/lit/ - Literature

what businesses have you successfully started or ran

Actually the title will be improved
It will be:
>The Case for Monism in the Twenty-First Century

Here's how I'm gonna begin my treatise. The underlying axiom of the treatise is that there are only 2 ultimate problems across 2,500 years of philosophy, that have underlined every single question posed by every single philosopher since the dawn of Philosophy:
>1. is there objective Truth, or is there not. and if there is, what is the definition of it. and if there isn't, can we create a concept of Truth that has the most empirical use (so in a way, philosophy IS a science) i.e. is the closest to how human beings themselves uniquely recognize truth, and could that be universalized. the closest to the latter is Starsky's concept of Truth
>2. dualism vs monism, which one of the two is the closest to this universalized notion of "Truth"
and really, after you systematize 1., the most important problem in the history of philosophy really is 2., dualism vs monism

And here my case for Monism shall begin

>>20665080
I am 20 and in college right now studying what I could broadly describe as data science for economics

Revision, the title shall be:
>The Theory of Everything, or the Case for Monism for the Twenty-First Century
it will be a summary of my knowledge accumulated under years, in fact my whole life, of meticulous intellectual suspicion, pondering and contemplation

enjoy

So D&G but arborescent

>>20665071
Cringe is evolving.

>>20665111
>monism is arborescent
you didn't get D&G, bro

the problem with D&G is the same as with Marx. exceptional critique, flawed propositions

>>20665097
>majoring in economics
>2008+14
zoomers are retarded, and using excel does not make you a data scientist

Here's the problem that I'm trying to solve: the level of disintegration of Self in the 21st century

Self already begun disintegrating in the 19th century under industrialization (atomization of society), which brought with it an explosion in information. then in the 20th century came many different crises that impacted the Self—from feminism & emancipation (gender equality), to WW1, war communism, stalinism, fascism, WW2, the Holocaust and then everything post-WW2 being a reaction to these fundamental existential political crises

Now in the 21st century we're witnessing a disintegration of the self even further, as philosophy & a truly intellectual pursuit is no longer treated seriously. this anxiety really began with Popper & popperists and is now continued by educators like Sabine Hossenfelder, who are trying to truly move science forward while respecting THE PHILOSOPHY of science. Indeed I will be using the words "truly" and "authentically" liberally here, following the footsteps of Adorno, the Frankfurt School and Critical Theory in general

All of this is quite succinctly explained in the 7-hour long series of lectures by Rick Roderick, "The Self Under Siege: Philosophy in the Twentieth Century" which is really just a crash course on all of philosophy, what it is, what it ought to accomplish, in 7 hours. And so there he starts off with a very prescient remark:

Native Americans, for example, had a very limited set of information about the world. So their "spiritual" (Dasein) pathways were limited. This satisfied their Dasein. the problem with the 20th, and especially with the 21st century, is the OVERLOAD of information, which causes the number of pathways to really approach infinity. this causes the Self to go into flux, to disintegrate completely

Now, basing all of this on the theory of positive disintegration, I believe that in fact our civilization doesn't have to be in decline yet, in fact I believe modern civilization is ripe for a new beginning and new growth. basically, now that the Self has almost completely disintegrated under the progress of capitalism and disintegration of intellectual/philosophical guidance, we can create the Self anew, for the new world. Essentially, what we have to do is collectivize the Ubermensch. that is the goal of my vision of Monism for the 21st century. the complete ridding away of Jungian opposing binaries. and a synthesis of them in the Jungian sense too, i.e. not merely a compromise between each of the opposing binaries, but a truly new third thing. I believe this can be done, and in answering this lies the solution to our undergoing civilizational collapse. what also needs to be recognized is where exactly Ted Kaczynski was wrong

>>20665148
nah, i'm not majoring in economics. i'm majoring in computer statistics, really

>>20665257
Cont.:
To solve the upcoming civilizational collapse, one needs to first identify the set of crucial crises that are underpinning this civilizational collapse. to do this, we need to first ask ourselves: what are the founding axioms of civilization? basically, from the Neolithic revolution onward, we can see the departure of the notion of "society" first from small "bands" of hunter-gatherers of ~20-150 people each (a few families composed of people who knew about the dangers of incest), to agricultural settlements. then in these agricultural settlements really is created the first modern conception of the Human, as in, a person that goes beyond the natural order as his Dasein gets under pressure and he must create some new form of order for himself. thus, begins civilization. and it does not begin with writing. it begins with politics. civilization begins when the agricultural communities depart from proto-communism and establish a hierarchical structure to better face external pressures in the context of Humanity (and the new agricultural Dasein) being still new. hierarchy was the easiest way out of this, as it also kind of was in hunter-gatherer bands (which were never truly anarchic). and then it's the same story again, when in these hierarchical agricultural settlements Power inevitably concentrates in the hands of the few. this comes up as a result of tangential benefits both for the Master class, and the Slave class (the Master class offers protection and guidance, the Slave class offers their labor, and so it all works together). therefore, the beginning of civilization can really first be witnessed not through the creation of writing, but through the creation of walls, because such an effort in an agricultural community necessitated being a carrying out of orders of some form of Master class (be it an actual ruler/landlord or, most likely, a priestly class). where can we see walls being built for the first time? the proto-city of Jericho. this is extremely important, because the flawed modern notion of civilization is the beginning of writing. but really Jericho is where civilization began, this also weirdly legitimizes the Bible, or at least the biblical story. this already presents an accumulation of information and a further disintegration of the hunter-gatherer Dasein. and only then next comes writing, and again, this is an extremely important pattern. the cultural institution of writing is really just a response to a partial disintegration of the original hunter-gathered Self, where Trust was of utmost importance because on Trust was relegated the survival of the entire group (band). with the advent of agriculture, Trust was called into suspicion, and thus the first grand narrative of Humanity was called into suspicion. thus, we can visualize the later (and ongoing) redefinitions of the Self accompanying the progress of technology, as a way of coping with techno-social change, to maintain a Dasein.

