/lit/ - Literature

filtered
pbuh

>>20724275
There are none, because what he says is true, if you can’t handle the truth then go stick your head in the sand like an ostrich and then you wont see or hear anything about it

>>20724275
Bible.

>>20724296
Thanks, but do you have any positivist, rational, statistics-based lit?

>>20724418
>positivist, rational, statistics
the modern world is based on such things, do you like it?

>>20724418
no, i don't. you could brush up on theology for a proper justification and whatnot.

>>20724275
the buddha mogged guénon and other pathetic atheists like him before they were born lol

>>20724450
After having dropped Guenon, yes. The material comforts offered by modernity are unsurpassed in all of history.

Bros, how does Guenon reconcile with the fact that Islam doesn't recognize any other religions as legitimate. Wouldn't that contradict perennialism?

>>20724489
He saw other religions as lower truths, thus truth is not binary but comes in degrees

>>20724510
Ow, so other religions overtime degraded and became corrupted? Thank you for the info.

>>20724478
>material comforts
they won't matter after you die, retard

>>20724525
prove it, retard

>>20724489
maybe is time for you to look up for real islam and not wahhabi autism

>>20724530
how would they matter lol
be honest with yourself, you are just a weak comfortable faggot

>>20724522
They degraded from unity (Tawheed) by splintered parties (Shia is the Arabic word for party, see Guénon on that)

>>20724534
Real Islam is a lot more militant and harsh

>>20724525
There is nothing after death. Designing this life around nothing is the task of a fool.

A bunch of books on the Rosicrucian heresies and Fr. Seraphim Rose were helpful for me.

>>20724275
Convert to a traditional religion and never look back. Unironically, that is what Traditionalists want you to do. Traditionalism is supposed to be a starting point, not an end.

>>20724574
Guenon ruined all religion or simply any notion of transcendence for me. Reading his babble was like reading Amanda McCittrick Ros and then trying to Ulysses without a sense of irony. I cannot convert to a religion because I am not religious.

>>20724550
if there is nothing there is no point in living, you already lost

>>20724489
I’m convinced that he converted to Islam because Islam is a religion where you can smuggle in and even endorse heterodoxy and be a kafir but as long as you do it while being nominally and politically Muslim and out of the public eye while following Sharia nobody cares. That’s how he was able to practice a sort of “Islam” that wasN’t orthodoxy anywhere in the Muslim world, not even in his little esoteric Sufi circle. I think this is also why so many Traditionalists become Muslim. You can be a a Muslim theosophist as long as you’re somewhat careful about it.

>>20724418
picrel is all you need. still making doomsday pseuds on this board seethe

>>20724534
I'm primarily afraid of committing shirk in the modern world. Considering the fact it's already easy commit haram acts by drawing or wear revealing clothes.
>>20724630
Wouldn't it be simpler to become a hindu, considering the fact he had hindu friends and studied hindusim for longer periods of time?

>>20724630
the islam that he practiced was orthodox, the beliefs that he had weren't orthodox

>>20724636
ass

>>20724654
Hindu of what caste?

>>20724275
The Western Canon, which you should have started with. Back when this place didn't suck ass, you would have been told to start with the greeks.

>>20724684
seethe

>>20724275
The bible.

>>20724710
what’s a good western canon list?

>>20724593
>Guenon ruined all religion or simply any notion of transcendence for me
kek, what a melodramatic faggot

>>20724574
Which one? I can’t be initiated into esoteric Christianity right?

>>20724525

>they won't matter as you die, retard

ftfy

>>20724789
Bloom's is a good starting point.

>>20725108
thank you

>>20724654
>Wouldn't it be simpler to become a hindu
The British denied him a visa so he never got to travel there

>>20724687
You dont need a caste to be initiated into tantric/agamic Hinduism

>>20724275
Robert Bolton and Stratford Caldecott.

>>20725226
What are their arguments?

>>20724275
Hegel refuted his whole body of work in just the prologue of the phenomenology of spirit, but is ainfamous hard book, so i would start with some easier philosophy, descartes, Hume, spinoza, then go to kant and then hegel

>>20724601
that's nihilism, putting the whole meaning of life on an afterlife

>>20725433
Why did Guenon skip Hegel?

>>20725445
becuase he was philosophically illiterate. evola was actually super well read on hegel, however.

>>20724674
As far as we know, it was orthodox, or at least as orthodox as those Sufis could be. It's certainly was not orthodox Islam, and if it was that would be ironic considering most Muslims basically accept dualism.

>>20724275
Read Ellul.

>>20725536
>it was orthodox, or at least as orthodox as those Sufis could be
>It's certainly was not orthodox Islam
so it was or it wasn't lmao
>most Muslims basically accept dualism
have you even read Guenon? he laso accepts dualism, he even calls the agents of the counter-initiation the 'saints of satan' in arabic, non-dualism is not against dualism but it transcdents it. You people clearly have no idea what you're talking about and your idea of islam is based on salafism

>>20724275
buddhism
https://archive.org/details/systemsofbuddhis029771mbp/page/n9/mode/2up

Read Ghazali's Kimiya-e-Saadat/Alchemy of Happiness. Find a complete translation of it, not Field's abridged one.

>>20724275
You make your own prisons, you have the key. There is in reality neither falling nor non-falling, but you will never take it seriously because you are stupid and lowborn.

>>20724275
Obligatory

Also Kant

>>20724489
if you go to india and observe vashnava's and muslims, they are basically the same. just the form is different. they use different words to do thikr/mantra, but the state that arises from those practices is the same.

the particular beliefs and practices are 'different' but the abstract metaphysics is the same, that there is one god and he can known through meditative practices. i think that's what guenon was trying to argue.

>>20724275
We all larp, one way or another. Just don't be a larper that betrays his own people for some foreign religion or because or some marxian utopia. Larp as a lover of your own people.

>>20724418
>positivist, rational, statistics-based lit
bro you eat your cereal and milk separately don't you
fag

>>20724510
>He saw other religions as lower truths
t. muslim exoterist
he never said that at all. But in fact he said the clearer doctrine was in hinduism.

>>20724489
It's just muslim exoterism, that is one shitty exoterism

>>20724574
Agreed. Guenon should be a ladder you eventually discard.

>>20724636
No one seethes about him because he is a petty midwit with no cogent arguments to be made. Just look at his "refutation" of Nietzsche to see how feeble his intellect is.

>>20725445
>>20725433
Hegel is trash and uses history to do non-philosophy. There's nothing valuable to be learnt from him that wasn't already present in traditional texts (for example the "unity of opposites", something already present in Shankara and Chinese texts as an almost common sense axiom).

>>20727476
>"unity of opposites"
Lol tell me you didn't read Hegel without telling me you didn't read Hegel
you felll for the "tesis-antiteis.syntheis" meme, Hegel don't preach about a "the unity of opposites" but the superation of opposites, which is a completly different(and more sophisticated) system
Also shankara is a crytpo-dualist, his whole system rest upon the ontological differences between maya and brahma, so there's no union of opposites possible there

>>20727551
>Lol tell me you didn't read Hegel without telling me you didn't read Hegel
It is one of the central postulates of his science of logic.
>which is a completly different(and more sophisticated) system
It's not completely different at all, it is simply less coherent and therefore appears more sophisticated (due to Hegel's irrational focus on becoming as a principle, which cannot in principle be anything like that, which Guenon and other legitimate philosophers fully understand).
>you felll for the "tesis-antiteis.syntheis" meme
No, I didn't, because he never uses this phrase, although the structure is present in his work, for example his triadic categories.
Try harder next time and maybe try actually reading Guenon or Shankara first.

>>20727476
>uses history to do non-philosophy
care to elaborate on that?

>>20727579

>It is one of the central postulates of his science of logic.
lol nois not, if it is, then tellme in which part of thebook he said that

>it is simply less coherent
so you got filtered, gotcha
>due to Hegel's irrational focus on becoming as a principle,
the scienc eof logic actually show how movement as a logical principle is completly rational, by virtue of determinate dnegation, not like Shakara and Guenon which make a forced dichotomy between phenomena and noumena, which let ou with a world of articulation and a world above articualtion, but then this world above articulation is explained throught articualtion, which is the definition of irrational,not to mention Shankara falls victim to the problem of "the third man" on his metaphysical system, so there's no way a system so mediocre could resolve the ontologial problems Hegel is addressing

>>20724987
Read Borella

>>20727667
>Shankara falls victim to the problem of "the third man" tha'ts actually a good point, did Guenon/Shankara ever solved the problem of the third man?

>>20725655
It wasn’t orthodox by any means. My idea of Islam is based on its ridiculous and illogical theology, which Guenon was able to “reconcile” only because Muslims don’t care about the theology as long as you submit.

>>20725580
Ellul was really incredible. It makes no sense how he was able to work in academia.

>>20727667
>so you got filtered, gotcha
No, it is genuinely less coherent, because it has no static principle, and Hegel even admits this. What I mean by incoherent is not that it doesn't make sense, but that it is unjustifiable in its own terms.
>the scienc eof logic actually show how movement as a logical principle is completly rational
No, it doesn't. A principle cannot by definition undergo change else it would not be a principle. This is why Guenon does not engage with Hegel, because it is irrational and simply not worth refuting. Guenon did refute certain aspects of Kant, which is all that is required to render Hegel entirely valueless outside of the domain of mere literature.
>not like Shakara and Guenon which make a forced dichotomy between phenomena and noumena
There is no dichotomy between these two because they are not real distinctions. You are still clinging to erroneous holdovers from Kant, just like Hegel did partly.
>not to mention Shankara falls victim to the problem of "the third man" on his metaphysical system
He does not. If you believe he does, then show how citing Shankara's actual writings instead of your weirdly contrived views.

The elephant in the room of Shankara's metaphysics is that if it were applied consistently it would just be Buddhism.

Guenonians think they can pilpul this fact away.

