/lit/ - Literature

>>16593503
It's a burger anon. They only know "everything in the middle is good" in terms of philosophical breadth

>>16593503
Ok, dispute the image then

„good“ and „bad“ is such a retarded concept

>>16593540
they dont map to good and bad

>>16593503
>here is poopoo
>here is peepee
>here is the poopoo that is in the peepee
>here is the peepee that is in the poopoo
>here is peepee poopoo

why do you care what other people think?

>>16593593
>unironically more accurate than the meme

>>16593607
Wow braah so smart, just live and let live. Smoke and let smoke braah! Bro what if the weed has feelings? BRO THE WEED DOES HAVE FEELINGS! Let's talk to weed bro brah

>>16593626
Have sek

>>16593556
>Beyond good and evil

The only real polarity is between knowledge and ignorance.

>>16594550
How can I increase ignorance without decreasing a person's being?

>>16594559
You can't. The path of ignorance is one of complete descent, below even the kingdom of animals and minerals, into complete stasis of being.

>>16594550
This has already been debunked.

>>16594589
No.

>>16594098
>Acknowledging inherently subjective value statements like bad and good are retarded concepts to apply to life is onions.
Loser.

>>16593503
are yin and yang even mentioned in the chuang tzu?

>>16594598
Yes it was. In multiple independent sources.

>>16594673
lol ok

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AmVaql0oYug

>>16594644
It's ying and yang, dumbass.

>>16594698
nice...

>>16594559
>>16594576
>>16594589
The dumbest people are the ones who already have everything figured out.
Take a look at all the incels who are obsessed with anatomical drawings of jawlines. I'm sure they go around cursing their "knowledge and intelligence", despite being quite plainly retarded.
>How can I increase ignorance without decreasing a person's being?
The real answer is to increase your wisdom stat by acknowledging at every turn that you might be completely ignorant about what is in front of you.
This will make you a very good learner. The big barrier to learning things isn't that difficult concepts are inscrutable to you, but that you read something and think you know it when in fact you do not. Either you already think you know it, or you get the wrong idea, and so you simply don't try to learn what a thing is, and then do not know it.
If you adopt an internal intellectual posture of conscious naivete, there is space for you to learn.
This method is a synthesis of knowledge and ignorance, because once you feel you have used this method to learn something, you must insist upon your ignorance to yourself or else you will be a retard again.
Am I teaching knowledge and ignorance as feelings? Yes, because I am a retard. This is the way.

>>16594714
Good post anon :)

>>16594714
Okay now try to find a material representation or any representation of that framework outside your hegelian example. So schools should have half surgeons for teachers and half hobos?

>>16594744
My example is literally just science.

>>16594768
Science what? The scientific method? Has nothing to do with dialectics. Scientific method is positive empiricism. They don't seek out the truth and falseness of something (which technically can't exist in the same form) to advance science. Many times the false news of an experiment is a dead end. This is in many subjects.

>>16593593
Lmao

>>16594576
Don’t talk shit about hundun

>>16594781
I'm not saying to seek out the combined truth and falseness of a thing, I'm saying ignorance is the path to knowledge.
Isn't this the case with science? It depends upon ignorance. The reason it took so long for us to figure out science was because we already knew everything. We weren't spending thousands of years watching apples fall from trees and scratching our heads.

>>16594714
Brainlet here trying to understand this. Are you saying that we should go about way of doubting everything we learn until we are proven of its validity? Or we never really understand anything because it could be erroneous assumption and so always be striving to uncover the layers of anything?

i want to not be a brainlet, pls give knowledge.

>>16594601
>Not acknowledging the potential employability of these terms and the core epistomological concerns that trully make them usefull and descriptive vocabulary items if utilized well.
stinky.

>>16594781
>Scientific method is positive empiricism
Science is 100% rationalism.

>>16593626
Seriously listen to him, have sex

>>16593503
Honestly I pronounced like this was i was in 6th grade

>>16593540
Yin and Yang are not opposing forces (ie good vs. evil). They are complimentary.

>>16595912
Having or acquiring knowledge leads to overconfidence. Overconfidence leads to not even acknowledging your own ignorance as to other perspectives available. Recognizing your ignorance is the path to wisdom. Overconfidence is being stuck in a labyrinth of your own making.

>>16595912
assume that you know nothing about anything at all times

>>16596323
but then how do you know not to assume things if you're supposed to act like you don't know nuffin hmm answer me that one big guy

>>16593540
Yang = Good and Bad - Life
Yin = Absence of Good and Bad - Death

where does this good vs bad meme even come from no religion espouses this

>>16593607
the world is what other people think and do

>>16596343
Your world is what you think and do.

>>16595912
Try this story:
Once upon a time there was a young boy. The boy was sad because his mom got sick and died, but the boy overcomes his grief by studying medicine and becomes a skilled doctor. The young doctor gains great fame due to his ability and becomes a rich man. The rich man sees the techniques he developed as a young doctor cast aside by new research. Fearful that he will lose everything the rich man suppresses new techniques that might overtake his own.