>>20665269
this techno-social change really can be explained simply as the expansion of the set of information we as a civilization have, and also the expanse of civilization. we started out as mobile hunter-gatherer bands, then came agriculture and first sedentary settlements (first sedentary settlements actually started before agriculture funnily enough, but that's another story because these settlements had no impact on the future of History), then came proto-Cities (Jericho) and THUS civilization began, then came writing, then came religious texts, then came redefinitions of statehood under Christian ethics after the collapse of the Roman Empire and, crucially, redefinitions of Greco-Roman values and their alignment or misalignment with Christian ethics, and really, redefinition of Christian ethics for political purposes; then came feudalism (historically a flawed term really, but again, another story for another time and not really for this board), then proto-capitalism, then early capitalism, then modern (industrial) capitalism, then post-modern capitalism (after WW2) and finally meta-modern capitalism. crucially, this also coincides with the expansion of a Civilization, the founding fathers of which were the Greeks. essentially, the Greeks formulated a philosophical sense of ethics that can (and should) also apply politically. this light of, really, Monist civilization was carried by the Romans, who conquered the Greeks but instead of ruining this superior civilization as the Mongols did with Baghdad, they approached them with true respect and decided to appropriate their values and redefine them to serve them better for the future. then this light of civilization expanded when the Western Roman Empire fell and these values were appropriated by Germanic tribes/kingdoms, who again, were trying to redefine them "for modern times" first trying to find common ground between them, and Christian ethics; and then deciding to redefine Christian values themselves. this is the split between Early and High Middle Ages. all of this coincides with the spread of Christianity across Europe, reaching the Slavs. and so thus, "the Civilization" (Judeo-Christian) is now fully defined and spans almost the entire European continent. the funny thing is that Confucian (& other Eastern religious) values are really not too different from Judeo-Christian values, because both Eastern religions and the original Christian doctrine really are... monist. but more about that later.

>>20665278
when Judeo-Christian civilization reaches its localized peak as it extends to all of Europe, that's when the Age of Colonization begins, and the spread of the Judeo-Christian civilization continues. where we're right now is that the Judeo-Christian civilization has conquered the entire world, and right now the whole Earth is one big civilization. this brings us back to the simple definitions of a globalized world: "a global village." this is a very fascinating term because it highlights the connection between the original post-hunter-gatherer new and idealistic (kind of anarchic) Dasein of the first sedentary, agricultural settlements, and the modern globalized world which basically runs on the Internet.
and so what I've really been trying to say here is that these are all waves of information for the Self, which end up disintegrating the Self. the problem with modernity is that under such accumulation of information as we've come to this century, one can no longer try to define the Self in any useful way, at least no one has so far tried to. philosophers have sort of given up and I consider this state to be extremely sad. philosophy has essentially given up on crucial discussion (as began in Ancient Greece), and that's why I think as of today, philosophy as a field is dead.

but we all subconsciously, on this board, want philosophy to be alive. and not for petty personal reasons, I believe, but because these are questions that still need to be answered for us to create a Dasein for the modern world, which has not been sufficiently accomplished yet. and so, from definition, philosophy is NOT dead, so long as these questions remain truly alive.

I finally agreed on the title of my Treatise:

>Theory of Everything: Dasein for the 21st century, or monism for modernity

This is some high quality bait

>>20665318
because of people like you, philosophy is dead. i am the Nietzschean Ubermensch, you are the Nietzschean Last Man

>>20665071
Well I... kind of despise the very aspect of 'monism' and consider it was a non-reality based fantasy, but here's the real problem,
>in which all major modes of production are automated, including the mode of production of the robots themselves,
This is largely already what goes on and it goes on primarily to remove the citizen from any avenue to autonomy; production being wealth.

Stalins conversation with HG Wells where "capitalism is anarchy" seems to me to be one of the more valuable observations that actually predicts the weakening, minimalizing and displacement of the state (and all citizens rights, e.g. twitter policy is able to subvert US Law) by the currency fiddlers (who were considered as criminals until fairly recently in history), with 'capitalism' as being basically anti-state criminal abuse with an artificial low-production ethos where the money, constantly devalued, is only as valuable in correlation to how scarce the commodity is; deincentivizing actual production creating poverty as a consequence, from which most other problems derive.

>>20665278
>Confucian (& other Eastern religious) values are really not too different from Judeo-Christian values
As if we needed further evidence from OP that the less one knows the more one says

>>20665071
>amalgamation of Marx, Nietzsche, Freud
Yeah no thanks. This shit's been exhausted. Do something original for Christ's sake.

>>20665071
>(it will be regulated, still)
Cringe. Lost me

>>20665100
your whole life being 20 years?

the main question you seem to be raising here is on the viability of single-minded authorship in an anonymous forum

>>20665281
Well you seem to analyse a lot of true things. But i think your theory only hold in such general terms. Not only do you ignore non-western thinking but also you generalize western thinking under different forms of historical forms. Basic hegelian approach. To make it more clear i think you dont pay attention to the actual constitution of the Self throughout history and outside the west. Also you seem to focused on the empirical Self and skip any insight into the nature of consciousness.
I could be wrong. Your approach is definitely interesting.
What exactly do you mean by monism? How have the greeks been monists, the confucians, the judeo-christian tradition and... How to restore monism in this age?

>>20665071
>Marx, Nietzsche, Freud,
Yuck, people won't go for it. These thinkers are just gross dude.
>>20665257
Read Shankaracharya dude. Your conception of "self" is too narrow. Also I recommend buddhist texts to help you expand your understanding of 'self'. Understanding the difference between more orthodox dharmic views and buddhist views of the self will help you in solving that "problem".

Specifically I recommend this: dhanet.net/audio-lectures.htm
Followed by texts like Ellam Ondre if you can find it. Thats not Shankara but its still advaita vedanta.

>>20666175
>dhanet.net/audio-lectures.htm
Link fucked, fixed below
http://www.buddhanet.net/audio-lectures.htm

>>20665379
>Stalins conversation with HG Wells where "capitalism is anarchy" seems to me to be one of the more valuable observations that actually predicts the weakening, minimalizing and displacement of the state (and all citizens rights, e.g. twitter policy is able to subvert US Law) by the currency fiddlers (who were considered as criminals until fairly recently in history), with 'capitalism' as being basically anti-state criminal abuse with an artificial low-production ethos where the money, constantly devalued, is only as valuable in correlation to how scarce the commodity is; deincentivizing actual production creating poverty as a consequence, from which most other problems derive.
My point is that we can use capitalism to upturn capitalism. You dig? Basically what D&G said about rhizomatic structures
>>20665635
I believe that Dasein begins when abstract thought is gained, and that is around the age of 3-4. I can trace my intellectual curiosity to around the age of 5 when I noticed the cover of a book, which read "How to raise a freethinker." That set me on a path where, ever since then, I've been trying to answer this question subconsciously, trying to glue together my own sense of transcendence through offspring and thus the realization of the personal project in the Beckerian sense

So about 15 years of intellectual exercise, the subconscious goal of which all along was the creation of a truly Nietzschean Ubermenschian Dasein in a freethinking young man in the 21st century.

>>20665071
>The goal is a society in which all major modes of production are automated, including the mode of production of the robots themselves, and how to get there without falling into a BNW dystopia

This is not philosophy, this is dead bugman idealism. You are not a revolutionary philosopher, you are a bean counter trying to optimise output. Spengler would have much to say about your kind.
Good luck though. My advice would be go into business, it isn't philosophy to increase productivity.