>>20727891
good post

>>20727973
>The elephant in the room of Shankara's metaphysics is that if it were applied consistently it would just be Buddhism.
What is your basis for claiming that? He says we have an eternal immortal Self/Atman which Buddhism rejects. He also said there is a universal supreme entity which brings our vision of the universe about and which sustains or maintains samsara, which Buddhists also reject. What is it that you think isn’t being applied consistently in the first place and how can you say that it’s Buddhism when the things he says violates so many Buddhist dogmas and taboos?

>>20727209
Yep. There’s actually a name for that sect which synthesized between Vaishnava Hindus and Muslim Sufis, it’s the Bauls of Bangladesh, East Bengal and neighboring Indian states. Due to its origins in East Bengal, where Tantric Buddhism and Shaktism had strongholds, there’s also reputedly elements of those in the Bauls.

Muhammad as an Avatara, Vishnu and Shiva as Prophets and their followers as People of the Book.

> Say, ˹O Prophet,˺ “O People of the Book! You have nothing to stand on unless you observe the Torah, the Gospel, and what has been revealed to you from your Lord.” And your Lord’s revelation to you ˹O Prophet˺ will only cause many of them to increase in wickedness and disbelief. So do not grieve for the people who disbelieve. [69] Indeed, the believers, Jews, Sabians and Christians—whoever ˹truly˺ believes in Allah and the Last Day and does good, there will be no fear for them, nor will they grieve.

There’s a strange beauty to liminal synthetic religions when it’s not just some shoddy thing a Western New Ager came up with but actually organically rose from geographical and cultural proximity.

>>20728182
a UVA professor called Shankara Nair has a great book on that topic and related matters called ‘Translating Wisdom: Hindu-Muslim Intellectual Interactions in Early Modern South Asia’, he even writes in the book about the existence of some Sufi commentaries on the Bhagavad-Gita that mix Hindu and Muslim terminology.

>>20728214
*Shankar Nair

>>20724275
>Books to get out of this cul-de-sac of larping?
Read Ellul

>>20728182
bauls are neither vaishnavists nor sufis they're the successors of a literal black magic sex cult i.e tantric practices. they are devotees of chhinnamasta par excellence. in occidental terms you may call them lucifer's house negroes. the muslim names and "live laugh laugh" tier songs are just a cover for them to evade persecution from both hindu & muslim authorities in the past.

>>20727997
>What is your basis for claiming that? He says we have an eternal immortal Self/Atman which Buddhism rejects. He also said there is a universal supreme entity which brings our vision of the universe about and which sustains or maintains samsara, which Buddhists also reject. What is it that you think isn’t being applied consistently in the first place and how can you say that it’s Buddhism when the things he says violates so many Buddhist dogmas and taboos?

You're so retarded, is this a bot?

I have no idea how anything Guénon says passes for philosophy or anything insightful in anyway
It's just a mish mash of late 19th century ill informed orientalism, and insanely bad attempts at metaphysics.
>mfw Guénon *actually* tried correcting Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange on matters of *actual* metaphysics (that is, not pseudo-history but also not-history mumbo jumbo or I-can't-believe-it's-not-new-age shit)
Read literally 10 pages from "la crise du monde moderne" before I realized just how midwitted this guy was. Actually first red flag came when my friend who introduced me to Guénon told me it "changed his life" back when he was 16. Should have figured.
Have you honestly never wondered why faggots who swear by this shit actually have next to zero philosophical culture ? Why they know Guénon and his ilk, and nothing else. It's all muddled. It's not a system. It's not worked out in the least. And if it were it would just make it easier to see how wrongheaded it is.
I've given up with these people, they have their own little systems, their own little schools of thought, you've got your "theosophy" and whatnot. Their only response to your pointing out how ridiculous Guénon's stuff is will ALWAYS end up being "but you haven't read every single thing he's ever written", complete with the occasional "it's not new age- he said it himself !"

Guénon was an academic failure and the reason he's not taken seriously anywhere, be it in phil circles or among religious scholars, isn't because he's uncovered some deep unsettling truth, but simply because it's not interesting.

So to answer your question, go read literally anything that people who seem to know their stuff have actually considered worthy of interest. Doesn't matter if it's actually shit, you will still find the actual questions being discussed, even if improperly. Which is always better than pajeet-worshipper Guénon two bit sophomore exegesis of anything ever written by any brown subhuman.

sage

>>20728357
>faggots who swear by this shit actually have next to zero philosophical culture

I've noticed this alot, it's incredible.

>>20725580
>Jacques Ellul, né le 6 janvier 1912 à Bordeaux et mort le 19 mai 1994 à Pessac, est un historien du droit, sociologue et théologien protestant libertaire français.

so another pro humanist, gee i wonder why the bourgeois academia embraced him

>>20728373
my friend I mentioned is the epitome of this
he will go on full on tirades that are more bad poetry than philosophy, and yet doesn't know the most basic shit about ethics, "universals", mereology, really phil 101 stuff
like we get it, what you call "metaphysics" (which isn't really metaphysics at all), is way more glamorous and less tedious than actually patiently working out the basic problems and seeing difficulties there
you'd much rather tackle topics that make you sound cool and see how verbose you can be
might work with retarded whores from /x/, doesn't cut it phil wise
i'd unironically rather read Hume than Guénon

>>20728352
>You're so retarded
Not an argument!
>is this a bot?
No, I’m not a bot. You made a stupid claim that I disagreed with and I pointed out two things that contradict it. Evidently, you can’t back up what you’re claiming which is one of the hallmarks of a pseudointellectual.

>>20728357
>insanely bad attempt
“insanely bad” sounds like how a teenager would describe something, can you be more specific and elaborate on what you mean?

>>20728380
yeah sure
I guess the reason Guénon isn't studied is because of the "bourgeois academia"
has nothing to do with the fact that he specialized in gematria and "initiatic" larping (as in, secret clubs for retarded goyim)

>>20728420
>“insanely bad” sounds like how a teenager would describe something

no it doesn't, endlessly adding useless words to the flawed argument that got btfo'd is actually more adolescent

>>20724987
>I can’t be initiated into esoteric Christianity right?
A high degree of genuine and un-innovative esoterica is retained in Eastern Orthodoxy. Read Borella like that other anon said, and read the Church Fathers like Maximus the Confessor. You can be initiated into the church after being a catechumens for a couple of years. The reason they do it this way is because they want to know if you’re serious and not gonna back out when you find out you have to imitate Christ.

The only way to break free is to read more /trad/ authors and see where Guenon falls short
It's the only way to break free of LE SPHINX

>initiation
>gnosticism
>pajeets
yikes
looks like a code LARP to me boys

>>20728331
The Order of Assassins (al-Hassasin) of Hassan-i Sabbah and the Kali-worshiping Thuggees (from which we get the word “thug”) of East India and Bangladesh, now those are sinister fascinating little groups. There’s a fascinating possibility that some diabolical, sinister yet very brilliant people took up a study of watered-down/corrupted yogic and Sufic practices and teachings hundreds and hundreds of years ago, which, in a crude sense, could sometimes partially be said about getting into a “trance” state, a hypnotic/meditative state, and instead of using it for spiritual development, refined it into a sophisticated practice of hypnotism and brainwashing, then used it to turn people into automata who would follow their orders, kill on command, loot, pilfer, act as soldiers of an army and bring them back booty and help them secure political power through intimidation and assassination of enemies.

The etymology of the Assassins, fascinatingly enough, is reputed to derive from the Arabic hashishi, and it’s believed as a piece of folklore that Hassan-i Sabbah developed a technique of inviting people as guests to his home, dosing them with tremendous quantities of hash baked into their meals such that they eventually passed out, then him and his attendants would reputedly take the victims to an artificially constructed “paradise” where they would wake up with a vast quantity of sweetmeats laid out for them, gorgeous prostitutes ready to satisfy their desires, and beautiful natural scenery around them, an artificial garden by a river or waterfall. They would then be told that this is the heaven described by the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) in the Quran, and that they had had the blessing of a foretaste of it while still alive due to their piety and to the sainthood of their host, Hassan-i Sabbah. They were reputedly promised that if they fully obeyed and carried out the orders of their leader, this heaven was guaranteed to be theirs after death.

>>20728434
So, can you back up anything you are saying with real concrete arguments about specific doctrines or teachings or do you only have vague statements with no substance to them?

Reading through this thread and the replies from Guénon nuthuggers tells you about all you need to know regarding how much philosophical insight is to be found in Guénon, namely, none.
I seriously hope anyone who takes this seriously is underage.

>>20724574
this is the best one yet
>"wanna be /trad/ ? just pick your larp bro"
Jeez
What's next, little dark age videos ?

>>20727891
>but that it is unjustifiable in its own terms.
that's just wrong, hegel not only justify his terms, the terms themsleves are their own justification, that's the whole point of the dialectical method, if a term(begrif) can't develop it's own justification, is not a term at all, just a dogmatic notion sostained by non proven axioms
what Hegel does is probehow people like Guenon just rely on unprovenaxioms to develop their faulty metaphysic
>A principle cannot by definition undergo change
that's just not true, that's a mediocre and shallow notion of a "logical principle" every logical principle is part of an articulation, thus is the beggining of an articualtion, or the end, if its the end, then that end can be used as the begginign of a new articulation, if it's the beggining then that means such a principle was created as a previous articulation, so your notion of logical principle doesn't make any sense, since that would imply logical deduccions couldn't be possible
>This is why Guenon does not engage with Hegel, because it is irrational and simply not worth refuting
no, he didn't because he didn't knew how to handle Hegelian logic, things like i just mentioned, or the logic of negation, the principle of relation, all of that destroy Guenon's point wand he never come up with any way to surpass it
>because they are not real distinctions
that's not what Guenon or Shankara said tho, if that were true, then thing like quality and quantity of the distintion between brahma and maya wouldn't make any sense
>He does not
yes he does, he makes a clear distintion between maya and brahma, if not then he's just a crypto madhyamaka buddhist
>>20727891
>then show how citing Shankara's actual writings
i mean i asked you to quote Hegel work to back up your claims about him and you didn't, why should i?