>>16594827
Yeah that's not right. There's no mechanism in ignorance which guarantees or doesn't guarantee progress in knowledge

>>16593540
Yin and yang are cooperative substances not antagonistic opposites. Westerners often misinterpret through the will to power, like the antagonistic dialectic. I find it endlessly fascinating how these two similar concepts from different civilizations rely on totally different assumptions about time i.e. the tao isn't headed anywhere, it is simply the eternal unfolding of the interplay of yin and yang, while the dialectic is intensely directional headed upwards towards a goal.

>>16596054
>no it isn't buddy. It could be but it's not. The scientific method relies on observation
>>16596187
Enjoy being wrong, rapist

>>16596364
Shut the fuck up. You are retarded. You aren't smart. You are a bullshitter making up random shut to try and be right. For someone who espouses ignorance you could certainly do w some being open minded when I'm telling you that this doesn't work and for x reasons

>>16596370
If it's cooperative then darkness brings light out more. Coldness brings heat out more. This is physically shown to not be true. In fact there is no darkness or cold. You are simply wrong.

>>16596187
You're a rapist. Don't tell me to have sex you don't know my life. You're a rapist

>>16596385
You're still thinking in terms of opposites.

>>16596398
How does one think outside of terms of opposites?

>>16596398
I'm not because I don't believe darkness or coldness exists. I said that. You accused me of being wrong when I put myself out there even tho it's not necessary. You also didn't answer my question but accussed me after I tried to move the conversation forward. So I'll ask again, any physical object, how does this represent them? Particularly w dark/light and heat/cold. Heat isn't necessary a synthesis. I'm a foundational predicational monist. If you have a real answer and not a rapist cat caller on your side perhaps you'd have the confidence

>>16596410
By being a predicational monist. Read Mourelatos

>>16596398
Actually here's the test, my extreme ignorance should inspire you the answer. I'll wait (for your miracle).

>>16594714
In short "all I know is I don't know nothing"

>>16596441
Well hopefully that drags you along

>>16596358
>>16593607
extremely small brain

>>16593503
Yang = 1
Yin = 0

>>16596423
Who the fuck Is Mourelatos?

From google, what I can find is an obscure scholar of presocratic philosophy named Alexander Mourelatos, who only wrote commentaries on ancient philosophy.

Is this who the fuck you mean by using last name only “Mourelatos”, as if anyone should know who the fuck that is?

And if so, just what do you recommend I read by him? The Route of Parmenides or his critical collection of essays on Presocratic philosophers?

mystic oriental claptrap is very easy to reinterpret for some unfathomable reason

To me yin and yang are like Fantômas and lady Beltham. He is personification of darkness, cruel, greedy and violent, but also has a bit of good in him when he supports the ones he cares about. She is presented to us as someone good, with the halo of golden hair she is a philanthropist that cries over victims Fantômas leaves in his path, yet we see the lady has a bit of darkness in her, her jealousy makes her kidnap and ultimately murder an innocent person.
They are of opposing attitudes to life, but they are not in opposition to each other, he will always come to her aid, she will always come to save him, and in peaceful times they would like nothing more than to fuck each other's brains out.

>>16596479
If you typed in predicational monist Mourelatos you would find Route of Parmenides. If you're exhausted and just wanted to bitch then that explains your post. If this was transferred to a life or death situation, then you failed.

>>16596493
That's not fundamental enough to be a metaphysics

>>16596498
....You do realize I referenced that exact same book at the end of my post, right?

Just goes to show

>>16596498
>If you typed in predications monistic Mourelatos you would find Route of Parmenides.

>And if so, just what do you recommend I read by him? The Route of Parmenides or his critical collection of essays on Presocratic philosophers?

do people even read posts anymore? lol at this guy thinking the answer is found in some bullshit professor who has no original ideas of his own

>>16596504
Holy shit you just want to bitch and pretend to be right. I was clearly addressing that I wasn't sending you on some esoteric chase like my dialectic partner here. If it was any bit confusing just search the full term I gave you and quit playing the victim.

>>16596513
It's not original because it's reality. Go fuck yourself for playing the victim.

>>16596513
>Who the fuck Is Mourelatos?

From google, what I can find is an obscure scholar of presocratic philosophy named Alexander Mourelatos, who only wrote commentaries on ancient philosophy.

Is this who the fuck you mean by using last name only “Mourelatos”, as if anyone should know who the fuck that is?

And if so,
>If you typed in predicational monist Mourelatos you would find Route of Parmenides.
Pretty easy anon

>>16596520
you seem mad

calm down, it’s late

>>16593503
>ying and yang
Yeah more like ching and chong you fucking squinteye. Don't you gotta go peepee in someone's coke or something?

>>16596528
I made you mad, so sad, and you know this. Baaaallin
Working on my stiffy, bitch she want to if me, acting like she get me, wrote it but she never gonna get me

>>16596503
It's the best example my brain can grasp, so I'm happy with it.

