/lit/ - Literature

>>22296483
>Intellektual Anschauung just doesn't exist ok. but- IT JUST DOESN'T OK.
absolutely demolished by picrel

Sorry materialistic bug but I saw God in a vision (while being agnostic) and experienced theosis. I pray someday you will too

>>22296534
>the cover is a picture of a guy masturbating onto a dog
what did he mean by this?

>>22296483
Schopenhauer just cannot miss

>>22296483
>>Intellektual Anschauung just doesn't exist ok. but- IT JUST DOESN'T OK.
absolutely demolished by picrel

>>22296483
This guy was retroactively refuted by Hegel (PBUH) and then had his corpse dug up and shit on by Kierkegaard (PBUH).

>>22296483
>>nooooo you're just a hylic who hasn't experienced it!!
pretty much
/thread

>>22296581
how the fyck do you think Hegel and Kierkegaard are allianced?
>>22296579
Plotinus's own account of his experiences indicate that if he ever experienced anything close to it it was only a brief spattering of euphoria and he quickly was forced to return to dianoia and the body. there is no evidence that Plotinus ever experienced anything that was more than a momentary overflowing of ecstasy caused by chemicals in his brain.

>>22296675
>caused by chemicals in his brain.
as if this refutes intellektuelle anschauung

>>22296483
>>>Intellektual Anschauung just doesn't exist ok. but- IT JUST DOESN'T OK.
absolutely demolished by picrel

I have a question, can 4chan lower a person's IQ?

>>22296682
it does.

>>22296687
yes. just observe these posters
>>22296685
>>22296583
>>22296579
>>22296534

>>22296675
>Hegel and Kierkegaard are allianced?
Yes. At least against Schopenhauer.

>>22296697
well he would certainly agree on this point, because of the infinite qualitative distinction and the need for indirect communication, he would laugh at the notion that one can have a "vision" of the absolute.

>>22296483
>>Intellektual Anschauung just doesn't exist ok. but- IT JUST DOESN'T OK.
absolutely demolished by picrel

>>22296698
You’re retarded.

>>22296695
Why? They're the same picture. Not statistical yet.

>>22296702
how am I wrong? are you seriously alleging that Kierkegaard would affirm the existence of Intellektuelle Anschauung?

(You)

>>22296689
>sour grapes
seethe and cope empirical intuition smooth brain. Intellektuelle Anschauung bros will literally rise up into higher planes of consciousness- the noumenal realm awaits us.

Gott mit uns.

>21 posts
>6 ips
lol, this guy >>22296717 is seriously seething at my post

>>22296718
just fighting the good fight and defending the Truth (respectively). amen.

>>22296736
then post an argument or some evidence that intellectual sight exists.

>>22296771
I simply just know it does. The man who has to resort to dialectics for knowledge is a pseud and a weakling.

>>22296689
why?

>>22296784
because it invalidates their appeal to direct experience as seen here >>22296781 they are clearly misrepresenting their experience which came from the brain. when they verbalize their experience they corrupt it to fit their preonceived doctrine. someone who had never heard of intellectual seeing could have the same "mystical experience" and recognize that it came from the brain instead, or they would explain it in the context of whatever religion or pattern of thought they were brought up in. The experience, which is obviously produced by the brain, is clearly distorted when they try to explain it.

>ummm i know your experience better than you do because... I JUST DO OKAY?!?!?!?!?

>>22296813
>he thinks he knows his own experience
it's called the introspection illusion and by the way, genuine phenomenology is impossible until you get rid of this bias.

>>22296771
>argument
ngmi
>evidence
you need eyes to see first

practice abstraction
practice dialectic
then you will arrive at speculation (Theoria, Intellektuelle Anschauung)
then you will have eyes to see, then you will see the evidence

>Those who expect all thought-advance to be that of the deduction of conclusions from firmly established premises are quite incapable of dialectical thinking

>>22296798
>obviously produced by the brain
you ain't gotta lie Craig

>>22296833
couldn't think of a tagline for this one?
>>22296838
>>22296849
you might be the most autistic poster on this board bro

>you've never had mystic experiences
Not true. I have done LSD, mescaline, shrooms, & DMT over a hundred timed. I have also spent five years tripping without drugs due to schizophrenia. I got better tho (sobriety + health + meds...) -- the odd thing is that I still "believe" a lot of my "delusions", I just cloak my power level better w meds.
>hardkore intellektual aktion
I believe in noesis but it is mediated methinks and not immediate but also like mediate is immediate or smthn Hegelian-like yano.
>schoppy is rational
He believed in ghosts n shit so not really

>>22296854
>you might be the most autistic poster on this board
based. also useful for high-concentration of attention.