>>20728501
ask and ye shall receive
https://i.4cdn.org/wsg/1658355877550494.webm

>>20728357
this is by far the best answer on this thread

>>20728491
>complaining about underage anons in a post that uses the expression “nuthuggers”
>complains about a lack of philosophical insight when he himself has been unable to actually lay out a real critique of when Guenon talks about metaphysics and instead just keeps making posts that are a mixture of seething and vague statements that are never substantiated

look at all the discord raiding seethie weethies
reminder that le science has totally authenticated Guenonian metaphysics and thought

>>20728523
"nuthugger" has been around longer than "seethe" (not the word per se but its ubiquitous use on messageboards) to be fair

>>20728331
>>20728460
>>20728460
>>20728331
This is actually a report from the famous traveler Marco Polo, as a piece of folklore he picked up on in his travels, but it’s so fantastic (of course) that historians dispute it. But it IS undeniable that Hassan-i Sabbah (c. 1050 - 1124) formed this cult of the Order of Assassins who were so faithful to him and so well-trained in espionage, deceit, and murder, that we actually got the word “assassin” from it, and that historians and outside observers don’t really have a good grasp of how he was able to inspire such loyalty in them.

One famous anecdote recounts an Assassin willingly and without hesitation throwing himself off a high ledge, thereby immediately killing himself (obviously), at the request of a general of the Order of Assassins as a demonstration to Count Henry II of Champagne.

>A well-known legend tells how Count Henry II of Champagne, returning from Armenia, spoke with Grand Master Rashid ad-Din Sinan at al-Kahf. The count claimed to have the most powerful army and at any moment he claimed he could defeat the Hashashin, because his army was 10 times larger. Rashid replied that his army was instead the most powerful, and to prove it he told one of his men to jump off from the top of the castle in which they were staying. The man did. Surprised, the count immediately recognized that Rashid's army was indeed the strongest, because it did everything at his command, and Rashid further gained the count's respect.

Now, although the Bauls are actually geographically and culturally close, in a superficial sense, to the Kali-worshiping Thuggees of East India and Bangladesh, there’s no proof the majority of the Bauls are anything other than the universalist, peace-loving, musical people they appear to be, they don’t have a habit of robbing and murdering people casually as the Thuggees do.

This is the error Abrahamic conditioning can fall into very easily, which is, “Everything I don’t like or that seems spooky to me is demonic and bad,” especially applicable to the Tantric imagery of sex and death often employed by the Buddhist and Hindu tantric traditions. Kali, properly, is meant to symbolize the destruction of the unenlightened ego, of sin and evil, of all that obstructs Shakti, Power, or the obstructions to moksha. But it is true sinister diversions happen into something like the Thuggees where it’s actually demonic, and that not everyone who has a beard and turban and just seems quaintly spiritual is actually so.

Anyway, I’m not a Baul myself, so it doesn’t concern me too much.

>>20728420
>can you be more specific and elaborate on what you mean?
not that anon but i can, this is a good example
>>20727997
>there is a universal supreme entity which brings our vision of the universe about and which sustains or maintains samsara
this is a metaphysical cope out, resolves absolutely nothing about the true existencial metaphysical problems human beings face,but gives a good way out, it just" there's a dude who created everything, without actually being involved on the thing" "how he did it even when that's contradictory?" "because he's god and he can do contradictory things", so you have a problem, a solution to that problem that didn't actually solved anything and a poor excuse to make it seem logical, this is why no one can take Guenon seriously, is a bad version of Parmenides, who got BTFO by the sophist and needed Plato to create a true philosophical systen designed to resist argumentation

>>20728466
not tht anon but,Guenon nor Shankara could address the problem of the third man, or the problem of the chain of casuation on their metaphysics, that should be reason enough not to take them seriosuly in a metaphysical context

Threadly reminder that Guenon's name literally means "Reborn Monkey."

No wonder he tried to claim reincarnation was just a metaphor.

Idk anything about this guy (well I know *about* him I just haven't read him)
the sheer phonetics of every purported source of authority that's ever summoned during these "debates" should serve to deter anyone from investigating such "fields" and authors, though
It's all pajeets and sandniggers isn't it ?
The fact that it's not taken seriously outside of self taught "philosophers" on the internet is also a red flag imo.
I have yet to see anyone stating the guy's actual positions. What is his ontology ? His epistemology ? His foundation of ethics ? Philosophy of mind ? Plus, provided there is anything to abstract from his writings, there is really no excuse to drown it in so much esoteric noise for a 20th century writer
All in all, seems like a crank.
Probably won't bother reading it

>>20728606
Reborn female monkey*

>>20728633
>I have yet to see anyone stating the guy's actual positions. What is his ontology ? His epistemology ? His foundation of ethics ? Philosophy of mind ? Plus, provided there is anything to abstract from his writings, there is really no excuse to drown it in so much esoteric noise for a 20th century writer

Guenon believed that alongside the historical, exoteric religions and traditions, exists internally and among the elite, an eternal religion which teaches that you are God but God is just nothing so when you die nothing happens to you and its oblivion but for Guenon this is called the Absolute and he sees personal annihilation as a good thing. You need to get initiation to become connected to this big chain that helps you become depersonalized and attain knowledge that you're God and will have no afterlife anyway (but in rare circumstances you don't need this initiation). Initiation can't be found in Catholicism anymore. Europeans should become Freemason or move to the middle east or asia and become Muslim or Hindu and marry a native and get initiation there.

That's the summary of Guenon.

>>20728668
yeah, seems kind of retarded
also, not really philosophy

>>20728214
Thanks for the rec, might put it in my backlog. Yep, there’s a fascinating history of this due to their geographical proximity — I’m certain figures like Kabir (the Indian yogi-poet-saint who was both and neither Hindu and Muslim), as well as the Prince Dara Shikoh who wrote “The Confluence of Two Seas” on the harmony between Islam and Hindu theology, Vedanta and Sufism, very possibly come up in it.

The dhikr (can also perhaps more accurately be pronounced/written as zikr) is the “remembrance”, remembrance of God, of God’s name, remembrance of Allah, and can be chanted aloud in group rituals or silently repeated to oneself in the breath. In this latter way it exactly matches up, as >>20727209 noted, with the yogic use of mantras. To permeate one’s breath, life, and mind with the remembrance of God, harnessing the consciousness to the breath as a perpetual self-reminder and private discipline. The Jesus Prayer of Orthodox Christianity also functions similarly. The deliberate silent repetition of “Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner,” held to start as a Prayer of the Mind, deliberately set about by the intellect, and then eventually transcending the merely mental repetition of it and turning into the Prayer of the Heart, in which, instead of just being automatically repeated, it actually becomes authentically heartfelt. It can also be shortened to and become as simple as simply silently repeating “Lord, have mercy,” “Jesus,” or what-you-will. The fact that we have a breath, an internal consciousness, and that we can have an ideal of faith and devotion we need to remind ourselves of so we don’t just forget it, and that these three can be usefully harnessed, seems to have been realized by wise people of many times and places.

>>20728564
consider yourself lucky that you don't live near them

>>20728633
That’s the problem: they don’t exist. Guenon wrote about mysticism and called it “metaphysics”. He didn’t actually write about metaphysics. If you want to know he ultimately justifies any of this claims, he doesn’t. He has two final appeals and one is to “esotericism” which is obviously not a justification of anything and to “intuitive knowledge” which is really just begging the question. Otherwise, he expects you to simply trust all of your claims. If you read enough about religious and esoteric currents in the West you can eventually sniff out that what he’s doing is basically trying to resurrect Rosicrucianism and Catharism.

Guenon is an interesting writer, but the interest lies in the aesthetics of his writing. His ideas interesting but ultimately not justified by anything. He is really not all that different from theosophist pseudo-religions he claimed to despise. He is doing essentially the same thing, but where the theosophists constructed their religion from scratch, Guenon is trying to smuggle it into standing religions. Islam was most suitable for him for the simple fact Islam allows just about anything as long as you nominally submit and promote Islam, while Vedanta allows the ultimate claim that knowledge is just intuitive and therefore you can justify anything by saying it’s intuitive. But that doesn’t make them truly justified and in fact the implications of his worldview from what he writes are easily refuted without blind faith in it’s truthfulness.

>>20728509
>>because they are not real distinctions
>that's not what Guenon or Shankara said tho, if that were true, then thing like quality and quantity of the distintion between brahma and maya wouldn't make any sense
It sounds like you haven’t read Shankara. I’m not the poster you were talking to, but I can illustrate why it makes sense.

Let us first take as a hypothetical basis for the purpose of this illustration the simple idea that A is the reality or what’s real and that B lacks existence unlike A and that B is furthermore only illusory/delusion/phantasmagoria etc, appearing to exist but without having that (existence) which it imitates or impersonates.

When it is denied in this above scenario by someone that A and B are the same, what is the practical effects of this, what does it involve and imply?

Does that establish A and B are then two existing separate realities as a consequence of the denial of there being any real monistic unity between them? No, for the reality of B has already been denied from the very beginning.

“Difference” as an existing relation and all relations in general can only be considered real or actually existent to the extent to which they relate two existing entities that are *actually different* from each other. Why is this? It’s because ‘relation’ by nature involves multiple parties or factors being related, if there is actually just one existent then all relations are only nominal because there is not actually a multiplicity of existents being related, and so nothing is ultimately true that actually corresponds to what the meaning of “relation” is. So, when someone denies that A and B are the same here, that’s not affirming “difference” to exist as an existing relation that links them, because
“difference” is itself admitted as only being valid nominally in the first place as mentioned above. Both the illusion of B and the relation-category of “difference” that would ostensibly characterize the relation of A and B are both fully nominal in this scenario, so when the nominal “B” is denied to be the same with the real “A”, that doesn’t leave intact the relation of “difference” as a real existent relation between them (leaving a real dualism) as it would if relations weren’t all ultimately nominal.

>He does not
>yes he does, he makes a clear distintion between maya and brahma, if not then he's just a crypto madhyamaka buddhist
This is a really simplistic claim, Shankara says that both B and the apparent relation between the real A and B are both nominal and not real which is more refined and subtle than Nagarjuna’s collapsing of both A and B into a monism that professes not to care about its own contradictions because its purportedly skeptic. Even though difference is admitted as only valid nominally for Shankara he is still saying there is an existent unaffected Absolute that isn’t just some dry meta-statement about the non-substantiality of phenomena.