>>20665071
>Marx, Nietzsche, Freud
read Fukuyama and Zizek for a quick catch up on why these thinkers are dead today

>>20665071
>Marx, Lacan
Droped

>>20666215
>this is dead bugman idealism
Here's the problem: WE ARE gonna get there. Automation and the progress of technology is a process that, generally, cannot be stopped.

So what do we do with that, philosophically? Do you just foolishly rebel (REACT, be a reactionary, be PART OF the master-slave narrative) against technology, like a dumb Luddite, like Ted Kaczynski, or do you try to work out meaning for the present by working out a meaning in the most probable future?

We have to get somewhere that places US in a good spot spiritually, that is the spiritual goal of the Left, the true liberation of the individual and of "the society." How do you do that, knowing that technological progress is unstoppable?

A little intellectual exercise for you!

>>20666219
Fukuyama and Zizek themselves are merely amalgamations of Marx, Nietzsche and Freud. These 3 are called the Masters of Suspicion for a reason.

Philosophically, I think not enough has been said about metamodernism. I place thinkers like Zizek, Foucault, Fukuyama, Fisher, Peterson and Nick Land not in the sphere of post-modern philosophy (which I associate with the Frankfurt School and the first and second generations of critical theorists) but with META-MODERN philosophy, which I define as Applied Po-Mo Philosophy

>>20665071
Amalgamations are dead along with "Western philosophy", since Nietzsche. You're either entirely original or nothing at all. In the latter case your "unique amalgamation" is simply absorbed and blended into the chaotic mess of whatever passes as thought today, the "system building", the constant literary posturing at "significant figures" in thought. The only option left is a radical break with everything, including Nietzsche himself. Ironically the "trads" have probably come closest to this achievement out of all of them, but this isn't even saying much.

>>20666221
If technological progress is really unstoppable then nothing you can do can divert its course. This is all just empty posturing which will be swept away under a current too powerful and complicated to be controlled by any simplistic human thought or action.

>>20666228
>Fukuyama and Zizek themselves are merely amalgamations of Marx, Nietzsche and Freud.
Do you have any idea what you're talking about?

> monism
> the world is one
> there are no real distinctions between anything
> logical connections cannot be drawn between distinct things
> truth claims are impossible
> including the truth claim in favor of monism

>>20665257
>as philosophy & a truly intellectual pursuit is no longer treated seriously
You mean... in your undergraduate classes? Get yourself a bit of life experience first, kiddo.

Here's my revised title of my treatise:

>Good Anti-philosophy, or the Theory of Everything and the Dasein: the Case for Ethics and Monism in the 21st century

>>20666293
My answer to this good critical (based in logics) approach will be inspired by Karl Popper's aim.

Karl Popper was unironically the hitherto greatest philosopher in History (and I get how ironic this sounds)

I believe that through his critique of pseudoscience and hitherto attempts at historicism, a true historicism based on Heidegger can be created

>>20666293
>>20666317
Tldr: a falsifiable, scientific historicism (theory of history) CAN be created.

My vision: this Theory of History is monist. It belies a realization that the last 2,500 years of philosophical thought, and really thousands of thousands of years of perennial philosophy (even beyond the Dead Sea scrolls) belie 3 fundamental problems (from most significant, to less)
>1. dualism vs monism
>2. Is there objective Truth?
>3. Is there free will?

The logical framework for my treatise:
>Reactionism is an intellectually bankrupt exercise. To create coherent thought, we need to look beyond. The question of objective Good does *not* present a fourth fundamental problem of perennial philosophy because the question of objective Good is ultimately reactionary. To what it is a reaction? To the question of objective Truth. In this sense, ultimately, objective Truth and objective Good are expressions of each other. This is the axiom of my thinking, which I shall dub "monistic" or "neo-Popperian"

1. Dualism is part of the reactionary framework. I believe that dualism begins in the very beginning of abstract thought in any individual human. Dualism is first represented in the behavioral development of an individual human between the ages of 3 and 8. This representation is basically an unconscious internalization of the master-slave dialectic. We arrive in the world (in the Heideggerian sense) with abstract thought and are thus completely alone with how to organize our conscious lives. So we unconsciously internalize the master-slave dialectic (in the Hegelian herrschaft und knecht sense, but also kind of in the Nietzschean sense) as a means of securing our initially extremely insecure selves (Dasein). Then what follows throughout behavioral development is first a fracture of dualism at the age of 8-10 when we begin to question external (outside of the Family) meta-narratives/grand narratives, and then at the age of 14-16 starts the questioning of the meta-narratives/grand narratives of our own parents, and whether they have any. And we tend to realize, because that's the case for most people, that our parents don't really have an epistemological narrative which fully explains their Dasein themselves. And so, what follows from here, is an existential crisis for the adolescent. And from there on, behavioral development diverges into either of 2 things:
>(a) obscurantism in the Popperian sense
>(b) enlightenment in the Popperian sense
most people, unfortunately, fall into (a). those lucky few who fall into (b) have a realistic possibility of becoming Nietzschean Ubermenschen

>>20666325
Cont.:
1. And so what I'm trying to logically and scientifically arrive at here, is that the sheer concept of ontological and epistemological DUALISM itself is just a regurgitation of the insecurity we all habe when we are thrust into the world as lone Beings capable of abstract thought

Essentially, the Human (Dasein) is created at the age of 3-4, when abstract thought is created (more precisely, the theory of mind, i.e. what can be empirically and scientifically tested via the Sally-Anne test). Then what follows is an epistemological dualism as a REACTION to the fear of the abstract thought module (your brain) being alone in the world when facing the fundamental problems of ontology and epistemology.

So, in short, the Human is created precisely at the age of 3-4, when abstract thought gets developed in the brain of a growing child. THEN what follows is an identity crisis which really doesn't ever become solved (not since the age of 3-4 when the real *you* i.e. Dasein gets created) unless the individual achieves true enlightenment i.e. becomes a Nietzschean Ubermensch

And this has implications for raising children and pedagogy in general. If you could raise an Ubermensch, how would you go about it?

>>20666331
>And this has implications for raising children and pedagogy in general. If you could raise an Ubermensch, how would you go about it?
So the problem with creating an Ubermensch is the same problem as with raising and educating children in general. How to instill a sense of Self (Dasein) into the Child, without impacting it with our own biases, prejudices and delusions?

My answer according to the doctrine of monism I preach, which I think is truly scientific and also spiritual:
The way to create an Ubermensch is to make Them realize Their Dasein without having to intellectually flee from actually having to create their Dasein.

The way to achieve this is to now study the biology of "a human" (as opposed to the Human, Dasein, that is born after the age of 3) between conception and the age of 3.

