/lit/ - Literature

>Bernardo Kastrup is the executive director of Essentia Foundation. His work has been leading the modern renaissance of metaphysical idealism, the notion that reality is essentially mental. He has a Ph.D. in philosophy (ontology, philosophy of mind) and another Ph.D. in computer engineering (reconfigurable computing, artificial intelligence). As a scientist, Bernardo has worked for the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) and the Philips Research Laboratories (where the 'Casimir Effect' of Quantum Field Theory was discovered). Formulated in detail in many academic papers and books, his ideas have been featured on 'Scientific American,' the 'Institute of Art and Ideas,' the 'Blog of the American Philosophical Association' and 'Big Think,' among others.

Yes he is interesting for someone who comes purely from the western tradition, via Jung and Schopenhauer, but I prefer to go directly to the original Indian thinkers like Adi Shankara

If you can read french, read Michel Bitbol

>>19226341
>Why isn't anyone talking about him?
literally why the fuck would people be talking about him? go and look for hot papers in analytic philosophy, you've likely never heard the names of most of their authors unless they make a deliberate effort to reach out to the public. the fact you think important living philosophers (at least, ones younger than like 70) are talked about on here makes you look like a pseud and makes me think katsrup is a quack since a pseud like you likes him

>>19226464
You mean Yajnavalkya

>>19227093
seethe harder tranny
important thinkers in a field are popular
like, in the philosophy of mind:
david chalmers
thomas nagel
jaegwon kim
etc

>>19227093
but kastrup remains interesting because nobody talks about him and he publishes in the magazines you mention tho

>>19227093
>says that true thinkers are not known
>blames kastrup for being unknown and says we shouldn't talk about him here
retard

>>19227093
>the fact you think important living philosophers (at least, ones younger than like 70) are talked about
but this is the case anon
I am interested in the philosophy of religion, and for example Feser is a young philosopher whose arguments are very much discussed in the field, who is less than 70 years old and who has a certain notoriety on the internet, including here
there is also joshua rasmussen, alexander pruss, etc...

bump

>>19226341
You might also like Andrés Gómez Emilsson if you're into Kastrup. He's trying to mathematically formalize psychedelic experiences.

https://qualiacomputing.com/
https://youtube.com/channel/UCHv1q35tKUJiSWO9W2OQRhw

>>19227898
I know him but he's a panpsychist/physicalist, and I'm not. He's interesting tho

Because all these faggots are the same
>DUDE JUST TAKE DMT LOL
It's the same Timothy Leary psyop that's been going on since the 60s.

>>19226341
I prefer essentialism. Without essences philosophy is literally things that don't exist using words that don't refer to anything.

>>19228017
>Because all these faggots are the same
>>DUDE JUST TAKE DMT LOL
and yet it’s pretty decent advice

>>19227972
Redpill me on why you reject physicalism and panpsychism

>>19228017
You obviously never read Kastrup.

>>19228034
>he thinks essentialism can't exist in a idealist metaphysics
cringe

>>19228115
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVOi8cvEl5Y
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7QbZePP_7w

>>19228473
>>19228115
+ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BbnfnveWUh0

>>19228473
>Why I am not a Physicalist
JF Gariépy critiqued this video on one of his livestreams.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=XWbDaeJoFhM&t=3180s

>>19228645
Do you have the timeskip?

>>19228645
>>19228674
timing*

>>19228674
>>19228683
It's 53 minutes in

>>19228645
>>19228690
I listened to the beginning, he doesn't even understand Hempel's dilemma and answers that physics (which he seems to confuses with physicalism, which already says a lot) is independent of human activity... Ok, but this has nothing to do with the dilemma. To understand it in more detail: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/physicalism/#HempDile

What he says next seems to confirm that he subscribes to the second "horn" of the dilemma, and then everything said in the original video follows.

He says that since physics is independent of human thought, physicalism is independent of our knowledge of physics... The argument seems confused. Ok, but then we come back to the second horn of the dilemma: tomorrow's physics may contain mentality, and so his metaphysical position is indeterminate and unknown, it amounts to saying nothing, since we don't know what counts as physics or not.