>>20728668
This is what’s so funny about Huenon. He doesn’t affirm Catholicism, or Orthodocy for that matter, because in both everything Guenon says is a heresy. Worse yet, Christian theology refutes it entirely. Guenon can only pretend it’s true by suggesting it’s an esoteric truth but existed only with aristocratic currents of Christianity but what’s clear is this sort of thing only became fashionable as early as the Renaissance, when conveniently many Classical and Eastern ideas were smuggled in. This esoteric lineage never existed before that. So what is Guenon really? Nothing more that moving from Christianity, to Christian heresy, and finally into Eastern religions that affirm what you have no way of proving or justifying and which are already refuted by Christian doctrine. The single most telling thing about Guenon is that he didn’t deal with Orthodox Christianity almost at all. It is too convenient to ignore.

This was meant at weak bait and look at all of the Guenon-tards foaming at the mouth at each other's throats about literal nonsense kek

>>20728856
>Shankara says that both B and the apparent relation between the real A and B are both nominal and not real which is more refined and subtle than Nagarjuna’s collapsing of both A and B into a monism that professes not to care about its own contradictions because its purportedly skeptic. Even though difference is admitted as only valid nominally for Shankara he is still saying there is an existent unaffected Absolute that isn’t just some dry meta-statement about the non-substantiality of phenomena.

holy cope... you're a fucking retard!

>>20729163
>holy cope... you're a fucking retard!

>>20729187
Molyneux is not unlike Guenon. Weird cult that destroys the lives of impressionable young men, internet lost boys.

These threads more than anything have convinced me that any Guenon fanboy is deeply mentally ill.

I hate Guenon so much he makes me seethe to no end! He is the very incarnation of Satan himself! I see Guenon and I cant help but click post and I let loose with endless pejoratives that I repeat in any thread "theosophist" "orientialist" "opium-smoker" etc. I don't even need to reply to anyone but I will just complain to myself to satisfy the rage burning in me. I hate him for leading teenagers and young adults in the west away from Christianity. I know that I am enjoined by my Churchs teaches to act Christlike in my behavior but so much as mention the name of that French peddler of a haze of opium smoke induced fantasies and I will soon be foaming at the mouth besides myself with rage.

>>20729338
lol guenonfaggot is mad nobody cares about his stupid inconsistent metaphysics

>>20727476
>Hegel is trash [...] already present in Shankara and Chinese texts as an almost common sense axiom
kek so is your beloved guru trash as well for arriving at the same positions?

>>20728868
>Christian theology refutes it entirely
retroactively refuted by saying "prove it"

>>20728856
Good post

>>20724275
Right here, baby.

>>20729428
Retroactively proven in the Christian trinity, which refutes all other systems and without which any knowledge at all is impossible

>>20729767
>a son is his own father because i need to comply with abrahamic monotheism
the absolute state of greek fanfiction

There are a couple authors who seem to be the go-to for internet midwit who want to feel like they're doing philosophy, but have no idea what that is. Guénon is one. Gustave Le Bon has been popular lately. So is Spengler (although it's not as blatantly bullshit as Guénon).
Just discovered Schuon whom I'm sure is the type.
It's weird how internet/discord midwits have their own little "intellectual" continent, so to speak. Also weird how they go for writers nobody who's actually in /phil/ gives a damn about.
I'm guessing either they're going for low hanging fruit, completely missing the fact that there is no fruit at all, or
the grand-theorizing aspect of such authors holds more appeal in the eyes of midwits.
Either way, it has always been this way, used to be neckbears with ayn rand, or teenagers with nietzsche but that became trite I guess.
Plus the world's descent into insanity (read: judaism) seems to draw a lot of people towards the esoteric as a final explanation seems less and less within their grasp. This is especially true with how many Guénon faggots are obsessed with "muh symbols" "muh elites", desperately trying to make sense of their slaughtering or even maybe hoping to escape it by joining the butchers, when really there is no rhyme or reason to it (I mean there is but it's pretty down to earth: jews don't like whites, jews made up a bunch of shit with weird symbols and tricked retarded rich midwitted boomers into slaughtering their own kids because muh golden scarab, muh compass, muh secret doric column, muh tiling pattern)

All in all this is just another illustration of how obsessed with the world midwits are. All of this ultimately revolves, or at least has its starting point in and hypothesizes about, history; groups of people, etc. Even when they claim to aim at some "esoteric" (lol) truth, they end up doing gematria on such and such book, and their arguments (as seen itt) are mostly historical in substance, consisting in little more than piecing together what some random arab or some random curry wrote some day a couple centuries ago.
The question, then, is why we should apply ourselves to such orientalism manualism. The answer is we shouldn't.

>>20730371
You can strawman and be reductive but it doesn't make you right. It makes you an idiot.

>>20730583
Oh spare us. Read the books before you go on your diatribe.

>>20728856
Guenonfag, I read Soros' Alchemy of Finance this past week. His theory on death is almost vedantapilled, but not quite there:
>I have thought about the meaning of life and death long and hard and I have come up with a formulation that I have found personally satisfying. I shall sum it up here, although I realize that it may not be as meaningful to others as it is to me. The key is to distinguish between the fact of death and the idea of death. The fact of death is linked with the fact of life, whereas the idea of death stands in juxtaposition with the idea of consciousness. Consciousness and death are irreconcilable; but life and death are not. In other words, the fact of death need not be as terrifying as the idea. The idea of death is overpowering: in terms of death, life and everything connected with it lose a significance. But the idea of death is only an idea and the correspondence between facts and ideas is less than perfect. It would be a mistake to equate the idea and the fact. As far as facts are concerned, the clear and present fact is that we are alive. Death as a fact looms in the distance, but, when we reach it, it will not be the same as the idea we have of it now. In other words, our fear of death is unlikely to be validated by the event.

If only he had read the Upanishads...


He also explicitly stated that Open Society = anti-traditional.
He said there are three types of societies: Traditional (organic) society, Totalitarian (dogmatic) society, and Open (critical) society.
That said, it seemed like his Open Society ideal was more of a means to counter the Totalitarian society than the Traditional one.

although I will say that there are, among these types, some who actually go for the harder stuff, or rather, pretend to (which I'm not sure is better).
but they always end up embarassing themselves, which I guess is the reason most midwits don't venture out of these safe havens.

one such example is the catholic larper, who has had a vague taste of aristotle and some scholastic, probably through someone like Feser, and can state the issues at hand and knows basic vocabulary but can't defend his views to save his life. will assert hylemorphism without having a clue what it is. his response to everything is that nominalism makes no sense and that dawkins is stupid.

there is also the analythic larper, who pretends to have asperger and read a wikipedia page about Frege once

So I don't know, maybe it really is better to have authors like Guénon so as to contain the midwits

>>20728856
>>20730631
also, I will not be able to make it to 2023 Guenoncon in DC unfortunately!
maybe we can do a virtual one

>>20730618
>Oh spare us. Read the books before you go on your diatribe.
ah, there it is
>"noooo you have to read the books"
the guy believed in gematria and uses it as "proof" of who knows the fuck what in his shitty book
don't need to read more than 10 pages to realize there is nothing to it
I have a hard time seeing what separates Guénon fanboys from reddit witches
then again, I haven't read through the latter's entire subreddit so maybe they're not so bad

Where can I get a bitch to suck my guenondong nigger

>>20730654
I also do subscribe to Guenon but your diatribe, which was not particularly about Guenon, by the way, was obnoxious. It had virtually nothing to do with the topic.

>>20724275
>>20725806
Is this the same guy earlier in life?

>>20730681
because there is no need to get into what people are discussing itt
should I condescend to discuss what fucking abdul has to say about "metaphysics" (by which for some reason people itt mean vaguely history-informed mysticism) ?
should I stoop down to counter regarding which hand the vedanta says one should wipe with after too much chicken masala ?
I don't know about any of this nor do I care. What I do know is that none of it has anything to do with philosophy or metaphysics proper, so I am questioning why people who are into it like to pretend it does.

>>20724275
Marx's introduction to grundrisse

>>20730631
So Soros and Sam Harris are basically Guenonian. Guenon told me that when the elites believe Advaita everything will be fine.

>>20730841
the big takeaway here is that we can further Guenonize the Soros worldview. It will be more correct and therefore we should hypothetically have even greater success in the financial markets.
Le Sphinx Capital Group

>pic
fucking kek

>>>/mg/
Totally related
Not a newfag

>>20724593
>I cannot convert to a religion because I am not religious
Religion is not about you, you self centered faggot

>>20724450
>the modern world is based on such things
lmfao no it isn't

>>20724593
Yeah, Guenonianism is ultimately just an atheism that believes you need to LARP religious ritual to get deeper into your atheism.

>>20728380
>Ayant adopté comme devise « exister, c’est résister » — résister « à la sollicitation du milieu social », aux conformismes et aux lieux communs —, il disait de son œuvre qu'elle est entièrement axée autour de la notion de liberté : « Rien de ce que j’ai fait, vécu, pensé ne se comprend si on ne le réfère pas à la liberté2.»

fucking lol, pure NPC, no wonder he is popular here

>>20724275
/lit/ will become a Bataillean board

>>20730618
Can you or can you not explain in your own words why a son being his own father, as well as some will-o-wisp at the same time, makes all knowledge possible? Because it sounds like you've taken a cope invented by hebraicized platonists as to how they can have a god, an incarnation, and a daemon without violating the requirements of Abrahamic monotheism. It does not sound like it has anything to do with the acquisition of knowledge. It largely involves denying knowledge in place of confessional or credal statements which themselves require us to discard any sort of logic or reasoning entirely, and have in their place sorcery and magic and things not following from other things except by esoterical fiat

>>20731172
Do you think it’s logical to deny the Trinit?

