This is only an intellectual fight. Sorry anon no cheating.
Think philosopher's football.

>>16170601
who is the lady in the bottom right-hand corner of the chart on the right

>>16170697
economists always operate on a vast amount of bad faith

>>16171133
take a trip to West Virginia and report back

>>16171965
janet yellen

>>16171219
symbolic exchange and death is a classic but it requires some background as a marxoid. The Agony of Power is a bit better as a standalone.

>>16171734
>the body isn't just another part of the brain therefore rendering a haymaker a valid intellectual argument with its own sub-string of logic and muscular emotion (just like the mouth being a mouth)

>>16171979
What about Feder?

>>16172022
thanks
>>16172501
haven't read, will check him out

>>16172550
>haven't read, will check him out
Are you familiar at all?

>>16170492
carlos castaneda
/thread

>>16170492
Not a single one of them.
/thread.

>>16171284
why do I have to share my beloved literature board with such an agent of midwittery?

What did Baudrillard think of the Matrix

pbuh

>>16171284
>Hegel is just guy who ridiculously claimed that concepts somehow created concrete objects, and his whole philosophical system is created over this fundamental error.
what
>Nietzche is more a prophet than a philosopher
checks out, come back when you're over 18 anon

>>16173438
a very tasteful kravatte, I must say

>>16171284
>I don't recognize an image of fucking Aquinas or Jung
opinion completely and unequivocally discarded

freud

>>16173426
He hated it and thought the directors were stupid.

>>16170492

>>16174761
Freud was (basically) 100% correct but he didn't reveal the full truth. If you study Freud, study Jung too.

>>16170507
holy based

Guillaume Faye

>>16171137
This, literally broke over one of the most entry level truths of society

>>16171171
>Jean Baudrillard: For a time I believed in Foucauldian genealogy, but the order of simulation is antinomical
to genealogy.
>Sylvere Lotringer: An anti-genealogy then?
>Jean Baudrillard: No. If you take this logic to the extreme, what you get is the reabsorption of all genealogy. That's why I believe Foucault was unable to make the leap. What interests me is the mysterious point where he stops and finds nothing more to say.
Found the philosopher you should have put.

>>16170615
this

>>16171219
Read the critique of the political economy of the sign. If not that, read Symbolic Exchange and Death. If not that, read The Intelligence of Evil (though this last one is a late work and as such most of it won't make sense to you).

>>16176121
which would be?

>>16170492
Alex jones

>>16170797
Based

>>16171284
Heidegger is one of the most profound thinkers since the times of the Greeks, you just got filtered by reading him in English without understanding Phenomenology at all beforehand.