>>22296866
empirically false as autism as high comorbidity with adhd
>>22296865
>ive done a lot of drugs
>and I had drug induced schizophrenia
so you haven't had a mystical experience. got it. this is literally a horrible argument for intellektuelle anschauung because you are admitting that the absorption of chemicals into your brain causes it.

>>22296483

It doesn't have to be an organ or a faculty. In fact what "it" is is immaterial, because we simply observe that there is a differentiation amongst varieties of man, some clearly possessive of an active spirit and soul, and others not.

It doesn't matter how you call that differentiation, what matters is the metrics by which you can observe the differentiation, even that only being of interest to a select few.

>>22296874
>drug induced schizophrenia
That's not real.
>brains aren't magic
False.
>crazy ppl are crazy
"Reason is human, madness divine"

>>22296798
it doesn't invalidate anything. maybe some combinations of neurochemicals are more special than others. sucks that you got a defective batch

>>22296885
>That's not real.
false
>False.
the brain is a manifold and not a monad so it has a completely different ontological status as the soul and anything that could have an "intellectual vision"
>"Reason is human, madness divine"
read Hobbes. Plato said this at a time when people were overrun with superstition and explained every phenomenon including madness by recourse to invisible spirits
>>22296883
>some clearly possessive of an active spirit and soul
you mean some are elitist and egotistical and attempt to delude others into believing that they possess higher faculties, while others are honest about what goes on in their own minds?
> what matters is the metrics by which you can observe the differentiation
there is no metric to observe it by except the verbal self report of people who claim to have had this vision, which is obviously unreliable.

>>22296874
>empirically
infinitely inferior to a priori science

>empirically false
>high comorbidity
>arrived at inductively
I present you with the exception and simultaneously demonstrate the inferiority of empirical "science".

>>22296897
>I present you with the exception
do you understand how causation works? if you have high focus, it is clearly not because of your autism, since autism is frequently comorbid with adhd.

>>22296896
>overrun with superstition and explained every phenomenon including madness by recourse to invisible spirits
fucking kek. he really doesn't know.

>>22296900
>he really doesn't know
I've experienced shamanic possession, the only difference is that I am sincere about it and admit what it is.

>>22296899
>frequently
there you go again. Induction admits of exceptions brainlet. You are speaking with that exception.

>>22296905
you're ignoring my point and don't understand how isolating causes works
>You are speaking with that exception.
can you lay off with the narcissism?

>>22296902
>experienced
yet your inferior metaphysic interprets that experience incorrectly (as a materialist)

>>22296896

Some possess higher faculties in the same way that biodiversity accounts for outliers in possessing higher athletic ability, intelligence, or height.

>>22296915
>don't understand how isolating causes works
>probability
seriously ngmi

>>22296896
Plato>>>>>>Hobbes

We have lost knowledge as much as gained

More things on heaven and earth than your scientific doxa

>>22296918
you're literally proving my point, which was that just because you've experienced something doesn't mean you interpreted correctly. if you admit that then you have no basis on which to call my interpretation the wrong one, because as has been seen throughout this thread, direct experience is the only appeal anyone has to argue in favor of intellectual vision
>>22296924
height, intelligence, athletic ability can all be objectively measured, the ability to access intellectual sight cannot
>>22296926
you are an illiterate dogmatist

>>22296928
>only appeal is to direct experience
Because it is a direct experience? That's not necessarily bad. Man is naturally enchanted thinker. Children are not atheists but mystics. The mind is not fully explained or identical with the brain, even most scientists will admit this. We can also do comparative studies of mystical experiences. Or neuroscience studies. Does not exhaust explanations. Regardless of whether certain aspects may be culturally conditioned does it negate the existence of a mystical cognitive phenomenological structure or its power/uses?
>dogmatist
Et tu quoque. I called you that first. Are you really a retarded materialist positivist? (protip: its been self refuted)
>objectivity
Lol. Lmao even

>>22296928
>you admit that then you have no basis on which to call my interpretation the wrong one
yes I do: Intellektuelle Anschauung

>direct experience is the only appeal anyone has to argue in favor of intellectual vision

you're equivocating experience. Experience presupposes empirical intuition. This is not an experience in that sense.

>>22296798
All you know are those things you have experienced. The brain is merely a postulation, a model your infancy clings to as it prays for something larger than it. You want a controlling space daddy whispering in your ear. Go ahead and see if you actually have a brain. Get in there with a screw driver and see if you can tweak your loose screws.

>>22296928

Intelligence and athletic ability beyond the most of basic of tasks are not always directly measurable, we measure a multitude of factors that generally correlate with a higher capacity.

What about gut health? Neuroplasticity? Agreeableness? Musical ability? Predilection towards violence? Irritability to sound? Imagination capacity? All directly objectively measurable?