>>20731205
If god is both a son and a father (and the other vaguely defined thing) then the Christians are entirely wrong and some sort of henotheism or pantheism would follow, not this weird astral volcano demon worship where you enter into contract with a transcendent being to escape from the world he also created along with you in it. Wouldn't that be the greatest snub of all—to throw down your father's house and rage at him that you wish you'd never been born? If the father and the son are the same substance then the answer is one of monism, not that only this son and only this father are one and no one else is, that is to say that everyone else, the non-divine, are in some state of separation while the three-gods-who-are-akshually-one are the only entity that gets to be that way. Why should that be the case? Where did the divine/union and non-divine/duality split come from? Trinity doesn't solve this. It just multiplies divinity but keeps it under one roof. It only exists to bring together Greek pagan tendencies in an Abrahamic framework. Can't keep Zeus and Dionysus, but you can have God be a Father and a Son. And the later theologians and today's larpers have difficulty understanding that this is what the Trinity does, and have to find other meanings, which must necessarily be as far from pantheism as possible due to the obligations of older scriptures written by an anti-assimilationist religious minority.

>>20731139
never

check out these japanese covers

>>20731266
I asked you a simple yes or no question.

>>20730654
>don't need to read more than 10 pages to realize there is nothing to it
At least you admit you haven't read it. Now we can all ignore you.

>>20731139
True, my brother.

>>20731295
It's "logical" to deny anything invented by a slavish mind in order to lionize its own inferiority

>>20731282
When are you moving to the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan?

>>20731321
I am unironically in a very /trad/ city
my e-frens here can confirm

>>20728509
>that's just wrong, hegel not only justify his terms, the terms themsleves are their own justification
Circular logic is simply flawed. If a principle is justified by its corollaries then it is not a principle. Hegel is genuinely stupid for asserting otherwise. This is why it's unjustifiable.
>that's just not true, that's a mediocre and shallow notion of a "logical principle" e
No, it's the only notion that makes sense. Thinking otherwise is Hegelian brain rot.
>every logical principle is part of an articulation
No one takes this seriously in any field dedicated to real logical thought.
>no, he didn't because he didn't knew how to handle Hegelian logic
Hegelian logic is conceptual vomit. There is no "knowing how", hence why every interpretation is different and even fundamentally subjective (in the sense that each person can utilize his method to come to wildly different conclusions).
>that's not what Guenon or Shankara said tho, if that were true, then thing like quality and quantity of the distintion between brahma and maya wouldn't make any sense
Guenon explicitly refutes Kant's antinomies and also demonstrated why Kant's particular distinction is flawed. The phenomena/noumena distinction is fundamentally Kantian and does not apply outside of his philosophy and those derived from it.
>yes he does, he makes a clear distintion between maya and brahma
As above, this has nothing to do with phenomena/noumena. You can thank Schopenhauer I suppose for conflating them.
>i mean i asked you to quote Hegel work to back up your claims about him and you didn't, why should i?
Exactly, and why should I? I have no interest in skimming through a philosopher which is not worth anything to extract excerpts I fundamentally do not care for. If I'm going to do that, then I will expect you to return the courtesy and find the segments in Shankara where he posits something similar to Platonic ideas which fall victim to the third man problem, which I know do not exist.

>>20731335
You should be stoned for accessing a pornography website

>>20731314
How do you know that?

>>20727455
Guenon mentions that Catholicism is the last bastion of tradition in occidental society. It's not as pure as the Hindu doctrine, but it is an adaptation of the truth that is fit for the occidental mindset.
(as of the 1920s)

I don't think we have trimmed our sentimentality since then, so I assume he'd say we're even further from being a good fit for the Hindu doctrine.

>>20731356
Because someone who personifies an external evil behind every slight or weakness and seeks an astral skirt to hide under should not be listened to

Guenon in his most basic book shits (with reason) on philosophy and trying to fit everything into systems.

This thread:
>Guenon does not do REAL philosophy.
>Guenon does not present a good system.
fascinating

>>20731426
Okay, but how do you know that is what I’m asking you. You said it’s logical and I’m asking you how you justify that.

>>20731462
He doesn’t though. If you fell for that you’re just a fool. You don’t make arguments and then say “I’m not doing philosophy so I don’t have to justify my claims” and expect anyone to accept them. If they did accept them they’d be morons.

>>20731469
I don't believe in your religion. I don't hate life and wish I could be prancing in heaven with the volcano demon, because his claims of escape are promoted by those I find objectionable and whose belief system consists of papering over its lack of any sort of demonstrability or efficacy with turgid appeals to methods of argumentation which were in fact developed by their enemies. Imagine if say, you wanted to go visit Florence and see Italian Renaissance art but were informed that the entire collection had been bought by the Taliban and they were keeping it in Kabul for the sole purpose of studying in order to better debate against people who like iconic art on why aniconism or geometric symbolism is superior. That is what the Christian does when he demands logic and reason of the denier.

>>20731482
I am a fool indeed and thankfully I can tell, although sometimes I forget.

IIRC he does give examples and justifications for his claims.

>>20731512
Won’t answer simple questions. You’re a waste of time.

>>20731547
You recall incorrectly.

>>20731549
>you must offer logical explanation as to why my belief in the trinity [theistic mysticism with extra steps] as the basis of all knowledge is illogical
nah I can just say I don't believe you, and I can do this because your claim rests on fideism and is only "known" through revelation, or he-said-she-said. There is not one ounce of logical content in a son and a father being the same entity, substance, or other de facto synonym—not unless you are going to tell me the whole thing is mere allegory for nominalism or non-duality, or pantheism, which is the exact opposite of what Christianity uses this doctrine for. It is not some parable but a historical event the believer must affirm in order to escape from life.

>>20731561
Here's one I dug up for you:
>Si nous considérons la philosophie moderne dans son ensemble, nous pouvons dire, d’une façon générale, que son point de vue ne présente aucune différence véritablement essentielle avec le point de vue scientifique : c’est toujours un point de vue rationnel, ou du moins qui prétend l’être, et toute connaissance qui se tient dans le domaine de la raison, qu’on la qualifie ou non de philosophique, est proprement une connaissance d’ordre scientifique ; si elle vise à être autre chose, elle perd par là toute valeur, même relative, en s’attribuant une portée qu’elle ne saurait légitimement avoir : c’est le cas de ce que nous appellerons la pseudo-métaphysique.

If his claim is true that modern philosophy resides only in the realm of reason, then it is inherently limited to a subset of all, and thus shouldn't attempt at making claims (eg. denying the existence of) anything that is out of scope.

I think he goes on to say that there are a bunch of questions modern (1920s) philosophers waste their lives arguing about that
1) don't matter at all
2) only appear as a conflict or a dichotomy within the limited scope of reason, or even more limited, a system

>>20731648

Here's what I was referring to
> Certains des problèmes que se pose habituellement la pensée philosophique apparaissent même comme dépourvus, non seulement de toute importance, mais de toute signification ; il y a là une foule de questions qui ne reposent que sur une équivoque, sur une confusion de points de vue, qui n’existent au fond que parce qu’elles sont mal posées, et qui n’auraient aucunement lieu de se poser vraiment ; il suffirait donc, dans bien des cas, d’en mettre l’énoncé au point pour les faire disparaître purement et simplement, si la philosophie n’avait au contraire le plus grand intérêt à les conserver, parce qu’elle vit surtout d’équivoques. Il y a aussi d’autres questions, appartenant d’ailleurs à des ordres d’idées très divers, qui peuvent avoir lieu de se poser, mais pour lesquelles un énoncé précis et exact entraînerait une solution presque immédiate, la difficulté qui s’y trouve étant beaucoup plus verbale que réelle ; mais, si parmi ces questions il en est auxquelles leur nature serait susceptible de donner une certaine portée métaphysique, elles la perdent entièrement par leur inclusion dans un système, car il ne suffit pas qu’une question soit de nature métaphysique, il faut encore que, étant reconnue telle, elle soit envisagée et traitée métaphysiquement.

anyone got a list of what types of places you can be initiated in the west? Like types of Sufi orders, or Hindu temples

>>20731707
There's not going to be a list. You have to expend so much effort finding one group that can perform an initiation, and by the time you find it you are not going searching for other groups and being able to validate their authority. Each person at best is going to be able to give you one or two recommendations, and compiling a proper list is going to be next to impossible.

Wait so if I understand it correctly, Guenon, Evola and the UR group are literally just /x/tard losers who believe that LoA will make them powerful so they try to rationalize away their loserdom and end up approaching schizophrenia?

Based retards

>>20725433
Whatever deficits in Guenon's knowledge of modern philosophers can be remedied by reading Evola, who has engaged with those philosophers.

>>20731965
kek tardlarpers are basically thomists
>uhh I know this passage sounds like bullshit but if you refer to Aristotle on that question we should be good

>>20728357
>It's all muddled. It's not a system. It's not worked out in the least.
I can tell that you haven't read a single page by Guenon. Fuck off, retard.

>>20731985
>vedanta? oh that's neat
>woah dude sufi islam it's not just islam it's so cool
>uh, has anyone else noticed modernity is bad? because it is!
>man you know what would be cool, if we could be initiated by the great eastern masters of....well not the ones the theosophists like those are stinky
>all of civilization has been entirely degenerate and we have to go back to god, but not the lame one the really cool bagavad sneeda one that tells us to kill each other for the lulz
>france is lame I'm moving to egypt
mostly agree with only the last point

>>20732005
Low-quality, I'm not even going to bother provding a response to your misinformed retardation; it's obvious you don't know jack-shit, and all you know about Guenon is the most surface level information that is regurgitated about him.

>>20732029
he's literally just doing theosophy with an extra scoop of snobbery, simple as

>>20731978
>Thomists
You say that like it's a bad thing in and of itself.

>>20732060
Well it's a bit like using Kant to interpret Alice in Wonderland because you're convinced Lewis Carroll was God but either aren't sure what he meant or disagree with the most obvious readings, but at the same really like Kant even though other believers in Wonderland think he's too much of an adult.

>>20731296
you can read it in Japanese and see how it is compared to the english huh?

>>20732054
You already admitted you only read his most surface level book, time to stop posting.

