/lit/ - Literature

Women can't do metaphysics

>>22075764
>Women are capable of education, but they are not made for activities which demand a universal faculty such as the more advanced sciences, philosophy, and certain forms of artistic production. Women may have happy ideas, taste, and elegance, but they cannot attain to the ideal.

>Women are educated — who knows how? — as it were by breathing in ideas, by living rather than by acquiring knowledge. The status of manhood, on the other hand, is attained only by the stress of thought and much technical exertion.

>The difference between men and women is like that between animals and plants.

>>22075764
>The Methods of Metaphilosophy: Kant, Maimon, and Schelling on How to Philosophize about Philosophy by Jelscha Schmid (a woman)

explain.

>t. metaphysicians

>>22075762
is there any metaphysician who sees the trinity as being three separate monads working towards one truth? this might be theology so sorry if this doesn't belong here.

>>22075792
she's deconstructing philosophy as a discipline, therefore its anti-metaphysics if anything.

>>22076011
theology is a subdiscipline of metaphysics

>>22075762
Germans can't do metaphysics. Metaphysics is the science of Being. Kant never made a statement about Being, he merely denied that it was possible to attain knowledge about it.

Hey Metaphysics-General Guys, what do ye think of Kant's Kritik der reinen Vernunft?

>>22076020
it should be burned and Kant's name should be redacted from every work that came after.

>>22076014
fine but explain this then

>Alyssa Ney (a woman)

>>22076018
imagine stopping at Kant and believing you can pass judgment on German metaphysics

>>22076020
great book

Lord Hegel on the first critique:
>whatever may be said, both in this work and elsewhere, about the precise character of this philosophy and about particular parts of its exposition, it constitutes the base and the starting point of recent German philosophy and that its merit remains unaffected by whatever faults may be found in it.

>>22076015
alright, if thats the case then give me the scoop on what I just asked

>>22076027
is she single?

>>22076011
That's heresy

Maybe neoplatonists? But they don't say every number is made of monads. Altho there are triads so to speak

>>22075762
really hate how Bertrand Russel and to a greater extent, Rudolf Carnap destroy what could have been a great metaphysical awakening in British philosophy. F.H Bradley and J.M.E Taggart never had much of a standing chance.

also was there a distinct difference between British idealism and German idealism or was it just cosmetic?

>>22076069
good lord, I am in trouble then. though I don't necessarily think that the triad is completely separate or completely one but transcend both qualities. I'm probably in over my head here.

>>22076066
idk why?

>>22076066
waitaminute. that's some horse-like physiognomy if I ever seen any.

>>22076083
nevermind, I just looked at her. Imma pass on that.

>>22076086
>>22076090
we appreciate her for her mind bros. i would be her friend.

>>22076081
>>22076011
John Philoponus was condemned as tritheist for affirming that the trinity was three separate persons so hard. His works probably aren't very readable though, just a byzantine scholar. but the word for this is tritheism

on the topic of metaphysics and women, you ever meet a woman that's into metaphysics but you're not but you're really into her so you get into metaphysics to get her to be interested in you?

What are the metaphysical justifications for asceticism? To what capacity will refraining from fleeing material and sensual pleasures bring me closer to truth and understanding of the fundamental principles existence?

>>22076112
for one, you'd eliminate the main distraction from the development of the intellect

>>22076112
you have it backwards. you refrain from material pleasures after understanding their (and your) nature.

>>22076112
you don't want to completely eliminate all sensory input otherwise you would be unable to actually think. of course this all depends on whether you think humans are capable of understanding the world without input from the outside, if not, then you're pretty much a tabula rasa advocate.

>>22076098
I'll look him up

>>22076134
The Metaphysicians Creed:

I believe in a priori knowledge.

>>22076025
wtf why?

>>22076042
Where does Hegel engages with Kantian epistemology? Is it in his Phenomenology?

>>22076153
right, thats probably why empiricism attempted to eliminate metaphysics altogether in due time.