So basically, a human between conception and the age of 3 is, mentally, non-existent. It is not a Dasein. The Unborn Psychology is an amorphous, homogenous 50/50 mixture of the genes of the mom and the dad.

The problem with the creation of an Ubermensch's Dasein is to raise your child monistically, in a way that completely disintegrates dualism. Because what the child will do at the age of 3 up to around the age of 8, is they will consider their sense of Dasein (but not THEIR dasein) as a HOMOGENOUS mixture of their dad and their mom. Essentially, the Dasein of a 3-8 year old child is a conscious abstraction of the epistemology of the toddler's self as a "copy of my mom AND my dad" (in a psychological sense)

So to raise an Ubermensch from the start, we need to make the child realize that they are NOT a copy of their mom and their dad. They are their own thing. A new thing. And this is the Pauli-Jung conjecture. A true synthesis of the thesis-antithesis binary will not be merely a compromise between the two, but a third, entirely new thing.

To make the Child realize their unique Being in the world, you would need to explain to your Child how children *really* are born. i.e. how their Dasein *should* be born (this is a falsifiable, empirically-testable assumption). Specifically, that the Child is an entirely new thing, and not merely a homogenous copy of their mom and their dad, because the way that the genes of their mom and dad combined was not homogenous! It was HETEROgenous! The basics of biological science that parents never teach their children!

So basically, children have their own "searching," "potential" Dasein from the age of 3, because the very act of genetic recombination creates not a homogenous copy of 2 parents, but a HETEROgenous copy of 2 parents, i.e. a genotype that is entirely new and completely unique

And it is on these grounds that the Child should be able to acquire an Ubermenschian Dasein from the age of 3-4 already. The rejection of the mother-father dualism, which itself really stems from the gender binary, and gender doesn't exist (if we assume monism to be true, which I think it is, and it is a falsifiable concept)

>>20666338
Cont.:
1. What follows from all this, is that when looking at dualism vs monism as the single most important problem underlying all perennial philosophy from both a modern psychological & (and thus) Popperian way, we could consider the problem of monism vs dualism to be falsifiable, if we could ascribe a sense to History that is correct (falsifiable and empirically-proven to be correct) based on either monism or dualism

My underlying dogmatic assumption is that a Theory of History based on monism is the only theory of history that can (and will) be proven correct. Ergo, monism is True, dualism is False, QED: the Ubermenschian Dasein is inherently a monist concept, it cannot be dualistic

>>20666343
2. So we neatly progress into the fundamental problem of objective Truth. The concept of truth-falsity is itself a duality and needs to be approached with a monistic framework if we were to create a monistic Theory of History. Otherwise, we could approach it with a dualistic framework and try to arrive somewhere with it, but that's not what I'm going to try to do because I disagree with dualism for reasons mentioned in 1. The eternal conflict between monism and dualism, ultimately, needs to be opened up further in the following axiom:
>If only monism is right, then dualism is always wrong. If dualism is right, then monism is always wrong.
An axiom does not mean a statement is unfalsifiable and therefore gibberish and therefore pseudoscience, because mathematics is based on axioms too. And proof of axioms can be scientifically attempted, as tried Bertrand Russell in his Principiae Mathematica

And so, if we are to create a monistic Theory of History, we need to completely reject dualism, based on the axiom. If we are to completely reject dualism, we have to completely reject every single Jungian opposing binary:
>masculine-feminine
>strong-weak
>good-bad
>true-false

What I'm saying is that: no, there is no "objective" Truth, but there IS a kind of Truth that every single Human being can agree on, inside every each one of us. And so, while there is no "objective" Truth (that is, independent from Human abstract thought), the sheer fact of there being no objective Truth outside of human abstract thought kind of creates objective Truth: the Truth that all Homo sapiens sapiens share, in opposition to animals/entities who/which do not possess abstract thought, and therefore cannot create a sense of truth "themselves" to begin with.

So while there is no "objective" Truth, there is universal human Truth, which is basically objective Truth. See the kind of dualism-rejecting that I'm attempting here?

>>20666346
3. Again, applying the monist doctrine to this, final, fundamental problem of perennial philosophy: the mere conception of free will-determinacy is just a reactionist expression of dualism. Let's attempt a monist way of looking at this. There is neither free will, nor determinacy. There is, however, a Dasein. An Ubermenschian Dasein. So while we ARE beholden to a certain sense of "determinacy" (genetic recombination), genetic recombination is itself based on true randomness, and therefore, even the "determinacy" (genes) by which we're guided is not truly determinate. And also, as long as we are not Nietzschean Ubermenschen with a fully developed Dasein, we do not have free will.

So the answer to the third and final problem of perennial philosophy is: humans do not have free will, but Humans... can.

You can now ask:
>Isn't the concept of a human-the Human (Dasein) inherently dualistic and hence wrong according to your own doctrine?
The answer is no. The way I define "a human" and "the Human" is the same as the way physicists define potential and kinetic energy. You dig?

sorry anon, but you need to wait another 5-10 years before trying something like this. you just don't get philosophy

Right now is not a good time to write a book about how to revolutionize society.

Right now is a good time to commit to actions that cause someone to write a book about you later on.

>>20666175
> the world is illusion and the absolute is impersonal unknowable reality
> there’s totally a Self though, just don’t ask me how I know

>>20666325
Dualism and Monism were overcome by the Christian Trinity. If you’re still considering dualism vs monism you are a millenia too you late.

>>20666401
Christian Trinity is just a sad cope and lawyerly arguing. It's a millennia too old to be relevant for serious philosophers.

>>20666401
>overcome by the Christian Trinity
retroactively refuted by Adi Nietzschecarya

>>20665071
Sounds like a technocratic hellhole. Read Ellul.

>>20666397
> the world is illusion and the absolute is impersonal unknowable reality
The Absolute is changeless and beyond the mental ego but it’s not unknowable since its our own consciousness
> there’s totally a Self though, just don’t ask me how I know
Experience shows that we do, (its the inner experiencer)

>>20666528
don't argue with it.

>>20666221
Ok I get your point. But I think you should be focusing on those questions you posted rather than trying to build a new philosophy. Propose answers and the philosophy will follow would be my advice.
And what if we collapse because we're all insane nutjobs and total automation is just another utopian pipe dream?

You should not write a book untill you are 30, 35 if you are an American. If you are a negroid, you shouldn't even try

It's as if someone fed DALLE wikipedia articles about philosophers

>>20666221
>the true liberation of the individual and of "the society."
liberation is not a spiritually good place to be, especially when one desires liberation from reason, the good, justice, etc. whenever one asks for freedom, you should be asking "freedom... to do *what*?" and if the answer isn't "to pursue the highest good", then you ought to kick that person in the teeth. freedom for its own sake is Satanism, and it will result in a society where everybody is reduced to undifferentiated human matter, with mores where everything is permissible.

