/lit/ - Literature

commence with the Egyptians

>>20730506
Anons what's your favorite metaphysics textbook?

>>20730506
I will finish COPR, eventually

>>20730536
What think you about this book? My prof assigned it?

>>20730553
This one sorry forgot pic

>>20730506
>The German will always keep his idealism as a hiding place.

>>20730549
I've been at for 3 years. Kept getting filtered at 2nd Analogy but finally unlocked the phenomena/noumena section

redpill me on ghosts

>>20730506
Is metaphysics largely a field ignored after university?

>>20730553
>>20730560
analytical philosophy nonsense... toss it straight into the trash can and start reading kant's prolegomena or any other grounded intro to metaphysics

>>20730586
Metaphysics has nothing to do with ghosts. Maybe /x/ has the answer for that

>>20730591
I don't see why you would even say this?

>>20730617
>grounded intro to metaphysics
Such as? And what's wrong with analytic metaphysics?

>>20730677
>Such as?
for example Kant's which is transcendentally grounded in the capacities of reason itself
you have to conduct research into anything critically and first ask yourself, what can I know

>what's wrong with analytic metaphysics?
analytic philosophers refuse to critique their capacities and take their ability to engage with "the thing in itself" for granted which results in an autistic, unsystematic, superficial patchwork of thought

>>20730668
>Metaphysics has nothing to do with ghosts.
Midwit take.

>>20730707
as a short answer it is not wrong, no serious metaphysical thinker writes about ghosts

>>20730707
It isn't. Its like trying to compare astronomy to astrology. Both are two different subjects

>>20730698
Russell never even attempted to refute Kants claim that existence is not predicate ( something which actually requires reading the 1st critique to understand why ).

>>20730714
>>20730718
Am I a joke to you?

>>20730714
>>20730718
Kek read more freshmen.

>>20730726
russell likes to dwell in the neo-humean skeptical position which is logically stable but philosophically useless, intros to metaphysics such as above instead mostly promote a positive metaphysics of claims which are not reconciled with the humean critique of human capacity and knowledge

>>20730748
Go back to /x/ and take your reddit superstition with you

>>20730506
If you haven't read this then you don't understand metaphysics.

>>20730762
Not only is literature filled with ghosts hence lit related, but ghost is the germanic equivalent of spirit, its latin corellate, and the questions related to spirit are definitely related to metaphysics. QED midwit. Read books faggot.

>>20730772
Excellent choice anon. High five. In him we live and move and have our being.

>>20730506
If you can't do a resume of Kant's metaphysics in a green text post, you are a midwit that didn't understood his work.

>>20730762
You're such a retard

>>20730778
>spirit are definitely related to metaphysics
You are an absolute dumb faggot and can't differentiate the concept of the paranormal with philosophy. You have no idea how much you're embarrassing yourself right now

>>20730787
Agreed. Where is our succinct yet accurate and precise green text?

>>20730586
Seconding this. An actually interesting metaphysics question

>>20730778
in german "geist" is mostly used for the mental (or as the hegelian term)
"gespenst" or "spuk" is explicitly referring to ghosts
so the literature is filled with "geist" instead of "ghost" QED you are a midwit who is not familiar with the nuances of the german language while using it for your idiotic argument

>>20730799
What is German Idealism?

>>20730788
Y-you're such a wetard
The absolute state of /lit/ in 2022.

Ghosts are real desu

Kant believed in ghosts

>>20730816
I'm not exactly a "Kantian" as it were but ghosts are definitely real desu

>>20730807
short answer:
a tradition of philosophy which is mostly concerned with resolving the contradictions within kantianism through developping concepts of reality as a unity of spirit which base on forms of kantian subjectivity

>>20730806
>mental
What is the mental but the non-extended substance hence spirit midwit. What are ghosts but phenomena whose ground we suppose to exist in some unseen and hence unextended and therefore SPIRITUAL realm. Hence im still unrefuted teabag lamefag.

>>20730837
keep coping, sophist

>>20730823
>rhetorical question
>answers literally
kek the autism is real

>>20730842
>can't refute
Ghosts are a metaphysical topic. Simple as.

>>20730816
As it should be. So did Schopenhauer and Schelling.

>>20730847
>Ghosts are a metaphysical topic. Simple as.
yes.
but this is claim is not justified by german idealist concepts of "geist" but instead by the broad area of thought within the category of metaphysics

>>20730586
Gandhabbas that are waiting for the next rebirth round. Pretas also abound but to see them you have to have the divine eye open.

