/lit/ - Literature

>>20601768
St. Paul

>>20601775
FPBP, especially when you understand theosis

>>20601768
Eriugena
Proclus
Parmenides

>>20601768
Christopher Langan

>>20601768
My now ex gf who destroyed my mind

>>20601860
>Aristotle but it’s STEM

>>20601768
Rene Guenon because he retroactively refuted Jay Dyer

>>20601878
>he retroactively refuted Jay Dyer
Explain

>>20601775
In what way? How do I learn more about St. Paul?

>>20601881
he refuted the superiority of theology over metaphysics and religious exclusivism

Nietzsche

>>20601911
larp

Who is he?

all those were like after me no one is allowed to do philosophy and if they do theyre dumb, only i am allowed to be a philosopher anymore, see
>nietzsche
>wittgenstein
>ayler
etc.

all those were like after me no one is allowed to do philosophy and if they do theyre dumb, only i am allowed to be a philosopher anymore, see
>nietzsche
>wittgenstein
>ayer
etc.

>>20601931
Jay Dyer

>>20601775
No he isn't, retard.

Kantbot and wydna collective are the final boss of philosophy

Johannes Scotus Erigena

>>20601768
>Numbers are real therefore God.
Complete pseud.

>>20602094
It's funny how even this strawman that you have made is actually STILL a better and more coherent argument than materialism.

>>20601768
still waiting for a debate between him and mathoma

>>20602105
This is not a strawman. This is unironically the argument pseuds make to prove existence of the immaterial.

Certainly not this retard

>>20602010
Kantbot is like a boss who’s been hyped up all game only to die in 1 hit

>>20601768
This dude is too arrogant for me. It's like theology is just a stand in for the man's ego.

>>20602178
>>20602196
https://youtu.be/NXLGcVCtT88

>>20602178
Do you deny the existence of the immaterial?

>>20602191
Nice cope

>>20602256
Imagination exists therefore intellect is immaterial BTW I am smart. WOW.

>>20601768
The Pre-Socratics.

Specifically, the Eleatics. Absolute boss-tier monsters who were famous for demolishing everyone else and humiliating them with hilarious reductio ad absurdum arguments and observations.

>>20602289
If you are not going to actually listen to what he has to say then don't bother posting.

>>20602261
Yes. Very much in the real of physical reality.

>>20602256
Its funny how the immaterial has been pushed back to a point where you have to churn up hours long convoluted purely argumentative crap to justify the frankly unjustifiable. Must miss the times when you could just point at lightning in the sky and say "Zeus did it"

>>20601895
that's not an explanation, just an affirmation

>>20602094
That's one argument, and it works.

Goedel proved that within a "formal system", i.e. a mathematicla system with axioms, some statements are true but cannot be proven. This is a paradox. It means the system can never be proven to be consistent, so anything the system "proves" is not a proof. The only way the system can be true but not proven, is if it is revealed to be true.

https://www.rudyrucker.com/infinityandthemind/#calibre_link-304

Of course his argument can be tweaked for orthodox rather than neoplatonism since neoplatonism would not solve the dilemna on a more fundamental level.

>>20601878
Geunon was refuted by Tomberg

Guenon SAWS

>>20601987
>comedian
Fucking dropped.

>>20602418
You sure seem clever for a three dimensional being, we totally can fully grasp the nature of physical reality and should trust our perception… NOT!

Hegel without a doubt

>>20602418
>Yes. Very much in the real of physical reality.
Ok then you can't use logic to even make an argument so your whole post is meaningless.

>>20602637
Don't let Jay's goofy antics or his vaporwave meme aesthetics fool you. Jay Dyer's mind is sharp as a blade. Many atheist, Roman Catholic, Muslim, and gnostic opponents have made the mistake of underestimating him. Jay is an intellectual titan and a philosophical master.