>>16596539
In atomic habits he says it's not the goal but the structure which you should focus on as that provides results. Granted that contradicts his whole point of "atomic habits" but u just got btfo by some capitalist entitled schmuck

>>16596331
>>16596298
sounds very much like splitting hairs

>>16596546
If you're looking for a real answer it's becoming in hegel's logic, nietzsche does an appollonian-dionysian historicism. Foucault does something similarly. Heraclitus has a different ontological dimension but prescribes the same view

>>16596370
sounds too general to be helpful or instrumental towards to any end good or bad. that could be a good thing like it's not going to give you nazis or anything but also then what's the point

if your entire philosophy is just a synonym of the word existence or experience the invention of the terms the use of one over another doesn't matter

>>16596398
actually he isn't. you are

>>16593503
>it's another thread of beating up strawmen
Mommy no

>>16593540
why do you place so much trust in like, a doodle.

>>16596795
do you not place trust in your doodle?

>>16595912
Mumonkan 19

Jõshû asked Nansen, "What is the Way?"

"Ordinary mind is the Way," Nansen replied.。

"Shall I try to seek after it?" Jõshû asked.

"If you try for it, you will become separated from it," responded Nansen.

"How can I know the Way unless I try for it?" persisted Jõshû.

Nansen said, "The Way is not a matter of knowing or not knowing.

Knowing is delusion; not knowing is confusion.

When you have really reached the true Way beyond doubt, you will find it as vast and boundless as outer space.

How can it be talked about on the level of right and wrong?"

With these words, Jõshû came to a sudden realization.


Here is Sadhguru to explain it for you:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4SXs40RR6cI

>>16596882
Basically someone needs to formalize it better than Hegel for Taoism. Idk why they continue this crap unless they are masochists. Analytic philosophy is leading in Asia, to include China. This nationalistic crap, and nobody's interest in formalizing it, is making it increasingly irrelevant.
If you can find a logic that works for it then I think you'd be one step closer to not using parables and telling everyone they don't know. If anything your parable makes it so your parable can't explain it.

>>16596907
I dont know what you are talking about but here are some other parables.

---------

A monk asked Nansen, "Is there any Dharma that has not been preached to the people?"

Nansen answered, "There is."

"What is the truth that has not been taught?" asked the monk.

Nansen said, "It is not mind; it is not Buddha; it is not things."

----------

A non-Buddhist philosopher said to the Buddha, "I do not ask for words; I don not ask for non-words."

The Buddha just sat there.

The philosopher said admiringly, "The World-honored One, with his great mercy, has blown away the clouds of my illusion and enabled me to enter the Way."

And after making bows, he took his leave.

Then Ananda asked the Buddha, "What did he realize, to admire you so much?"

The World-honored One replied, "A fine horse runs even at the shadow of the whip."

---------

When Shakyamuni Buddha was at Mount Grdhrakuta, he held out a flower to his listeners.

Everyone was silent.

Only Mahakashyapa broke into a broad smile.

The Buddha said, "I have the True Dharma Eye, the Marvelous Mind of Nirvana, the True Form of the Formless, and the Subtle Dharma Gate, independent of words and transmitted beyond doctrine. This I have entrusted to Mahakashyapa."

>>16596930
>you don't know
>man can only do what they most want to do in the best way possible given the circumstances
You clearly think you know something and are using ignorance as propaganda. Socrates was justified in his ignorance in that he was just using the socratic method, you are just spewing propaganda

>>16596937
All this talking about justification and methods and law.

Where will it take you in the end?

You people work so hard for your and others survival, has anyone yet succeded?

Another parable.

A man was walking across a field when he saw a tiger. Fearing for his life, the man fled, but the tiger gave chase. The man reached the edge of a cliff, and just as he thought the tiger would get him, he spotted a vine growing over the edge of the cliff. Grabbing on to it, he swung himself over the edge to safety.

The tiger came to the edge and snarled at him from above. While precariously perched like this, the man saw another tiger growling at him from below. Trembling, he held on to the thin vine that was keeping him from being dinner for the tigers. What could be worse than this, he wondered.

Just then, two mice scampered out and began gnawing at the vine. As they chewed and the man pondered over his fate, he saw a juicy, red strawberry on a ledge next to him. Grasping the vine with one hand, he plucked the strawberry with the other. Ah, how sweet it tasted!

>>16596944
Are your parables a justification or method or law?

>>16596948
No they are parables. You can interprit them for yourself if you want.

>>16596958
If they aren't then what do you think they'll accomplish by you posting them? How is that not a method?

>>16596971
Its a gift, not a yoke :)

Now all this fighting and resentment and questionioning turn it inward. And ponder up and down and side to side and king and slave.

And then tie it all in a knot and boom!

Look out your own eyes.

(Or don't)

>>16596983
That doesn't make it not a method etc

>>16593593
Good way of describing Heidegger, anon

>>16596997
>Socrates was justified in his ignorance
This is the point we departed, justified this justified that, does the tiger need justification for eating his prey?

>>16597006
Yes. He's justified by being hungry which is justified by biological laws which is justified by physical etc