No, and that's fine.

>>22296944
>Children are not atheists but mystics
utterly false and ungrounded claim
>blah blah mind is not the brain
there is no scientific evidence that points to the human mind being anything but the brain, while there is plenty of evidence that supports it is only the brain. if any scientists says the mind is not the brain, either they've successfully compartmentalized their religious dogma away from their practice, or what they actually mean is "well we cant explain EVERYTHING so like anything is possible man."
>We can also do comparative studies of mystical experiences
Yes, and you will find that in most areas of the universe, people do not interpret their mystical experiences as "intellectual seeing." this only occurs in post-Christian Europe as coping religicucks try desperately to preserve their revelation-dogma under a new guise.
>Regardless of whether certain aspects may be culturally conditioned does it negate the existence of a mystical cognitive phenomenological structure or its power/uses?
it negates the proposition that anyone's subjective interpretation of their experience is valid, that's my only point here.
> I called you that first
so? my dogma is stuff I believe, yours is refusing to even read certain people because they are "materialist bugmen." While I've read Plato, Plotinus, Hobbes, and Locke, you have only read the first two.
>>22296949
>This is not an experience in that sense
it doesn't matter because in order to verbally express it as "intellectual seeing" and even to say "it's not an experience" you are bringing it under the conceptual apparatus, which is drawn entirely from empirical intuition. so if it really isn't related at all to empirical intuition or mere logical reason, it is completely meaningless to say that it is beyond those two things, as that is a logical statement.
>>22296958
science allows us to go beyond direct experience through abduction and deduction. I am not clinging to the brain for any psychological reasons.
>>22296967
yes, all of those are objectively measurable because they manifest in ways beyond merely the verbal self-report of people who experience them. another point is that having intellectual sight or not is a BINARY, whereas all those other things exist on a continuum, so there is a qualitative difference between them that prevents you from putting them into analogy with each other in the first place.

Intellectual intuition? More like PSEUDO-intellectual intuition. Fucking retards.

>>22296972
>the conceptual apparatus, which is drawn entirely from empirical intuition
>a Lockean in 2023
damn. anon you really are ngmi. Have you even read Kant? Hume? I mean fuck did you even read Schopenhauer who you quoted in OP?

>>22296984
maybe you should actually read what you accuse other people of not having read, faggot.

>>22296896
>Plato said this at a time when people were overrun with superstition and explained every phenomenon including madness by recourse to invisible spirits
if anything it was the other way around

>>22296972
>it doesn't matter because in order to verbally express it as "intellectual seeing"
>bugman can't into metaphor

>>22296902
you don't know what it is. don't pretend you're acting sincere. otherwise you're admitting that you have intellectual intuition to know what it was

>>22297005
>otherwise you're admitting that you have intellectual intuition to know what it was
i'm only admitting that I have what other people falsely CALL intellectual intuition.

>>22296972
> there is no scientific evidence that points to the human mind being anything but the brain,
Do atheists and materiashits really only feel in their brain? Like do they really believe that everything they feel in and outside of thought is completely ought to the brain? Imagine feeling sensations in your arms and nose and thinking it's all just an illusion in your brain. Obviously they lack any sense for spirit and soul, they are utterly depraved of the energy to even imagine such things.

>>22297013
a manifold can be unified to produce a complex of experience which forms a level of reality that can't be reduced in itself, i.e. which is phenomenologically irreducible, yet which can scientifically reduced as to its ultimate cause.

>>22296972

It doesn't meet the burden of proof, so be it. I shall live with either.

>>22297020
> manifold can be unified
Yes
> scientifically
Yes
How does this refute anything I said.

>>22297023
nothing meets any "burden of proof" because everything is fallible, yet the vast amount of scientific evidence pointing to a one to one correspondence between the brain and the mind, should be more than enough to induce a practical belief that all your experiences are caused by the brain.
>>22297026
first of all it doesn't refute anything because you didn't make any arguments. the point of my post was to show how it is possible to imagine that your subjective experience, which is phenomenologically irreducible, can be conceived as still being CAUSED entirely by a manifold such as the brain, because you expressed amazement that a materialist could actually conceive of such a thing.

>>22297035

Practical beliefs are shortcuts, not truths. Brains are subject to biodiversity too still. There are multiple ways to advance either idea and remain within reason.

>>22296972
>"well we cant explain EVERYTHING so like anything is possible man."
This is 100% true
>>22297035
>one to one
This is 100% false
>>22297012
If you don't know you don't know you think you know. Lay off the sour grape bitter bullshit, they're actually quite sweet and tasty :^)

>>22297055
>There are multiple ways to advance either idea and remain within reason.
the arguments will always fall on the side of the brain.
>>22297057
I'm still waiting for you to make a post that isn't either a meme or a meaningless "I just know" claim.