>>20666551
yeah, this is what happens when you try to synthesize the work of philosophers instead of understanding, critiquing, and revolutionizing the ideas they attempt to describe. this is an absolute sludgefest

>>20666577
to sound less like a human pretending to be a computer pretending to be human, it really ought to be "philosopher and idea x" or "idea x and five philosophers" both of which you could learn something from other than the author's 20 year-old intellectual narcissism/solipsism—and not "my utopian political theorizing with reference to twenty philosophers" which even if it were well-written would not be worth the effort to read unless you've a tremendous amount of free time you don't care to put to good use actually achieving any sort of goals and would instead prefer to read about someone else's non-use of their time

>>20666547
You should definitely write, but I somewhat agree that you probably won’t write anything good until you’re 30 at least.

>>20666528
Your own consciousness and especially your experience correspond to the world of illusion flux and change. You can’t use it to know anything about the unchanging absolute in Buddhism. That doesn’t make any sense.

>>20666407
And look where the “serious philosophers” have gotten you. All of them fail in their presuppositions if their worldview collapses into monism or dualism. The Christian Trinity is the only worldview that can make sense of reality at all.

Start with the greeks

>>20666772
>the only worldview that can make sense of reality at all.
Doesn't explain anything except what it has to
>scripture says there is only one God
>[gurgling slave noises] but Christ is King!
>uhh that's because he is one of three persons that make up the Astral Hellenic Rabbinate, which is the one God, and as we know, persons are not Gods themselves so there is just one God even if he is both Father and Son and Spirit
>wait is the spirit equal or through one of them or through both of them?
>uhhh, wait who taught you to read anyway—guards! arrest this heretic

I like what how this sounds anon keep doing what you're doing best of luck

>>20666765
>Your own consciousness and especially your experience correspond to the world of illusion flux and change.
Incorrect, consciousness and experience are not the same thing, the latter term is used such that it often indiscriminately lumps together consciousness and its objects. Only the objects of consciousness like thoughts and sense-perceptions change and only those objects of consciousness can be found or shown to change, but consciousness itself remains ever the same. Consciousness is a partless, immediate, space-like, self-aware, timeless presence; it doesn’t do anything other than just continuously be aware of itself and also reveal whatever (changing things) the mind and body are doing (and is hence ‘pre-cognitive’ or ‘pre-reflective’) and this is unchangingly present in all our experiences and we cannot confirm for ourselves that it ever changes or that this is ever absent from us, since performing the act of observation or confirmation is already presupposing you have this pre-cognitive self-aware light of awareness already there to witness and take in that act of observation, but when its present and doing just what it always does nothing has really changed.

>You can’t use it to know anything about the unchanging absolute in Buddhism.
Im not talking about Buddhism but rather Hindu Vedanta

>>20666510
OP here. You kind of get me. Basically what I'm trying to do is create Praxis for Ellul. You dig?

>>20666934
You can’t give an account for how you know any of this. That is the singular problem.

>>20666635
>intellectual narcissism/solipsism
it's neither narcissism nor solipsism. your critique of my theory is intellectually bankrupt, and thus, psychoanalytically (looking at your "argument" from my Monist/Zen doctrine), you are merely projecting your own insecurities upon myself.

Try to criticize my theory from the angle of... theory. It's hard, I know! But it's also so productive!

If we as intellectuals gathered here on /lit/ could finally create a good praxis, how would we go about it? Through productive theoretical discussion of Praxis

>>20666808
>Start with the greeks
Plato's idealism is monist at heart. The sheer concept of there being another, "ideal" world of pure ideas is nothing but monism and an ancient form of scientism (a good approach, really, actually extremely commendable for just how "Ancient" yet constantly fresh Plato is)

>>20666943
>You can’t give an account for how you know any of this. That is the singular problem.
Incorrect, the claims about consciousness are confirmable through investigating one's own consciousness for oneself directly and closely paying attention to it and I have done so already myself

>>20666970
Okay so how do you know your investigations are valid and your conclusions true?

Seeing the problem yet?

You are relying on this idea that the only thing you cannot doubt is your own consciousness but you can’t possibly confirm or deny that, especially in a worldview where phenomenological reality is flux, change, or illusion. You have no conceivable way to give a justified account for how you know anything at all.

>>20666987
>You are relying on this idea that the only thing you cannot doubt is your own consciousness but you can’t possibly confirm or deny that
Nietzsche already answered this, sigh

>>20666987
actually thanks for formulating something for me. the fourth fundamental question of perennial philosophy:
>What is consciousness and can we trust our own consciousness?
Again, this question is also already answered, by Nietzsche

>>20667027
No, he didn’t.
>>20667036
It wasn’t.

The fundamental problem here is that you are making claims about consciousness and thinking consciousness justifies these claims. That is called a circular argument and it is inherently self-refuting. But you understood this and didn’t have a good response. That is why you deflected to Nietzsche. That is a common tactic people deploy when they realize they don’t have an answer.

>>20666947
>claiming to be Zen
yes, tell me more wise undergrad who thinks he is a master of "theory." I don't take anyone's politics seriously unless they are financially successful and you are a stranger on an anime forum who is still in college and playing theorist to compensate for a lack of other conquests.

>>20666934
>we cannot confirm for ourselves that it ever changes or that this is ever absent from us
I guess you've never gone to sleep, taken drugs, been in love, etc. Typical

>>20666987
>Okay so how do you know your investigations are valid and your conclusions true?
Because they are confirmed by my experience and the alternative explanations are illogical and contradicted by my experience and hence implausible so I have no reason to reject this understanding in favor of illogical hypothetical notions that are refuter by 1st-hand experience

>Seeing the problem yet?
No, only your lack of understanding

>You are relying on this idea that the only thing you cannot doubt is your own consciousness but you can’t possibly confirm or deny that
It’s obvious to all but the fool really, since an illusion that was not real and lacked existence would not exist or have experience, since unreality by nature doesn’t have subjective experience of things. Hence unless you think logic is completely invalid and useless (I don’t) then thinking you can doubt your own consciousness is stupid, because you can only doubt things and ideas which you are conscious of.