>>20731344
>Circular logic is simply flawed
a concept justifying itself is not circular logic, because there's an articulation that creates a new form of cognition, which is the opposite of circular logic
>No one takes this seriously in any field dedicated to real logical thought.
Hegel is one of the most studied logician in the world, so you're just objectively wrong here, in an historical and institutional level
>w how to handle Hegelian logic
>Hegelian logic is conceptual vomit. There is no "knowing how", hence why every interpretation is different and even fundamentally subjective (in the sense that each person can utilize his method to come to wildly different conclusions).
this meana bsolutely nothing, you're not addressing how Hegelian logic can be wrong, yo're just saying is vomit without actually explaining anything, with is a ad hominem

>explicitly refutes Kant's antinomies and also demonstrated why Kant's particular distinction is flawed
he tries o use his hown system to do so, cerating a petitio principii fallacy, he doens't engage Kant on his own system, he just take for granted that there's a trascendental principle, which he can't prove, and then tries to "refute Kant with that, so all he's actually doing is say: "kant is wrong because i'm right" which is not so much a refutation and more of a childish tantrum
>and why should I?
is not about you, Op asked for a philopher that refuted Guenon and Hegel did it on just the prologue of one of his books, the fact that you can't engage with him and can only rely on "ad hominem" and "beging the question" fallacies just show the level of arguments a Guenonfag have, and how little they know about other schools of thoughts
>Shankara where he posits something similar to Platonic ideas which fall victim to the third man problem
you don't need a platonic system to use the third man problem, the third man problem fits perfectly in the faulty dichotomy Shankara cerated betwen Brahma and Maya, ot to mention Shankara couldn't solve the problem that his system creates when he breakes the chain of casuation with his noption of Brahma, which refutes his critics of buddhism

>>20724450
Actually yes I do, stranger on the other side of the world. Beats never leaving my land and farming turnips all for the chance to marry some smelly fatty and breed more plow men.

>>20732204
Do you even know French? Sanskrit? Arabic? Are you a true scholar and everyone else is literally just pseuds? These threads always come to do "you didn't read his entire body of work and therefore your opinions are wrong," which is too ridiculous to entertain. I don't have to read all of Blavatsky to opine on her either you apeling.

>>20728848
>while Vedanta allows the ultimate claim that knowledge is just intuitive and therefore you can justify anything by saying it’s intuitive.
That's incorrect, Vedanta doesn't say that you can justify anything by saying it's intuitive, they say that consciousness is naturally self-evident or self-disclosed to itself through being reflexive (or self-directed) by having a natural and inalienable autoawareness with regard to itself even when its focused on observing objects or doing anything generally. Their reason for doing so is that the alternative leads to an infinite regress because if an individual instance of knowledge needs to be known by another to be evident to us or to be experienced by us then it never will be and it never is revealed to a consciousness that actually experiences it because if no consciousness is self-evident the content is passed between endless insentient facsimiles of consciousness and nobody ever experiences it as this would require one to have the self-evident consciousness that was denied earlier be present and witness the content while being aware of itself doing so. It would be logically inconsistent for you to not accept this argument of Vedanta for consciousness being self-evident in combination with you on the other hand accepting as you seem to that infinite regress arguments by Aristotle or Aquinas etc prove that God exists.

>>20732247
It's not about reading his entire body of work, it's about reading the works which are substantial. The work you read is not one of them, it is (admittedly by Guenon) just an overview of the present state of society from a more normal perspective which is tacitly presupposed. Again, time to stop posting.

>>20732266
> Vedanta doesn’t justify itself with intuition, it just says it’s self-justifying instead
In other words, it begs the question. And I never mentioned Aristotle or Aquinas.

>>20732231
>a concept justifying itself is not circular logic
First of all we're speaking about principles, not concepts, there is actually a difference. Second, principles can be deduced from consequents but this is not a relationship of dependence, in other words the principle's subsistence is not due to its (logical) justifications, but is only deduced from the human perspective thanks to these relationships (which Guenon goes through pains to show in Man's Becoming According to the Vedanta, namely that there are two ways of viewing principles, one from below and one from above. The view from below is necessarily contingent as long as it has not yet been united with the principle).
>Hegel is one of the most studied logician in the world
Not by actual logicians or mathematicians, only "philosophers."
>e doens't engage Kant on his own system
And Kant doesn't engage Guenon in his own "system." So what? What is right or wrong is "system independent." If Kant makes mistakes, these can be pointed out independently of any system.
>and Hegel did it on just the prologue of one of his books,
Which you have yet to demonstrate. Just as easily as you claim "Hegel refuted Guenon", I can claim "Guenon refuted Hegel" in the first few chapters of Introduction to the Study of the Hindu Doctrines.
> the third man problem fits perfectly in the faulty dichotomy Shankara cerated betwen Brahma and Maya
There is no real dichotomy between Brahman and Maya.

>>20731648
> Guenon makes a philosophical argument but then evades giving a justification by arguing that it’s not a philosophical argument and thus out of the scope of philosophical arguments, so therefore he doesn’t need to justify any of these claims and can just assert things
I know you don’t realize this is what you are saying, but this is what you’re saying. Besides, this is not an argument from modern philosophy. This is something that has been pointed out since the 3rd century. Everything Guenon says is ultimately begging the question, and he does not have an answer.

>>20724275

Guenon is the starting point. Evola is where the transformation really begins. Now get on the tiger.

>>20732274
Not the other anon but again a timeless instance of "you're wrong because you haven't read him," which seems to be the canned response here, and always presented without further commentary, and if I press you for further commentary, inevitably I will be told how dumb and stupid I am, because none of you are capable of even discussing the author you profess to agree with, he exists for you only to be name-dropped in vague connection with your ideological concern of "modernity bad." Again, there's no discussion of content, just otaku showing off authors and titles. What are these books about? Well follow this chart and collect them!

>>20732320
>but again a timeless instance of "you're wrong because you haven't read him,"
Perhaps it's timeless because there is a timeless problem of people not reading an author before letting loose a barrage of nonsense. If you were actually interested in having a discussion you would not be posting from the start in such a hostile manner, which is why there is simply no point in putting effort into a detailed response.

>>20732287
>> Vedanta doesn’t justify itself with intuition, it just says it’s self-justifying instead
>In other words, it begs the question.
I didn’t say that Vedanta is “self-justifying”, dont put false words in my mouth I never said. I said that Vedanta uses an infinite regress argument to logically show why consciousness is self-evident to itself, that’s not begging the question because its based on an examination of how knowledge takes place and then using analysis and logical arguments to show why one position has to be accepted as true if one accepts infinite regress arguments as being valid as long as you want to remain logically consistent. If you dont care about being logically inconsistent then you can selectively ignore and cherrypick which regresses you will engage with philosophically.

>And I never mentioned Aristotle or Aquinas
You probably do accept general Christian use of regress arguments though and employ them sometimes when trying to argue for your religion? If yes, which I thought was a reasonable assumption, then the same point applies either way

>>20732329
ahh the fans of orientalist jeremiads appeal to civility in discourse, at last I truly see I was wrong to interpret him as deracinated westoid larping as a priest of a religion he cobbled together from odds and ends of premodern non-Western societies

>>20730856
You are definitely onto something

>>20732302
>First of all we're speaking about principles, not concepts,
we're talking about Hegelian principles, which are concepts(begriff)

>but this is not a relationship of dependence
that's just a dogmatic view, you can't prove it empirically, just accept in on blind faith, but taht's besides the point becaus ethat's has nothing to do with how Hegel structres logical priniple,s if you read the cience of logic you would know that
>Not by actual logicians or mathematicians
Logicians are philosophers, mathematicians study logic apllied to mathematical models, so yeah, most logicians study Hegel, Guenon on the other hand is completly ignored by logicians on the philosophy and math departements, because he has nothing to offer

>nd Kant doesn't engage Guenon in his own "system.
he actually does, because Kant proves how the type of theology Guenon practice, creates antinomies, the problem of causation, the whole idea of Brahma as awareness is already refuted in the concept of aperception, that is, awareness is not something above phenomena, sinc ebeing present in every aspect of phenomena doesn't mean that something can trascend it, if that were the case every idea would exist in another realm, bringing the problem of the third man into the equation, you end up with an infinite number of substances, and an infinite regress, the door is open for a more primordial thing behind the first thing
>If Kant makes mistakes, these can be pointed out independently of any system.
yeah but Guenon don't point any misatke on Kant's system, he just use his own system as a form of "refutation", which is a form of fallacy

>Which you have yet to demonstrate
i don't need to demostrate it, it's at the beggining of the book, in the first couple of pages, everyone can read it

>There is no real dichotomy between Brahman and Maya.
then brahma is changing and interdependent, making Shankara a crypto-buddhist

>>20732333
not that anon, but it kinda begs the question, because in order to be reflexive, it needs an object outside of itself that reflect that awareness, so is not really "self" disclosed, since it needs an objet to make the awareness manifest, so taking for granted that is self-disclosed without taking into consideration the rol that the object plays on the process of cognition is a form of "begging the question"

>>20730583
i agree that parts of guenons body of work is historically contingent, but that does not alter the universality and timelessness or ahistoricity of many of the ideas guenon and say evola point at, guenon doesn't need acknowledgment as an author, the experiential transmission of any of these ideas and speculations which appear in their work, is grounded in reality and totally divested of any form of originality or authorship - and it is to be found in the methods and techniques, and approaches of esoteric lineages of various traditions with only an apparently religious exterior,

the truth is though - much to the criticism of many guenonians today, is that guenons work is completely dated, and in many cases they are unable to discriminate between the contingent and non-contingent parts of his work, which is why most of them get caught up in the religious and historical, superstitious particularisms, and they also do no realise the nature of the world today, that is that many of the results of an initiatic work are obtained effortlessly even by someone who they would call profane today - like an athlete, or a street performer, and so on so their "elite" complex is totally unwarranted, movies that are seen on tv by kids today even have an initiatic quality which imprints on the impressionable viewership, leaving behind various psychic indentations which affect the outcome of their lives and so forth,

what becomes clearer and clearer though is that there is a component of the initiatic work which requires a sort of "controlled schizophrenia," in the moderns terminology, if you want proof or evidence of the potency of the mind, it would be easiest to just look at the hallucinatory effects of psychadelics, or the mental patients to be found in the various mental institutions - in my opinion the only real difference between the initiate and them is that the latter is more or less relegated to the individual sphere, and is succumbing to passive influences, it is maybe uncontrolled in their case, or they triggered something intentionally resulting in the malformation of their experience,

I would personally say that guenons writings have no more value than hegel, and that hegels writings have no more value than some work of adolescent ficition, there is no element of pretentiousness in any writing, and if a person is to suppress the faculty which becomes invested in the phenomenal, then there cannot be any difference... even in the thoughts here which are debated there is no debate because there is no real difference in thought and idea.