>>20730844
>rhetorical question
>literal answer
>is not aquainted with common dry humor
kek the autism is real

Metaphysics involves both personal and impersonal categories.
>impersonal
universals, causality, unity and multiplicity, numbers, laws of logic, etc.
>personal beings
ghosts, angels, demons, and so on which can use their free will to affect the physical realm

>>20730859
Dude Kant literally wrote Dreams of a GEISTSEHER. Schelling literally wrote On Nature's connection to the GEISTESWELT. Do you even German Idealism?

>>20730866
>common
You should try meeting more people outside 4chan or just more people in general.

>>20730506
I predicted this thread would turn into a shitshow. I have not been dissapointed. Keep it up lads.

>>20730880
dude, "geisterseher" means "fortune teller" in german which kant critiqued in this essay
"geisteswelt" is best translated of world of spirit and relates to the mental and the world holistically and not to spooky apparitions

>>20730506
The only thing that exists is the absolute/nirvana/the eternal principle. Everything else is delusion

>>20730880
>being this much of a psued you take everything you read at face value

>>20730906
Dude have you even read those works? Did you even check to see how they were used in THOSE works?

>>20730772
What do I need to read before it? Just the Bible or other metaphysical works also?

>>20730880

>>20730948

>>20730800
If dubs some faggot has to do it for free

>>20730940
your understanding of german idealism is as bad as your grasp on the german language
I strongly suggest you study before you emberass yourself further

>>20730913
Kant literally bought the multivolume set of Swedenborgs Arcana Coelestia, which wasn't cheap, and studied it. Then sent a friend to try to get in touch with Swedenborg. Then he wrote Dreams. He cared enough to publish on it. Put his name on an essay on the topic. Yes it was critical but the concept of an afterlife and hence ghosts was one he always took seriously. Read between the lines.

>>20730985
Look ultimately the question is whether the concept of ghosts is a topic in metaphysics. And it is but university professors afraid of getting their departments cut have to disassociate from "supernatural" topics because then the university administrators will wonder whether they have any business being in an organization whose goal is no longer the quest for knowledge but in raking in as much cash as possible. Ghosts are a part of metaphysics and actually a very important part since forever.

>>20730985
Just admit you havnt read late Schelling.

>>20730718
>Ptolemy has entered the chat

>>20730718
Except astrology is metaphysics

>>20730877
This. Why can't some retards get this?

>>20731058
if you want to anything substantial to the discussion, you should provide a passage from schelling where he supposedly uses his concept of "geist" in the english language meaning of "ghost"

>>20731109
Have you read late schelling though? Simple yes or no? Have you read Clara?

>>20731120
no, I have not read clara but I highly doubt that schelling throws away his spirit term to use it in the vulgar english way but feel free to prove me wrong

>>20730738
Yes, unironically.

>>20730506

I have a couple of probably stupid questions about Kant

Kant died a virgin. But, wouldn't he have been against virginity because if every human decided to die a virgin mankind would cease to exist?
Wouldn't saying something like "virginity is ok as long as few people practice it" be putting exceptions in a system which does not accept any exception?

Was Kant colourblind or was Hegel colourblind?

>>20731153
>no, I have not read clara
I rest my case.

>>20731586
>Kant died a virgin
Can't died a bachelor.

>>20731718
*I'm leavin it

>>20731718

I don't actually care about that
My issue is there has to be something simple I don't understand
Wouldn't virginity be a bad thing because if universal it would end mankind? Or does the categorical imperative not apply to such an act?

>>20730999
Kant didn't care about ghosts, he was just trying to make a point about how ridiculous Swedenborg's ideas were. If he really cared, he would have gone out of his way to meet Swedenborg or at least try to understand his work better. But he didn't, so your whole argument is invalid.

>>20731050
This is the most idiotic thing I've ever heard. Ghosts are not a part of metaphysics, they are a part of the supernatural. If you want to study the supernatural, then you should go to a seminary or something, not a university. University professors are not afraid of getting their departments cut, they are afraid of being associated with something that is not real.

Natural magic, at least, is entirely compatible with transcendental idealism.

>>20732015
>If he really cared, he would have gone out of his way to meet Swedenborg or at least try to understand his work better.
He literally did this.

>something that is not real
And how else do you determine what is real without metaphysics retard.

>>20731764
Damn, that's a pretty major L for Kant to be honest

>>20731764
It could be that sex outside of marriage is wrong, but that Kant never got married, so he rightly did not have sex.