>>22076174
engages with Kant in Encyclopedia Logic and Science of Logic

>>22076146
looks I'm on my own with this tritheism thing, a lot of lost works dot its landscape.

>>22076073
this was never answered

The history of metaphysics is the history of failed metaphysical systems. If all you are doing is imitating failure, that is all you shall produce.

>>22076073
>metaphysical awakening = parotting german idealism
the real metaphysical awakening in anglo philosophy was Whitehead, Santayana, William James, etc..

>>22076197
>Whitehead, Santayana, William James, etc..
jajaja...
https://old.reddit.com/r/NarrativeDynamics/comments/13bzqha/aho_mitakuye_oyasin_all_my_relations/

>>22076176
lord kant on empiricism:
>in this philosophical and critical age empiricism can scarcely be taken seriously, and it is probably put forward only as an intellectual exercise for the purpose of putting in a clearer light, by contrast, the necessity of rational a priori principles. We can only be grateful to those who employ themselves in this otherwise uninstructive labour.

>>22076186
not very many people read British Idealism. my take is that it's basically commentary on Hegel's thought in English. Russel and Moore got filtered by Kant and Hegel, and then set the Anglo's on the wrong path for almost a century.

>>22076196
this anon has not read Hegel

>>22076197
Is Santayana even worth perusing?

anyways, I had a brain fart earlier and came to this conclusion:

God’s omnipresence and omniscience ensures nature has a plurality of existence and is many different shades of things, from the violent to the peaceful to the dark to the light. Everything is complimentary to one another and nature being completely one thing or another is a narrow viewpoint of all this universe has to offer

How close to the truth am I?

>>22076289
Basically what I’m trying to say is that god essentially embodies all qualities of the universe

I would add though he does not embrace anything that is contrary to life itself, however. That’s the domain of the devil

>>22076289
just stick to german idealism sir

>>22076205
Niiice

>>22076289
yes but then there is no point in describing that as "god" anymore. that was spinoza's mistake. he should have just called it the all (to pan).
>>22076299
if there is a plurality of things then there is nothing that is contrary to life itself, which you should not render as life but as existence. nothing can be contrary to existence because everything is in god and god is a perfect being meaning he is the most existent of all by having absolutely infinite attributes. anything that were contrary to existence could not exist. all there can be is relative contraries, because in a plurality that is taken from a limited perspective two things within the plurality can be seen to contradict each other, only once you stop limiting your perspective and see that each contrary is resolved holistically by the immanence and virtuality of the All in everything, or in Heraclitean terms by the Logos or guiding principle behind the contraries that reveals the holistic unity of the universe.

>>22076205
>reddit
sigh.

>>22076322
if thats the conclusion you come to, then how does God differ from the Devil? if God is all, wouldn't he accompany the nothing as well? because they he wouldn't be God, he would be contrary to himself. you cannot be your own negation.

>>22076339
there is no devil. there is no nothing. there is no negation of God.

>>22076346
then how am I speaking to you?

>>22076352
I'm God.

>>22076356
I'd wager much more that you're the opposite

>>22076375
okay brother. go back to counting vowel points and making /sci/ threads about how evolution is just a theory. metaphysics isn't your speed.

>>22076392
why? did I strike a nerve with you?

>>22076584
Why would calling me Satan strike a nerve if I don't believe in him? I was annoyed at your treatment of my philosophical ideas. anyway, there is no point in such exchanges according to Matthew 5:22, so I apologize.

>>22075762
How many synthetic a priori cognitions have you apprehended today? About 24 for me

>>22076625
>synthetic a prior judgements
don't exist.

>>22076610
The very fact that you allowed personal sentiments to get in the way of rational discussion is very telling.

>>22076655
rational discussion had already ended sir.

>>22076625
sweet. based synthetic a priori cognizer

anyone have any metaphysical recs for a retarded zoomer that was indoctrinated into the cult of strict materialism/scientism on reddit as a teenager

>>22076664
we're done when I say we are.

