/lit/ - Literature

obligatory hilarious photo

>>18676462
That was just early Heidegger, late Heidegger realised Plato went beyond those critiques.

>>18676462
Agreed. Metaphysics is gay and so is causality.

>>18676462
For the European race at least. What consequences did Plato have in the east according to Heidegger?

>>18676510
Agreed.

>>18676539
>>18676510
Skeptic gang. Ephectigang? Epochegang?

>>18676715
fuck off skepticism and this epoche are self-refuting retardation

>>18676726
Pyrrhonism doesn't claim absolute knowledge that knowledge is impossible. Neither does Nagarjuna as far as I'm aware. Have fun trying to break that Munchhausen cage forever.

>>18676739
>Munchhausen trilemma
If you think this means anything at this point you are probably still at the beginning.
You can read this thread, for example: >>/lit/thread/S17703715#p17705019

>>18676739
>>18676847
Actually I was looking for another thread, but that one suffices. I found it nevertheless: >>/lit/thread/S18285551
If you are skeptic, you should be skeptic of your skepticism and read that one as well :)

>>18676462
>>18676475
>>18676497
>>18676847
>>18676878
>>18676715
>>18676539

Did I remind you yet that he slept with that cutie Hannah Arendt?
What a fucking chad.

>>18676878
>>18676847
Nothing in either of these threads gives a convincing reason to believe in absolute knowledge or to believe in metaphysics, just faulty claims that assenting to appearances means you have dogmatic beliefs about the underlying metaphysics of things.

>>18676918
Wait, you read those two 100+ replies threads entirely in less than 10 minutes? I love how in the end the skeptic always reveals himself as the dogmatist he has always been.

>>18676462
heidegger was a retard and his magnum opus is a joke on the reader. being and time lol. nigga is wasting your time with shower thoughts.

>>18676933
Only the relevant portions with people actually arguing against skepticism. It's mostly just repeating the problem that skepticism cannot claim absolutely that knowledge is unattainable because it fails the same lack of criteria of proof that also make dogmatic claims baseless, which isn't anything new. No one can say for sure that truth is impossible, even Pyrrhonists, but neither is there any convincing argument here that anyone's dogmatic philosophical claims have any basis. Why should I believe Plato or Aristotle or whoever?

>>18676739
Nagarjuna follows the two truths doctrine, i.e. he does believe that conventional truths can be established (this is what differentiates him from a nihilist) but states that all of them are ultimately empty, emptiness being the ultimate truth. There is no difference between nirvana and samsara for Nagarjuna. Nirvana is simply seeing the world as free from conceptual thought and duality. Ultimately, one should not even cling to emptiness as view.

>>18676890
based
>>18676980
midwit

>>18676983
But this is the main issue of our conversation: there is no epistemological support for skepticism whatsoever. Now, there is literally an overview of husserlian epoché and epistemology in one of those threads, you didn't even care to read. Anyhow, I myself don't regard those rationalist developments highly, it does not mean they are not true (or point not to truth).

>>18676998
Some of that sounds a little dogmatic or metaphysical but it seems more reasonable and simple than most philosophy.

>>18677017
>But this is the main issue of our conversation
No it's not. If you think this is the main issue under discussion then you aren't even arguing against Pyrrhonism in the first place, which states pretty clearly that its own doctrine is probably impossible to prove for the same reason that dogmatic claims are impossible to prove. If you believe that you can prove one of the dogmatic philosophies then by all means try to do so. What is the metaphysical truth of reality and why do you believe it?

>>18677017
>there is no epistemological support for skepticism whatsoever
I state my case on nothing, spookmonger.
>Some of that sounds a little dogmatic or metaphysical
It can sound that way, but it really isn’t. Empty just means dependently originated and free from essences. In that way, both subject and object are empty. This is not the say that they are the same (there is no essence for them to have unity in), but they also aren’t different (there is no essence for them to have difference in).

>>18677017
I've never read Husserl but I'm aware of him. I might actually read him now because he sounds interesting. The Cicero post is good too.

>>18677053
>No it's not.
The discussion began with my asserting its self-destructive nature. I linked two threads that shows this is the case, skepticism in general, pyrrhonism included.
>which states pretty clearly that its own doctrine is probably impossible to prove for the same reason that dogmatic claims are impossible to prove
lol, first: not ''probably impossible to prove'' but literally impossible to prove as shown, and the hole in pyrrhonism is obviously not the same as what you suppose to be holes in knowledge-assertive philosophies, they part from distinct principles, this is so obvious. Read the threads I posted.
> If you believe that you can prove one of the dogmatic philosophies then by all means try to do so. What is the metaphysical truth of reality and why do you believe it?
Already told you about an example being husserlian phenomenology, which is briefly explained in one of the threads.

>>18677083
He is without a doubt worth reading and dedicating yourslef to studying him, even if it demands a lot on par with platonism.

>>18677073
>>18677053
Forgot to reply to you

>>18677073
are you a stirnerite madhyamika?

>>18677109
Yes. I won’t be able to reply for a while, but I’ll be back in like an hour.

>>18677127
Based, I guess. I have been thinking about how Buddhism in general recognizes the Dionysian Spirit of the world and nature and its eternal return as expressive of the inherent emptiness in all things, all things expressing nature's own cyclical will, its hunger, etc., and how Nietzscheanism (general term I believe expresses this consciousness best) is the only option for anything other than Christianity.

>>18677165
>Buddhism in general recognizes the Dionysian Spirit of the world and nature and its eternal return as expressive of the inherent emptiness in all things, all things expressing nature's own cyclical will, its hunger, etc.,
Are you the same guy I talked to about Sade and Stirner? If you are, you’re the person that inspired me to read Nagarjuna.

>>18677262
lol yes, I am, I suspected you were also the same person from that thread.

>>18677278
Aaaaaaa

>>18677004
>20th century philosophy is a success because it lets you into the panties of women who look like men

>"midwit"
no u

>>18677495
mad cause filtered
>>18677165
based