>especially in a worldview where phenomenological reality is flux, change, or illusion.
None of those considerations or possibles changes would make the nonsensical notion of consciousness being an illusion any less foolish, hence its justified either way

>You have no conceivable way to give a justified account for how you know anything at all
Yes I do, through consciousness being an immediate, self-evident, undeniable and obvious reality, it's easy to give such an account

>>20667077
>self-evident, undeniable and obvious reality
why is there so much debate if you're right? everyone else is just maya and you're the real brahman? this is just solipsism with extra steps

>>20666221
>the true liberation of the individual and of "the society."
this is really fucking gay, explain yourself

>>20667062
>I guess you've never gone to sleep,
In order to confirm that consciousness is absent or that it ends during sleep you would have to be directly conscious of the absence of your own consciousness which is a contradiction-in-terms
>taken drugs,
I’ve probably taken more psychedelics than you have, drugs have no effect whatsoever on consciousness, they only have an affect on mental activity like thoughts and sensory processing but consciousness isn’t a mental activity, instead it’s the constant presence which knows all mental activities like objects or images flashed on a screen
>been in love, etc. Typical
emotions are an observed object of consciousness and are themselves unconscious

>>20667095
>why is there so much debate if you're right?
Because the debate is mostly about other things than consciousness being an immediately evident and obvious thing that only a fool would deny, other things like metaphysics were people dont find the truth to be simple and obvious as often.

>everyone else is just maya and you're the real brahman? this is just solipsism with extra steps
Wrong, since unlike solipsism its not denying the consciousness of anyone else. Uneducated take

>>20667101
>the constant presence which knows all mental activities
It's not constant and it doesn't know all mental activities or we wouldn't be having this debate. Moreoever your entire doctrine is revelation-based and these attempts to justify it through argument are a farce under five seconds of analysis

>>20665148
i fell for this meme. nobody with a bright mind should ever bother studying economics.

>>20667123
>its not denying the consciousness of anyone else
Anyone who doesn't have your "can't sleep, brahman will eat me" eternally aware and unchanging consciousness must not exist as per your schizophrenic mystagogy so it is indeed solipsistic

>>20667129
It only impresses people stupider than you are, so it's fine for a resume in a bullshit job, but don't go around insisting it is a genuine intellectual marker as opposed to a box checking credential used for participation in bureaucratic rent-seeking. Everyone needs to eat so by all means get a degree but be mindful of the fact that you have what is effectively a high school diploma for people born after 1985

>>20667126
>It's not constant and it doesn't know all mental activities or we wouldn't be having this debate.
That’s a non-sequitur response that does nothing to explain how its constancy would mean we would not be having this debate, there is no real argument or point being made in your post.

>Moreoever your entire doctrine is revelation-based and these attempts to justify it through argument are a farce under five seconds of analysis
You haven’t shared any argument or analysis that would show this, sounds like cope

>>20667056
again, intellectually bankrupt attack on my theory, an attack that doesn't lead anywhere. what is YOUR problem? ;)

>>20667077
Your explanation is illogical. You’re using your experience to confirm the validity of experience. That makes no damn sense. I don’t think you’re even arguing in good faith anymore because you’re being asked to give an account of something and you still haven’t done it without being circular, but pretending that you have. You know your argument is bad because you’re using words like “self-evident”.

>>20667133
>Anyone who doesn't have your "can't sleep, brahman will eat me" eternally aware and unchanging consciousness must not exist as per your schizophrenic mystagogy so it is indeed solipsistic
Incorrect, all conscious beings have it by nature since it’s what consciousness is, but some people (hylics) are just hopelessly confused about it and will only be redeemed and overcome their ignorance and foolishness in a future life but not this one

>>20667158
>You haven’t shared any argument or analysis that would show this
Neither have you, like OP you merely pontificate your thoughts as the word of God and are incredulous that anyone thinks you're ridiculous. You are a pseudo-priest without royal power of enforcement and no one has to accept your just-so doctrines. Conscious is not eternal and unchanging because someone could punch you so hard you wake up as a potato

>>20667174
>a wild gnostic appears
shouldn't you kys already and escape from the material world you consider to be an evil illusion?

>>20667051
Because the monist philosophy as theorized by me is really just neo-Nietzscheanism, that is, Nietzscheanism viewed from the Popperian angle. I believe that Nietzscheanism has scientific (empirical) value.

Here's a way to reformulate Nietzsche & the Pauli-Jung conjecture (go read about it, and about Jung's own worldview): formulate Nietzsche as a neoscientist/neophysicalist worldview

Here's how the Monist (neophysicalist, neomaterialist, neo-Hegelian, neo-critical theory) framework could approach the topic of consciousness:
Four axioms:
>1. Physics is EVERYTHING.
>2. Energy is EVERYTHING.
>3. Consciousness is philosophically defined as abstract thought.
>4. Physically, consciousness is defined as a manifestation of energy in the physical sense. More precisely, consciousness is an entirely unique physical force that has the power to stop or at least slow down the universal entropy of the Universe through the eventual creation of artificial stars, and then through the harvesting of energy from black holes by harvesting the particles of high-energy plasma ejected by black holes. A civilization that would survive the universal death of stars, and survive well into the age of black holes, would survive almost until the end of Universe, at a halfway point between the inception of the age of black holes and the heat death of the universe. At that point, the conscious Thought of human beings would create a systematic order so robust that it would, by itself, slow down the spread of entropy (which IS unstoppable, because humans objectively CANNOT stop the heat death of the universe).
To criticize Monism, try to find a theoretical (critical theory) way to criticize these axioms, that is, in an analytic way, that is, free from personal biases, prejudices and delusions

>>20667169
Intellectually bankrupt "theory" deserves an intellectually bankrupt attack. You are a political otaku saving quotes from your favorite thought-waifus and remixing them on your word processor. Nothing original to see or read here, just you elaborating upon your desires

>>20667173
>Your explanation is illogical. You’re using your experience to confirm the validity of experience.
I use both logical analysis and my experience, i.e. the two options that are available to me. There are extensive logical arguments that also explain how its illogical to speak about having a changing consciousness and that logically this would not be able to produce our actual lived experience etc; all of this is covered ages ago in medieval Indian writings

>That makes no damn sense.
Using both one’s experience and logical analysis is the best route one can take

>You know your argument is bad because you’re using words like “self-evident”.
consciousness truly is self-evident though, it’s really not hard to understand

>>20667193
>reference relates to reference through reference referencing reference
ok DALLE but I didn't want to see Squidward painted in the style of Klimt

>>20667197
>Intellectually bankrupt "theory" deserves an intellectually bankrupt attack.
how do you ever know that a theory is intellectually bankrupt if you don't credously to find your own logical critique of it? at that point you're just a slave to your feels. THAT'S who you are. the Nietzschean Last Man. in fact, the fear of being a Nietzschean Last Man places you as the slave in the master-slave morality, funnily enough. so your fear of being the Last Man makes you... the Last Man

be bold!