>>20732302
>we're speaking about principles, not concepts, there is actually a difference
we're talking about Hegelian principles, so no, there's no difference, a principle and a concept(begriff) are the same thing

>, in other words the principle's subsistence is not due to its
this is a very shallow notion of what a principle is, and brings a huge problem:
>is not a relationship of dependence
how can you prove that? every logical argumentation will be a deduction, thus making your point of non-dependency invalid, you need deduction to prove that deduction is not necessary on a basic level, it's like saying god is beyond logic, when you can only use logic to formulate the notion of a non-logical" thing, thus making that thing impossible, since it will bea logical ocncept at the end, and thus not non-illogical
>l logicians
those guys are philosophers, so yeah, logicians study hegel
>or mathematicians
a lot of mathematicians also study Hegel, but that's besides the point, mathematicians study logic applied to mathematical models, you wanna know which author is ignored and deemed a pleb by both logicians and mathematicians?Guenon

>And Kant doesn't engage Guenon in his own "system."
Kant actually engage with the theological systems Guenon used for his "philosophy" and he probed that all those systems are overly dogmatic and without logical consitency, his notion of aperception pretty much refuted the whole advaita system

>Which you have yet to demonstrate
it's in the first pages of the phenomenology of spirit, anyone can read it

>There is no real dichotomy between Brahman and Maya.
if not then brahma is changin and interdependent, thus making Shankara a crypto -buddhist

>>20732416
>we're talking about Hegelian principles, which are concepts(begriff)
We're speaking about principles in the only sense in which the word has meaning, ie the unified point of origin for all possible consequents, which in practical terms as related by Guenon, turns out to be the Infinite, Brahman.
>you can't prove it empirically
Of course not, you can't prove any of Hegel's claims empirically either. Anything with any claim to real knowledge has nothing to do with empirical claims, otherwise it would all just be profane science (which is not concerned with facts, but measurements and cataloguing sense data). Principles are necessarily self-subsistent, if they are not then they are not principles, this is an analytical fact. It has no relation to empirical observation. If there is no self-subsistent principle which is beyond all change, then we cannot know anything at all, which is only the smallest consequence of what ends up becoming an incontrovertible error in judgement.
>Logicians are philosophers, mathematicians study logic apllied to mathematical models,
In common parlance they are not. Mathematicians would never refer to themselves as philosophers, nor would logicians (which are today either "computer scientists" or "mathematicians" generally speaking).
>he actually does, because Kant proves how the type of theology Guenon practice, creates antinomies
I just told you Guenon refuted those antinomies. They are actually a misnomer; Kant made them up based on fallacious reasoning which does not hold up to scrutiny. In each of Kant's antinomies there is actually a logical error on one side of the argument, and in some cases both arguments on each side of the antinomy are fallacious.
>then brahma is changing and interdependent
No, because change is an illusion and does not have ontological status. This is not even necessarily Shankara's idea, you can find it in Platonic philosophy in a less rigorous form.
>>20732422
>because in order to be reflexive, it needs an object outside of itself that reflect that awareness
Reflexive does not mean reflective. In order to be reflexive, all that is required is the self-disclosure of consciousness, which is always presupposed by every contingent subject-object relationship (and even when considered in this contingent relationship, it is always subject which remains the same and object which changes). In this way self-disclosing consciousness is prior to any subject-object relationship and is what possesses ontological reality, which is continuously disclosed to us in every waking moment, the only question being whether you seize upon it.

>>20728856
>the simple idea that A is the reality or what’s real and that B lacks existence
this is already a problem, if B lacks existence, then we have two alternatives, first, it has no existence, in which case it shouldn't be able to manifets, since evenan illusion needs to "exist as an illusion" so, just saying that B doesn't actually exist, doesn't work, because it doesn't explain the world of phenomena, is just a metaphysical cope out
Shankara try to solve this by saying that maya/phenomena is neither being nor non-being, which is a contradiction, is like saying something is not a dog nor a non-dog, the quality of "not being a dog" is something that every object except for dogs, possess, the quality of "not being a non-dog" is something only dogs possess, so something that possess both qualities breaks the law of non contradiction
so trying to argument that somethign can "be" something(an illusion,phantasmagoria etc) withoit actually "being" something is just a contradiction, creates a notion of being that doesn't justify itself


>that are *actually different* from each other. Why is this? It’s because ‘relation’ by nature involves multiple parties or factors being related
but that's the thing, maya and brahma are related, one is the illusion of the reality that represents the other, the dichotomy still prevails, just saying one doesn't exist doesn't solve anything, because now you have a "thing that exist" and a "thing that it does not exist" and both of them are related by the notion of existence/being
>all relations are only nominal because there is not actually a multiplicity of existents being related
again, that's the same problem, now you create a nominal and non-nominal reality, the difference still remains, a functional world of multiplicity and a functional world of unity are still established on your system, so the problem of how those two contradictory worlds can be connected remains
functionally difference still exist and the problems that arise with it, causation, third man etc and not only that,now you have an ontological problem, since true being is something really vague that doesn't follow any consistent logic, since things that can manifest don't possess being, making the whole concept unable to represent reality
>he is still saying there is an existent unaffected Absolute that isn’t just some dry meta-statement about the non-substantiality of phenomena.
how can he say that if he believes all differences are just anominal process?

>>20732434
>this is a very shallow notion of what a principle
Many people find the basics of arithmetic shallow, yet it is the groundwork for the entire algebraic structure of mathematics. Everything primary in the realm of knowledge is simple by nature, otherwise it would not be primary. Depth in the true intellectual sense is simplicity (or what you call shallowness), because everything complex and "deep" is already inherent virtually in the principle, which is why Brahman is paradoxically said to both be Infinite and One, or Not Two.
>how can you prove that?
It's inherent in the idea of a principle. By disputing this fact, you dispute the idea of the principle itself, in which case you have no principle and no right to claim any knowledge.
>every logical argumentation will be a deduction, thus making your point of non-dependency invalid
How? I already explained the distinction between knowledge and reality. Knowledge is the contingent (for example man) coming to know what is real, reality is the self-subsistent which is responsible for everything contingent but is not bound by its dependencies. Everything contingent can be traced back to its principle, but the principle cannot be traced back to anything contingent. It is Infinite and "hovers over the water" so to speak.

>>20732458
>We're speaking about principles in the only sense in which the word has meaning,
that's a petitio principii fallacy in his purest form, you're actually asking to defien what a principle is
>>20732458
>ie the unified point of origin for all possible consequents, which in practical terms as related by Guenon, turns out to be the Infinite, Brahman.
the unified poitn of all possibles consequents of a thign is "a concept" a cocnept is a model, a mode, the act of conceptualsiation itself is how the inifnite acts on the finite, so yeah the principle is the concept
>>20732458
>you can't prove any of Hegel's claims empirically either.
i don't need to, the concept is designed to be it's own prove, which is different from the dogamtic notions of Guenon, who only take for granted some vaghuemetaphysical principle
>>20732458
>. Principles are necessarily self-subsistent
exaclty, taht's the whole point of the phenomenology, Guenon on the other hand just take for grante dthe existence of this two realms world and goes with it without any real concept or logical articulation that can back up his claims
>>20732458
>I just told you Guenon refuted those antinomies
and i told you he didn't, he just made a petitio principii fallacy, he just take for granted that his metaphyscial notions are true without ever proving any of them right and then use them to "refute" Kant
>because change is an illusion and does not have ontological status
that doesn't make any sense, if an illusion doesn't have any ontological status thenist doesn't exist, even as an illusion, if it has fucntionallity, which it needs in order to manifets as an illusion then it has ontological status and functionallity

>Platonic philosophy
Plato gave the world of shadows an ontological status, the world of undefined multiplicity(Khora) actually exist and is always in relation with The One(To hen)
>>20732458
>always presupposed by every contingent subject-object relationship
all subject-object relationship, presupouse a subject-object relationship, not an existence of the subject on itself without an object

>it is always subject which remains the same
the actual subject changes with the object in order to understand it, an abstract notion of the subject remains the same, the problem with that is that:
>object which changes
only objects in reality changes, if we use the same system of abstraction that we used on the subject, the object also never changes, there's always different aspects of one object, all the things in the world end up being an aspect of objectivity itself, so if we made an abstraction of the subject to develop the idea of a pure unchangin subject, we can also made the same thing to the objects and come up with an unchaging object, and thus we have two different substances

>In this way self-disclosing consciousness is prior to any subject-object relationship
this is a non sequitur, you cant infer that the subject is prior to the object just because you can abstract it

>>20732525
>It's inherent in the idea of a principle
not at all, yournotion of principle carry a essentialist conotation, a inecessary substancialist aproach that is not self evident, the idea that a principle is the substartum of some other thing but at the same time that thing lacks a conection with it's pricniple speaks of a pretty particualr form of metaphysics>>20732525
>By disputing this fact, you dispute the idea of the principle itself
i dispute the idea that a principle is somethign that can "cast" existence withotu being part of such existence, if you cn aprove that is the case then you're welcome to do it, but clearly that's not self evidnt in the cocnept of principle itself

>. Knowledge is the contingent (for example man) coming to know what is real,
the problem with this is taht the moment you pose the idea of "the real" in opposition to a contingent subjectivity that has to know or create a link with it, then you're creating a notion of a pure object
>reality is the self-subsistent
so an object, you're posing the notion of a pure object that creates a dichotomy with your advaita notion of a pure subject, awareness has a substrstum of reality