>>20601931
>he

>>20601768
Adi Shankara (pbuh) is the boss

>>20602418
>Its funny how the immaterial has been pushed back to a point where you have to churn up hours long convoluted purely argumentative crap to justify the frankly unjustifiable.
It's funny how you are talking about "unjustifiable" when that is literally your whole worldview.
None of you people have even gotten past Hume.
Meme words get thrown around too often around but in this case this is actually a textbook example of FILTERED!!!

>>20602699
>t. simpstan

>>20602699
True to a lesser degree. Anyway, if you can't beat him then just wait a couple of years. He'll eventually pick a new denomination/position and refute his old one for you.

>>20602094
>not the slightest hint of a counter argument
>just call him a pseud and move on
Atheist "thinkers"

Heated argument from yesterday
https://youtu.be/PjcbbWetKOM

bump

>>20601768
Hegel if you want an aneurysm, real niggas read the the mystics

it’s plotinus. once you comprehend plotinus you can be done with western philosophy
maybe nagarjuna if you’re a Buddhist or Shankara if you’re an advaitain. this is also precisely why nobody makes any attempt to “advance the system” of any thinker that I mentioned, and why all of the fools that mentioned nietzsche, hegel are wrong. Marx and stirner tried to advance Hegel while the ink was still fresh on the page. dialectic of systems is baked into his philosophy. and neetch was a navel gazing retard that leads everyone to their own brand of satanism

>>20601775
faggot
>>20601768
you can't exit philosophy OP. that's not how it works

>>20602314
I am right i watched it and that is his syllogistic argument??

The Syllogistic Arguments:

1. AEE, Figure 2

A All physical things are particulars
E No universals are particulars
E No universals are physical things

2. Conversion of Conclusion: No physical things are universals

3. EIO, Figure 2

E No physical things are universals
I Some concepts are universals
O Some concepts are not physical things

4. OAO, Figure 3

O Some concepts are not physical things
A All concepts are in the mind
O Some (things) “in the mind” are not physical things

5. Translated Conclusion: Some things in the mind are not physical

6. OAO, Figure 3

O Some things in the mind are not physical things
A All things in the mind are part of the mind
O Some part of the mind is not physical

7. Translated Conclusion (Obversion): Some part of the mind is immaterial (where immaterial means the negation of what is material/physical)

8. Materialism/Physicalism Thesis: E No part of the mind is immaterial

9. Modern Square of Opposition: the contradiction of E (No S are P) propositions is an I proposition (Some S are P)

10. Therefore, the I proposition (Some part of the mind is immaterial) refutes materialism/physicalism by way of counter-example.
Q.E.D.


counter-argument:
This proof assumes that a conception is infact not a particular but a universal, and assumes these are separate ontological categories, whereas the universality of the most universal is its particular nature, and the particular nature of it is its universality, by extension the most particular of the particular is the most universal of the universal,

therefore the universal most is not immaterial, because according to the syllogistic argument, a particular is a physical thing, therefore some part of the concept its universal most nature, is infact physical and non-physical, this debunks the proof of separation between the immaterial and material they infact both concepts in one immaterial mind.

>>20604683
>this debunks the proof of separation between the immaterial and material
by being universal and particular respectively, whereas the most universal is infact the most particular, and by transposition the least universal is the least particular.

>>20602827
christcuckery man

>>20602699
Muh Crowley butt sex lol

>>20601768
power (potentia) , death and other contemplative but readable entities

>>20601922
everything in life is a larp
nietzsch is only being honest

>>20601768
Hegel, reading him requires so much context and foreknowledge that it feels like an exam

>>20602191
>Wydna
More like Ywnbaw

Why doesn't Dyer challenge a big YouTube Atheist like Thundef00t or Amazing Atheist to a debate? All of his atheism debates are with literal whos from 10 years ago.

>>20601775
Who?

>>20604778
Atheist arguments are all the same.

>>20603573
You're right that Plotinus is better than those others you mentioned, but he still isn't the best desu