>>20667182
>Conscious is not eternal and unchanging because someone could punch you so hard you wake up as a potato
That’s only a change in the body you dummy, no proof that consciousness has been impacted in any way there, thats like saying if you break a radio device and the music stops the radio wave was being produced by the device

>>20667210
Your fear of being the last man is what results in your pseudo-architectonic project, which is naturally meant to deny all sorts of things you dislike and valorize the things you do like. It is nihilism with extra steps. It is (You) who need to go back and read Nietzsche instead of becoming a knock-off priestly blogger

>>20667205
>>reference relates to reference through reference referencing reference
that is literally what metamodernism is. haven't you ever tried to piece together Foucault, Lacan, Zizek, Peterson, Nick Land, Derrida, Baudrillard, D&G as all parts of their own unique philosophy and not merely a continuation of post-modernism?

That's what it is. It is a reaction to post-modernism, really. It is a post-post-modernism. I.e. what is usually called metamodernism or has started to be called more precisely anti-philosophy

And so here's the version of the title of my treatise that I've settled on now:
>The Metamodern Moment: the Death of Fascism
>or: Anti-philosophy, or the Theory of Everything, or Ethics for the 21st century, or Monism for Modernity
basically it is a neo-Hegelian neo-scientist neomaterialist (really, neophysicalist) treatise based on the framework of Critical Theory. the Praxis that I will try to preach in it will basically be:
>How to authentically apply Marxism in the world of Capitalist Realism?

ever heard of CT? the Frankfurt School? eh?

>>20667224
>Your fear of being the last man is what results in your pseudo-architectonic project
umm, no. that is precisely my own (Dasein) way of trying to craft a meaning (Dasein) for myself (Dasein), which is pretty much the concept of Ubermensch as Nietzsche thought it:

be bold!

>>20667213
>dualism
sorry, were you supposed to be a monist or a non-dualist or whatever? There's no body without the mind to put it there as an object, but as far as we can tell without recourse to mysticism and revelation, there's no mind without a body to confirm its own existence and efficacy either. We can perform this experiment right now if you go into a rough neighborhood and make eye contact with the autochthonic peoples

>>20667235
>ever hear of reference, reference, and reference?
yes and you telling me you've read them ad nauseam isn't interesting, it doesn't make your writing interesting, your self-assembly through the writings of other writers merely tells me you pick what you like from the Sears catalog to decorate your headspace like a freshly moved in home

>>20667240
There could not be a more wrong reading of Nietzsche than as a platonist instead of a pre-socratic

>>20665071
Monism is gay, Panpsychist dualism is better

>>20667199
Right but you fail to give an account for how you know anything is logical or how you know you can trust your experience, and every time you try to do that you end up in a circular argument.

>>20667199
How can consciousness be self-evident? You’re using consciousness to justify your consciousness. That’s not self-evidence. It’s circularity.

>>20667596
>Right but you fail to give an account for how you know anything is logical
I know things are logical because I am endowed with a mind that lets me use logic and therefore I can determine if something is logical, that’s the only way anyone has the ability to use logic and know if something is logical. Everyone is in the exact same boat here.
>or how you know you can trust your experience,
experiences can be mistaken, but consciousness is invariably real

>>20667599
>How can consciousness be self-evident?
Consciousness is self-evident because it needs no verification and nor does it even give us a grounds or reason to suppose it needs verification. When you burn your hand on the stove you dont need to verify that you are conscious of pain, it’s immediately self evident, the same is true of pleasurable sensations. When you have a thought about anything that thought is self-evident by being immediately available to your knowledge, that’s why you never have to verify or even consider verifying if you are actually having a thought about something or not, it’s just self-evident. Pain and thoughts are not themselves consciousness, but the immediate presentation of them in experience to self-evident consciousness thereby imparts to them the quality of being self-evident. Aside from just things like pain and thoughts your own consciousness is self-evident to itself, that’s why you never wonder if you are actually an insentient object like a rock.

>You’re using consciousness to justify your consciousness. That’s not self-evidence. It’s circularity
That’s not a circular argument, it’s just pointing out the truth that consciousness is by nature something that is self-evident, if it’s not then you are not even talking about consciousness anymore but an imaginary fictional construct that has no relation to how our actual experience takes place.

>>20667733
How do you know you can trust logic? Is it logical? How do you know the logic justifying your use of logic is logical? And the logic for that logic? If you don’t see how this is a circular argument you are hopeless.

>>20667739
>How do you know you can trust logic?
Because it helps me make sense of the world and I experience it producing results and judgements which are subsequently then validated in experience, i.e. my experience of using it involves results that validates it as far as I can tell. I have no reason to discard logic as totally invalid and nobody behaves that way in life except madmen.
>How do you know the logic justifying your use of logic is logical?
Because everything about my experience indicates that it is so, if logic was fundamentally invalid or illogical it shouldn’t produce so many valid results in my experience, but it does every day. That doesn’t give logic the power to shape how the universe actually works, it just indicates that it has some level of validity and I have no reason to doubt this.

>And the logic for that logic? If you don’t see how this is a circular argument you are hopeless.
And what exactly do you think my argument is? You dont even know but you are just engaging in the sophists trick of trying to pidegonhole your opponent into a position which they themselves dont have. You are implying I am claiming I can infallibly prove that I can verify the rules of logic or something and therefore prove knowledge in some equation, but I never claimed that. Instead, I simply gave an eastern-based consistent account of how I have knowledge of things in a way that is totally logical and in accordance with my experience, and one that I have no reason to doubt; however doing this doesn’t entail the additional claim that I can prove that logic itself in general as an abstract principal is valid, the philosophical position of Vedanta doesn’t require that they do so anyway.

Consciousness is by nature something that is self-evident and this is logically necessary (it’s a logical contradiction to be conscious without it being evident that you are conscious) and this is easily confirmable by an examination of how our experience takes place too. If you weren’t so already committed to this idiotic and worn-out partisan routine of claiming eastern religions cannot justify their knowledge claims as a way to argue for Christianity instead (while simultaneously being unable to prove how anyone can have reliable nature of the Christian God being true, i.e. being a hypocrite in his arguments and wasting people time) then you probably wouldn’t do something as foolish as question that consciousness is self-evident, but it’s only because your worldview makes you feel like you have to insist that other religions cannot justify their knowledge, nobody in their right mind would otherwise question it.

>>20667892
You’re hopeless. You see the problem but you are clinging to your position with word games. This is going nowhere.

I mean, you are talking about “logic producing valid results” as if the validity of the results is simply self-evident and not actually justified by logical proof, which as I explained, is itself proved only by logic, which itself is proved only by logic, which itself is proved only by logic, and so on into circular infinity. I find it hard to believe you don’t understand and accept this argument.

>>20667940
>You’re hopeless.
No, Im just pointing out your transparent sophistry. You are hopeless if you think people can’t see right through it.
>You see the problem but you are clinging to your position with word games.
There is no problem with my position or with the position of Vedanta
>I mean, you are talking about “logic producing valid results” as if the validity of the results is simply self-evident and not actually justified by logical proof, which as I explained, is itself proved only by logic, which itself is proved only by logic, which itself is proved only by logic, and so on into circular infinity.
I understand that, what you are either forgetting or pretending to forget is that I never claimed that I can prove logic is valid to begin with, and neither is it necessary for me to do so in order to give a logically consistent account of how knowledge takes place, which I have already done.