>>20731109
>>20732015
Schelling literally talked about ghosts and the afterlife in Stuttgarter Privatvorlesungen:

Einmal aber muß der Mensch in sein wahres Esse gelangen und von dem relativen non-Esse befreit werden. Dieß geschieht, indem er ganz in sein eignes A2 versetzt, und also nicht zwar vom physischen Leben überhaupt, aber doch von diesem geschieden wird, mit Einem Wort durch den Tod oder durch seinen Uebergang in die Geisterwelt. Was folgt aber nun dem Menschen in die Geisterwelt? Antwort: Alles, was auch hier schon Er selber war, und nur das bleibt zurück, was nicht Er selber war. Also geht der Mensch nicht bloß mit seinem Geiste im engern Sinn des Worts in die Geisterwelt über,
I,7,476
sondern auch mit dem, was in seinem Leib Er selber, was in
seinem Leib Geistiges, Dämonisches war. (Daher ist es so wichtig anzuerkennen, 1) daß auch der Leib an und für sich schon ein geistiges Princip enthalte, 2) daß nicht der Leib den Geist, sondern der Geist den Leib inficirt; der Gute steckt den Leib mit dem Guten, der Böse mit dem Bösen seines Geistes an. Der Leib ist ein Boden, der jeden Samen annimmt, in welchen Gutes und Böses gesäet werden kann. Also das Gute, was der Mensch in seinem Leibe erzogen hat, so wie das Böse, das er in ihn gesäet hat, folgt ihm im Tode). Der Tod ist daher keine absolute Trennung des Geistes von dem Leib, sondern nur eine Trennung von dem dem Geist widersprechenden Element des Leibs, also des Guten vom Bösen und des Bösen vom Guten (daher auch das Zurückbleibende nicht der Leib genannt wird, sondern der Leichnam). Also nicht ein bloßer Theil des Menschen ist unsterblich, sondern der ganze Mensch seinem wahren Esse nach, der Tod eine reductio ad essentiam. Wir wollen das Wesen, das im Tode nicht zurückbleibt - denn dieß ist das caput mortuum -, sondern gebildet wird, und das weder bloß geistig noch bloß physisch, sondern das Geistige vom Physischen und das Physische vom Geistigen ist, um es nie mit dem rein Geistigen zu verwechseln, das Dämonische nennen. Also das Unsterbliche des Menschen ist das Dämonische, nicht eine Negation des Physischen, sondern vielmehr das essentificirte Physische. Dieses Dämonische ist also ein höchst-wirkliches Wesen, ja weit wirklicher, als der Mensch in diesem Leben ist; es ist das, was wir in der Volkssprache (und hier gilt es eigentlich: vox populi vox Dei) nicht den Geist, sondern einen Geist nennen; wenn z.B. gesagt wird, es sey einem Menschen ein Geist erschienen, so wird darunter eben dieses höchst-wirkliche, essentificirte Wesen verstanden.

>>20730698
>grounded in the "faculties of reason"
>using 18th century faculty psychology
Yes, very rigorous indeed.

So now that the dust has settled, what's the verdict on intellectual intuition?

>>20730863
>Pretas also abound but to see them you have to have the divine eye open.
I would imagine that is terrifying

>>20730506
What's this metaphysical stance:

all things proceed from one substance, and gets divided into even numbers of ordered things that are direct oppositional substances, each with a consciousness of its own (plants, animals, humans) all things except rocks and dirt. the consciousness of these things can exist post-mortem and affect the consciousness of other beings anno domini, such as drive something to violence, mass death or other emotional affectations. see how a dead person can move people to sadness, anger, or regret, or how crows circle a dead person or animal, or how trees grow in places where one has fallen, etc etc.

>>20732205
Schelling is so based

By means of the external sense (a faculty of the spirit), we represent to ourselves objects as without us,
and these all in space. Herein alone are their shape, dimensions, and relations to each other determined or determinable.
The internal sense, by means of which the spirit contemplates itself or its internal state, gives, indeed, no intuition of
the soul as an object; yet there is nevertheless a determinate form, under which alone the contemplation of our internal
state is possible, so that all which relates to the inward determinations of the spirit is represented in relations of time.
Of time we cannot have any external intuition, any more than we can have an internal intuition of space.

Space is nothing else than the form of all phenomena of the external sense, that is, the subjective condition of the
sensibility, under which alone external intuition is possible.

Time is nothing else than the form of the internal sense, that is, of the intuitions of self and of our internal state.
For time cannot be any determination of outward phenomena. It has to do neither with shape nor position; on the contrary,
it determines the relation of representations in our internal state.

Neither coexistence nor succession would be perceived by us, if the representation of time did not exist as a foundation à priori.
Without this presupposition we could not represent to ourselves that things exist together at one and the same time, or at different
times, that is, contemporaneously, or in succession.

Time is the formal condition à priori of all phenomena whatsoever.

>>20732828
Where do ghosts come in to the picture?

>>20732844
What ghost is there at any given time?

>>20730506
This is one of the few good threads, have a bump friend.