A good article to understand how such physicalism, unrolled in full, turns into an adversarial position: https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2019/01/materialism-subverts-itself.html

I went forward to listen, he doesn't answer the second horn of the dilemma at all. He says it's just "saying you might be wrong." Again he doesn't understand the dilemma. This is not the same as saying that "maybe physicalism is wrong", but that it is unknown, undefined, and therefore untenable if you follow the second horn as he does.

>>19228770
>>19228645
>>19228690
Might also be of interest:
https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2010/03/1174/
https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/03/scientism-roundup.html

bump

>>19226341
>thoughts on Kastrup
His arguments are interesting and its true that physicalism is full of holes, but Kastrup’s model is ultimately a less coherent model than the metaphysical model which Guenon et al write about

https://sensuscatholicus.jimdofree.com/2021/01/10/concerning-idealism-evolution-psychology-and-other-modern-errors/

>>19229337
>https://sensuscatholicus.jimdofree.com/2021/01/10/concerning-idealism-evolution-psychology-and-other-modern-errors/
Very interesting, is that your blog? I'm curious how someone could reconcile Guenonism and Catholicism

>>19229337
>for while the former simply rejects all religious claims as primitive ‘superstitions’ or infantile ‘delusions’, the latter profess themselves to be quite sympathetic to what they broadly call ‘spirituality’ and try to ‘revitalize’ or ‘modernize’ it, for example by mixing (what they take for) eastern doctrines with scientistic theories like evolution or quantum physics.
This is just a resurgence of the exoterism/esoterism distinction.
Distinction that the Guénonian accepts. Just as the "Galileo-Descartian" division of matter and spirit can only lead to the suppression of the latter, the distinction exoterism/esoterism can only lead to the rejection of the former, in favor of the direct and shared heart that surpasses and structures the dogmatic religions.

>>19229337
>What we are dealing with in questions concerning such ‘emergent’ phenomena – whether it be how the ‘atoms’ and ‘molecules’ that supposedly make up my chair become the actual solidified chair I can sit on, or how the ‘evolutionary process’ passes from plant life to animal, from animal to man etc. – are ontological and ‘qualitative’ leaps that cannot be explained without reference to vertical types of causality.
Bad example, the solidity of the chair can be explained from its atoms and molecules and physical forces.

>>19227103
never heard kim mentioned, but nagel and chalmers are cherrypicks. for some reason they are known among laymen. nobody on here ever talks about, say, tim crane. even dead philosophers who are quite important in the academy i never see brought up on here, like james rachels. none of you would know who amia srinivasan is if not for her recent book on incels (which i haven't read, i know her for her epistemology work). etc. in fact now that i think of it it's really rare to see even certain giants like john rawls brought up on here, this place must be astroturfed to hell or something because the same 10 people, who are either entry-level (e.g. dennett), celebrities (e.g. baudrillard), or hacks who would only appeal to an autodidact (e.g. guenon), are talked about on here ad nauseum

>>19229457
>or hacks who would only appeal to an autodidact (e.g. guenon)
Pseud detected, almost got me

>>19229337
Fascinating article tho, is the author here?

>>19229457
>this place must be astroturfed to hell
Pretty much. It's really hard not to notice.

>>19229342
No, it’s not my blog. Another anon posted it in another thread some weeks ago which is how I found it

>>19229639
Do you have the link of this thread anon?

>>19229467
he’s right though, Guenon is garbage

>>19229685
no

>>19228107
No it's not. DMT is for faggots.

>>19226341
I read his "Materialism is baloney.." book and it was decent. I have a poor understanding of how reality works but when he went after how its crazy sounding to say basically our eyes decode what im seeing and i understand it as a whatever im looking at thats how I always understood it?

He also had a rant about how things are seemingly instantaneous and its silly to think otherwise but we are told there is a delay and it makes sense? It takes time for light tor reach things and for me to "decode" them into what I can understand them as.

I just dont have the background to appreciate what hes saying i suppose