>>20668226
why do you keep dodging my question about whether "liberation" is a worthwhile goal? the biggest problem with the West is that it's obsessed with liberty to the point of destroying morality.

>>20668232
Did you respond to the wrong post? I have not talked to anyone about liberation or morality in this thread

>>20668257
Are you the OP?

>>20668260
no

>>20668267
damn why tf are you two arguing then lol damn

>>20665129
I didn’t say it because of monism.

>>20666947
Retard, probably every single one of us here was like you are when we were eager 20 year old undergraduates reveling under Daddy FreudMarxNietche and reading the Frankfurt school and astonishing ourselves with the resemblences to the Neoplatonists... But a Theory of Everything is not possible nor even intelligible to pursue, as mathematician Kurt Godel proves. And to broadly sweep every furtive movement of civilization ever under your monograph citing every major philosopher is beyond intellectually lazy-- it is the sheer delusion of grandiose adolescent hubris.

>119 / 28

>>20665071
>Monism
Neither the body nor soul should be have dominance over the other. Since, you've supposedly read Jung, I assume you understand the concept of the Mandela, right? In other words, the Self is the harmony between the corporeal and the spiritual, so that the Self can express itself as not only a spiritual essence, but also as a corporeal, as the personality of the person.

As for the rest of your theological-esque thesis, read Evola, and maybe get some life experience before you post you expose your naivete; We already have a great political system, it's called "National Socialism". Jung like it even.

If you had anything deep to say you would say it, rather than making a self aggrandizing post for (you)s. I don't get the impression you have a particularly impressive brain gicen how your post reads like any other brain fried 4chan zoomer

>>20668226
I’m claiming you have to prove it you dummy. That is the whole problem. You have no way of knowing what is logical or what is truthful or how you know that. How can you even know something is logically consistent without logic? It makes no fucking sense. I think you are playing stupid on purpose.

>it wasn't a joke

>>20665949
>Not only do you ignore non-western thinking
Actually I don't. Here:
>>20665278
>both Eastern religions and the original Christian doctrine really are... monist. but more about that later.
read the gospel of John and compare it to the founding texts of Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism, Confucianism and Shinto

>>20665071
https://i.4cdn.org/wsg/1657664567279.webm

>>20669202
>confucius say, worship dead foreigner to live forever, that is the way
lmao at your christcope

>>20666237
>If technological progress is really unstoppable then nothing you can do can divert its course.
Can you? I think you first have to formulate a theory of History to propose authentically ethical Unifying Solutions for the Future.

I think you have to begin by defining the 7 underlying existential (and thus necessarily political/economic, in a kind of Marxian way) crises of the metamodern moment (from most important to the less important):
>1. the disintegration of the Self under continuous historical waves of accumulation of information about possible pathways, and the spread of this civilizational zone to the whole world under the leadership of the USA
>2. the problem of the IR theory of engaging Ur-fascism in the Liberal world order. the problem of engaging fascistic behaviors in individuals in general. hint: isolate the bullying factors. disarm pacifistically
>3. gender identity collapse crisis. the problem of identity (Dasein) in metamodernity. the topic of my treatise. why women don't want to have babies. how women define femininity in the modern world. the life-giving nature of women being their true power in society. how men fear women. how toxic masculinity exists and how toxic femininity also exists, how both form the master-slave dialectic and are thus wrong. the answer is that the concept of gender is just an expression of dualism which must be fought. abolish dualism. without using fascism. use liberal democracy. which continues into:
>4. the demographic crisis. absolutely most important crisis following the gender identity collapse crisis
>5. the climate crisis, ecology (i propose deep ecology and energy production based in renewables and nuclear energy as self-sustaining zero-emission energy generation, developing nuclear energy research is one of the fundamental ways people can find Meaning (Dasein) in their lives
>6. the problem of motivating people (women, especially) to form families, for women to commit the physical sacrifice of the physical toll that pregnancy necessarily brings, the problem of telling women a story they could believe in that is not just a reactionist regurgitation of the old master-slave dialectic. the problem of Love, and of Respect, and Personal Meaning, and of the scope of Respect. I propose attempting to love everybody, from humans to other animals. try to create a sort of animal psychology and by caring about your pet try to imagine yourself as the pet, and not as you using your pet as merely a comfortable attribute

>>20668656
>But a Theory of Everything is not possible nor even intelligible to pursue, as mathematician Kurt Godel proves
is this a scientific statement? this is the crux. can you create a scientific historical materialism that is scientific in the Popperian sense? that's the crux. can you create a historical materialism, a philosophy of history, that is a theory that's both falsifiable and empirically provable?

i say yes. Heidegger attempted that in a very prescient way. in fact Popper himself created a philosophy of history, while thinking of himself as of a critique of historicism and such pseudoscience, primarily

>>20668759
>the Self is the harmony between the corporeal and the spiritual
exactly right. that IS monistic! in fact Jung formalized his entire worldview, really, under the guise of the Pauli-Jung "conjecture" (notice the scientist anxieties of Jung). it's an entirely monist view which I share: opposing binaries could be rid of, but the synthesis (Hegelian sense) wouldn't be merely a compromise of all of the opposing binaries' features, but a cherry-picking of the best features of both and eliminating the flaws and creating a Third, entirely new thing

this is how i see the methodology and mission of monism in the Jungian sense, really

>>20668759
also, the whole problem that I explicate here:
>>20669265
is Ur-fascism and how to combat it at the individual level

it's not infantile at all. so my proposition for combating personal fascism (authoritative personalities in the Adornoan sense) is the method of peaceful engagement. in short, U.S. IR theory, in short, Teddy Roosevelt's "talk softly but carry a big stick" praxis

>>20667129
same

I can only blame myself

>>20669275
You would do far better on the road away from folly to read Don Quixote than Popper. Or, publish your Theory of Everything next to the Alchemist's recipe for the Philosopher's Stone, guarantor of the world's explanatory power where the questions of human nature run arid and death is "solved".

It's absurd to ask me to falsify the statement "there can be no theory of everything" when the entire supposition of a so-called theory of everything hinges on an unfalsifiable act of human explanatory power for which there is no legitimate precedent -- that's called God, the impossible, the unknowable -- and the burden is on you to assert it can even be done.

>>20665071
>monism for the 21st century god without God
There's no need to reinvent the Vedic-to-Neo Platonic wheel. Bakunin and Kropotkin were right about Anglo plant Marx. Put this foolishness out of mind.