>>22076720
too late you're going to hell

>>22076729
darn

>>22076730
9th circle because of having retardation AND being born a zoomer

>>22076720

personally, i love metaphysics generals

>>22076742
sure why not i'll give it a shot

>>22076795
you idiot, it's literally the worst fucking book you could read if you want to get "cured" of materialism. but it doesn't really matter because your entire premise is wrong anyway, there is no such thing as materialism, you should just learn to think critically and realize that "materialism" is meaningless when you don't subscribe to 400 year old hobebsian corpusclarian theories, and that if you did you wouldnt be a "scientismist" anyway since those kind of theories rely on God as a deus ex machina to make the system coherent in the first place. you should be reading plato just to begin to learn how not to be a fucking idiot.

>>22076795
sweet. keep us posted on your reading.

>>22076809
chill faggot. noobs in philosophy are normie naive realists. Their default mode is materialism. You can't just tell them "bro materialism is false bro bc it just is ok", you have to actually show them. Plato is too highbrow for them at their present stage; they won't "get" him because the Ideas are not even a possibility for them. But Kant gets down to their level, uses this normie midwit state of consciousness as the starting point for his system and see the falsehood of materialism, to despair of the consequences the combination of the this falsehood with the limitations of the normie midwit mind, and only then even begin to understand the significance of Plato. In Kant's meticulous analysis of the mind, and likewise meticulous investigation into what the conditions of knowledge of a transcendent realm would be, and whether the knowledge derived from this preceding analysis reveals the mind to conform to these conditions, the reader is provided with possibly the best material with which to develop a system under which the analysis of mind would find it (the mind) commensurate to the task of knowing a supersensible reality: the intelligible or ideal realm--- the realm of the noumena in a positive sense, in the sense of actualities, in the sense of the noumena as real rather than simply products of our subjective imagination. From this point, the transition to the study of Plato would be a natural and satisfying decision for the reader, and he would be able to really appreciate Plato and not end up like that OP brainlet in that other thread saying he got nothing out of reading the Republic. Don't listen to this faggot OP. Read Kant, but don't be a dilettante, because then you're just wasting your time and you'll end up being another one of those anons seetheposting everyday because they got filtered but who blame the author instead because of their fragile egos. Take it seriously and maybe you might develop intellectual intuition, or as some call it, the third eye, and see the noumenal realm for yourself.

>>22076809
thanks for the insults but i never said i wanted to be "cured" of materialism, not sure what definition of the term you're operating under here anyway (i was never any sort of diehard communist but i was using it in a marxist sense, i studied anthropology and history in college not philosophy or literature)

honestly man what I actually meant was that although I have zero intention of converting to any specific religion (if i end up having a God it'll be Spinoza's), my upbringing in retarded anglo atheist internet spaces has left me woefully unprepared to think about some of the more fundamental questions about the universe

feel free to insult me and/or tell me to read Plato again

>>22076817
i'll try, if someone keeps posting these threads

>>22076954
>plato is too highbrow
>read Kant
nice fucking bait. why the hell do you keep pretending that Kant will somehow give you access to noumena? but I'd like to congratulate you faggots on creating another pseud. The CPR will arrive, he will read the introduction, then either he will never touch philosophy again or he will get infected with this psychotic fucking virus of constant eidetic violence that comes from mixing up the middle with the end with the beginning in your mind.

>>22076971
>>22076971
>nice fucking bait
I'm serious tho

>why the hell do you keep pretending that Kant will somehow give you access to noumena?
I'm not pretending.

>>22076971
Plato is at least ten brows higher than Kant. Classical literature is top-tier brow written for a Greek aristocrat audience, Kant wrote for commoner university professors in a modern vernacular.

>>22075762
Who the fuck is norman smith

>>22077053
you have be at least 18 to post here

These niggas didn't even know about general relativity let alone quantum mechanics. what would they know about metaphysics?

>>22076018
Kant outlines the being of human beings I.e. the continual tension between sensual knowledge of appearance and the striving towards knowledge of the unconditioned. By delimiting knowledge he is a metaphysician par excellence because any claim which sets the boundaries of knowledge (in his case condemning metaphysics) is itself metaphysical in nature.