>is responsible for everything contingent but is not bound by its dependencies
how can you prove that? empirically or logically? theres no self evident, necessary logical notion about that

>Everything contingent can be traced back to its principle, but the principle cannot be traced back to anything contingent. It is Infinite and "hovers over the water" so to speak.
again, how do you know that, that's not self evident, and a lot of schools of thought think otherwise

>>20724478
>Muh material comforts
Yikes

>>20732574
>that's a petitio principii fallacy in his purest form, you're actually asking to defien what a principle is
The definition of what a principle is, is not begging the question.
>the unified poitn of all possibles consequents of a thign is "a concept"
No, in the most basic sense it is a principle. It might be a concept depending on exactly which subject you are dealing with.
>i don't need to, the concept is designed to be it's own prove,
Which it fails disastrously at doing.
>exaclty, taht's the whole point of the phenomenology
No, the Phenomenology is a misapplication of metaphysical principles to a subject matter which is fundamentally sub-rational and only applicable to human psychology.
>and i told you he didn't, he just made a petitio principii fallacy,
Where did he make this fallacy when refuting Kant?
>that doesn't make any sense
Change does not exist, it is very simple and makes perfect sense. To say "becoming exists" is at best equivocation, at worst contradiction in terms.
>the world of undefined multiplicity(Khora) actually exist
It doesn't exist, that was the entire point of Plato's ontology. If it existed we could have true knowledge of it, which we in fact cannot, according to him.
>all subject-object relationship, presupouse a subject-object relationship, not an existence of the subject on itself without an object
No, subject-object relationships presuppose a self-disclosing consciousness. A thing cannot presuppose itself, that would be an actual petitio principii fallacy. And you must have poor reading comprehension, because I never stated that it presupposed a subject by itself, which would still be a limitation and duality. I merely said that given the subject-object duality, the subject is primary, but is still illusory so long as we are confined to speaking of the subject-object relationship. Non-dual awareness is the conscious substance which is neither subject nor object, but is the ground necessary for both to manifest as illusory oppositions.
>the actual subject changes with the object in order to understand it,
No, it doesn't, the changing of mental states is not a change of subject, unless you're conflating "subject" with "mental state", which is entirely erroneous.
>if we use the same system of abstraction that we used on the subject, the object also never changes
The objects are the ones always changing, this is confirmed by simple experience and reflection. There is no way to assert otherwise without simply lying. That is why we experience everything "from our perspective" and never anything else's, unless we transcend the subject-object duality, which also transcends seeing from any perspective at all.
>you cant infer that the subject is prior to the object just because you can abstract it
Which I never did.

>Attach yourself to opium if you want be a good crypto-Buddhist

what a fucking hack

>>20732617
>not at all, yournotion of principle carry a essentialist conotation
Principles are essential, that is part of their definition. The highest principle, however, is beyond essence, which is the ground of Being. To call Brahman essential is merely a logical necessity, not an actual attribute thereof.
>i dispute the idea that a principle is somethign that can "cast" existence withotu being part of such existence
Fine, but then what you are describing is not a principle, but merely a contingent thing which has no necessary existence and has contingent value at best.
>the problem with this is taht the moment you pose the idea of "the real" in opposition to a contingent subjectivity
It doesn't have to create a link, it merely has to return to its center, because Atman is at the center of every being, smaller than a grain of sand and in the heart. The person merely has to go back into himself with awareness rather than willingly continuing the illusion.
>so an object, you're posing the notion of a pure object that creates a dichotomy with your advaita notion of a pure subject, awareness has a substrstum of reality
Awareness is reality, it only presents a substratum from the self-limited perspective of Maya (which is why, at the highest level, our rational categories are only contingently useful and are insufficient for complete knowledge of the Infinite, which is only natural when considering what the Infinite actually implies). Conceptual abstractions of no matter what sort, whether Aquinas, Hegel, Aristotle, are insufficient for the highest realizations, that does not mean they are useless, though. Still, some are more flawed than others.
>theres no self evident, necessary logical notion about that
If there is something contingent, then there is something which is not contingent. If there is no contingency, then there is no necessity (which is stating the same thing twice), in both cases we reach the same result. But from our limited perspectives, there are contingencies, therefore there must be something necessary.

>>20724275
go outside and take peyote

>>20732750
>Be GNU/Buddhist
>toe jam tendies and dashiki robes to meditate on Andes mountains using ALPINE Linux
>squash roaches with no fear of bad karma
>beat your chest like a great ape shouting as a mleccha, "HANUMAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN!"
kino
burgerpilled

>>20732767
I meditated on Satanic non-metta for cockroaches today. I hate mosquitos. I hate le anticrust

>>20732767
>>20732769
The guenonians are waking up. How many threads will they make today?

>>20732750
I'm an ETH Buddhist

>>20730841
that' like saying when mom plays Xbox we will have fun

If guenonwas alive today, would he support bored ape yacht club? They seem to add a esoteric dimension to capitalism.

>>20732733
>The definition of what a principle is
yes it is, because that definition is copletly subjective, if you use your own definition as THE definition that should be accepted, that's a petitio principii fallacy, you're asking for your notion of principle to be accepted as the principle used to defend your point
>No, in the most basic sense it is a principle
and in this case both are the same thing, your subjective notion of principle can't be used as the deffintiion of principle, that's again,a fallacy
>, the Phenomenology is a misapplication of metaphysical principles
no, is not a misapplication at all, it uses metaphysics in a different way that Guenon, because that type ontotheological systems creates all kinds of antinomies and contradictions, that a new system was needed
>>20732733
>only applicable to human psychology.
phenomenology has nothing to do with psychology, the study of the psyche, but with gnoseology the study of perception,
>which is fundamentally sub-rational
inorder for that to be true you have to prove that there's a rational reality outside of perception
>>20732733
>Where did he make this fallacy when refuting Kant?
his whole refutationis a principii fgallacy, Guenon never adresses the inner logic of the Kantian system, he only contrast his own system with the Kantian one, you can "refute" anything that ay, beause all you're doing is just say: he's wrong because i'm right"
>Change does not exist,
you need to prove that, i'm seeing change right now, and you too, that's the oply way you can answer my post
>To say "becoming exists" is at best equivocation, at worst contradiction in terms.
there's nothing in the term "becoming" that negates existence, so no, is not a contradiction in terms
>that was the entire point of Plato's ontology.
lol no it's not, the Khora and the To Hen bot hexist and are in a constant state of fluctuation, is part of the agrapha dogmata, teh esoteric text of Plato's his true teachings, beyond his writing text, but you can see parts of that even on his text, when he talks about how god is like a mason and use the Hyle, the raw material of reality to construct his Eidos
>, according to him.
in which text did he said that?
>subject-object relationships presuppose a self-disclosing consciousness
it can't presupousethat because inno place of teh subject-object relation the subject presents itself as more essential than the object, the subject-object canonly presupouse a relationship between the two,
>>20732733
>unless you're conflating "subject" with "mental state", which is entirely erroneous.
a mental state is a subjective state, is the subject in a particualr moment, how is that worng? you're asuming there's an existence of the suject besides it's particular moments, but how can that be? that's like saying because i can walk, there's a way of walking wihtout the need of me using my feet, again just a non sequitur

>>20732920
just because i'm aware of my awareness that already implies that awareness can exist on itself
>which is entirely erroneous.
how so? nothign in awareness or subjectivity makes self evident that a mental state and subjectivity are two different things
>The objects are the ones always changing,
the objects are, but the substartum inwhich those objects exist isn't THE object as a function is just as unchangin as the subject as a function
just i can infer an abstract subject, what Kant called the aperception, i can also infer by the categories of prception an abstract object
you're just chosing to abstract one part f the cognotive equation, the subject, but you can articulate the same process to the object, which is what the materialist do, Vedanta is just materialism inverted, instead of reyfing the object they reify the subject
anyways, it's not self evident in the subject object dichotomy that the subject has an existence above or different than the object, since you need both of them for experience to be possible, so using this "self-revealing" quality of awareness as basis for your argument is not all that effective as an argument

>>20732754
>but then what you are describing is not a principle,
yes it is, is just not in line with your deffiniton of principle, and your deffintion of principle is totally subjective carying qualities that are unproven or even contradictory, theres notihng in the notion of principle that needs a higest principle beyond essence, or thenecessity of that principle to be indendepent of the thing that articulate
>It doesn't have to create a link
if there's no link between a thing and it's essence then that thing can't exist, it's like saying a chair doesn't need to be a chair in order to exist
>rather than willingly continuing the illusion.
you still couldn' tprove how this illusion can manifest without aving ontologiacl value, so this whole idea of an illsuion and a cente rof reality doesn't make to much sense since the logical fundaments are unfounded and logical inconsistent
>Awareness is reality
awareness is an aspect of reality,

>whether Aquinas, Hegel, Aristotle, are insufficient for the highest realizations, that does not mean they are useless, though. Still, some are more flawed than others.
that's not ana rgument, just an unfoudned opinion
>If there is something contingent
a lot of schools of thought don't belive there's nothign contingent, so you first need to prove that there's such a thing as something contingent, a lot of philosophie slook at reality as absolute neccesary, and there's nothing on reality that show us as self evident that anontological dichotomy between contingency and necessity is needed

>>20731512
This is a lot of self-important ranting, and I'm not convinced you have any actual grasp of Catholicism's place in the world or the hearts of its believers. You seem incredibly juvenile: you seem assume everything in the world adheres exactly to your pessimistic vision, and yet anyone reading your schlock can tell you have a dire lack of lived experience.

>>20727579
Nta, but none of those claims is true, not the claim of a "unity of opposites" as a principle of the SoL, not the claim that becoming is one of his principles, not the claim about any "thesis-antithesis-synthesis" structure in his work.

Cf. good studies on his work, like those of H.S. Harris, Stanley Rosen, David Lachterman, Robert Pippin, Terry Pinkard, Robert Berman, etc.

>>20727891
>Guenon did refute certain aspects of Kant, which is all that is required to render Hegel entirely valueless outside of the domain of mere literature.
I don't think you know anything about the relation of Hegel's thought to Kant's.