>>22077111
True. Read Meeting the Universe Halfway

>>22077146
Ontology>metaphysics

>>22076073
Related question: is Occam’s razor a valid principle to invoke when constructing a metaphysical theory? I’m attracted to the minimalism of Russel’s categorical account of being, but is it really necessary to speak about things in such a sparse way? I love how, on the flip side, Hegel includes in his system all of the provisional states of consciousness on their journey towards absolute knowledge. Failed attempts at truth still give an insight into Being in my opinion.

>>22076174
Hegel interprets Kant’s theory of categories as too psychological/subjective. In Hegel’s eyes, in order for a system of logic to be truly apodictic, it must transcend the mind which thinks it and exist a priori in the objects at hand. The conditioning of objects of experience by consciousness is then not an “imposing” but “discovering.”

>>22076625
>starts mathmaxxing to get my synthetic a priori cognitions up
>brain swells and I die of cerebral edema

>>22077153
If you’re still unconvinced, I would argue that Kant’s exposition of the transcendental unity of apperception captures a very fundamental ontological truth, even if he seems to be against traditional ontological statements.

>>22077111
>thinking in ontic terms in a metaphysics thread
Kys STEMFAG only real patricians are allowed to post here

>>22075782
>they are not made for activities which demand a universal faculty

they raise kids which demands more universal faculty than any other human activity.

kant is a midwit at best.

>>22077156
William Of Ockham himself predicted the rise of ontological reductionism which led to the complete erasure of metaphysical concepts in the analytic tradition, I don't think personally that viewing such things in a narrow light is able to shine upon the plurality of existence, human or otherwise. Leibniz was the closest that profane philosophy (in contrast to the scholastics and Desert Fathers who operated from the concept of God a priori) and instead, much like Descartes and everyone after who operated from a position of doubt and worked their way upwards and forwards, could accurately explain the world in its most objective sense.

I have a noumenon sitting on my desk right now, wanna see it?

>>22077366
>the quote wasn't from Kant
>didn't understand quote
>reacts emotionally
the irony

>>22077366
>>22077653
>women regulate their actions not by the demands of universality but by arbitrary inclinations and opinions.

>>22077161
Interesting, it seems that this is an objectivist development of Kant’s conditions of experience. I remember reading in Beiser that there was this Objectivist and the Subjectivist interpretations, but that despite Kant ambiguity to remain in the middle point between the two, in his final years he moved towards a more definitely Subjectivist structure. In the end does this not end up recalling Platonic forms? I mean, the Forms are not in a literal different, tranacendent realm, but merely in a different ontological degree that is accessed through the Nous solely.

>>22078120
It does call the firms to mind. If I’m not mistaken, I also believe Hegel’s theory of universals attributes to the world “concrete universals” which lies somewhere between nominalism and Platonism. Beiser claims Hegel considers universals rationally prior to particulars (meaning first in order of explanation) but ontological posterior. I haven’t read the relevant texts close enough to affirm or refute that though.

Any good metaphysics books about math? I'm a bit of a mathematical platonist myself but I really don't know about the philosophy of math, just about math itself.

>>22078182
Zalamea

>>22078182
>I'm a bit of a mathematical platonist myself
Perfect, then you have no need to read any book on the metaphysics of math. You've already reached the most sensible conclusion on math on your own.

>>22078182
Kline's Loss of Certainty, then his history of mathematics.

Whitehead's introduction to mathematics could be interesting since all the hard stuff is the actual math concepts. It's short.

These:
https://progressivegeographies.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/the-place-of-geometry.pdf
https://eprints.lancs.ac.uk/id/eprint/64545/1/10.pdf

>>22079535
Idiot. Math is empirical. Pseuds will never understand this though.

>>22079582
Spoken like a true midwit.

I love this general

>>22079761
Me too

>>22075782
kant is ugly as fuck