>>22296989
>>the conceptual apparatus, which is drawn entirely from empirical intuition
your Schopensneed post doesn't refute this at all. There are innate formal concepts, both Kant and Schope agree. They just disagree there are innate material concepts per your quote, which got absolutely btfo by the German Idealists. Notice Schopenfag rarely actually quotes the German Idealists let alone refutes them, no, he mostly just throws seething ad hominem copes at them. And the midwits give him their retarded applause

>>22297035
> entirely by a manifold such as the brain, because you expressed amazement that a materialist could actually conceive of such a thing
No, the point is that when I sense something with my arms the sentiment happens in the arms and not in the brain.

>>22297073
that your feeling happens in the arms doesn't refute that the cause of the feeling happened in the brain.
>>22297070
name one innate material concept. also, why do criticize schopenhauer for not posting arguments, when you have done nothing post memes the whole thread?

>>22297067

Even Homer notes in The Illiad that the boulders hurled by Diomedes were impressive only by the metric of their age and not the ages prior.

I am content for now with the interpretation that the brain quality can explain the entirety of the mechanism. Apparently the epics used to be memorized prior to literature, that certainly seems impressive to me by the metrics of memory we see evident in this age.

But we do have today exceptional people with particular brains capable of far above average, so too it can apply to other functions of the brain.

>>22297078
> cause of the feeling happened in the brain.
This is absolutely wrong and yet another proof how much logic and mathematics you lack, kind of ironic for someone pretending to be scientific. If someone touches my arm and I feel it, the cause of it is not in the brain but in the person who touched my arm.

>>22297090
first of all this is pedantry, and second of all its wrong, because when the person touches your arm, you don't feel any sensation until your brain constructs it from the nerve signals delivered to it. you do not receive your experience of sense directly from the peripheral nervous system, by the time it is experienced, it has already been interpreted by the brain.

>>22297090
You haven’t heard of brain pantheism? Everything is the brain, including other people and objects. Even the brain that perceives the brain is in the brain... ad infinitum.

>>22297094
> our brain constructs it from the nerve signals delivered to
This is incorrect. The feeling happens in the arm, nothing happens in the brain until after the feeling is interpreted by the brain. One of the reasons we sometimes don't find words for some emotions. If the feeling would first be processed in the brain and then delivered back to the arm to cause a feeling, to every feeling there would be also a word attached to it.
> of sense directly from the peripheral nervous system, by the time it is experienced, it has already been interpreted by the brain
Wrong.

>>22297078
>name one innate material concept
Literally all the concepts of Logic since Logic is it's own subject matter

>why do criticize schopenhauer for not posting arguments, when you have done nothing post memes the whole thread?
>thinks I'm memeing

>>22297100
>brain pantheism
books on?

>>22297105
why would you so fragrantly contradict your master Kant? Kant states that logic is 100% FORMAL, and he even gives this as a reason for why he disavowed Fichte's philosophy.
>>22297103
anon, you are just wrong. there is plenty of evidence, such as phantom limbs, that not only does your brain produce pain and the sensation of touch, but that what you experience as "your body" is actually a phantom model projected by your brain onto the places were your real body is.
> One of the reasons we sometimes don't find words for some emotions
not all parts of your brain are conscious or able to verbalized, did you seriously get filtered at freud?

>>22297115
Anon, the brain is one single organ of the entire body. You sound as ridiculous as if someone said that everything happens in the stomach actually. I get it, your a smart guy, but you are hyper-inflating the significance of the brain. It serves an administrating function, large parts of the body work without the brain entirely.

>>22297121
yes but you are now talking about what happens in reality, we were talking about what happens in perception, which is entirely produced by the brain.

>>22297115
>master Kant
doesn't mean I don't disagree with him. I'm with Hegel on this one.

>>22297123
No, I can absolutely refute this claim. When you feel pain in your limbs, the brain is entirely devoid of it. It perceives the pain in the limbs in some secondary stance, "I feel pain", but it is the limb that sends the pain signals to the brain and not the other way around.

>>22297012
to know that it was false is to admit of intellectual intuition. you don't know

>>22297124
so what prevents being, essence, notion or whatever from having been garnered from empirical intuition? if these things are really in empirical intuition, there is no reason we can't get our idea of it from there.
>>22297127
your limbs are not you, your limbs feel the pain in your limbs, but you only feel the pain in your brain.
>>22297133
>according to MY premises, you contradicted YOURSELF
you can't into discourse and logic, can you?

>>22297137
> our limbs are not you, your limbs feel the pain in your limbs, but you only feel the pain in your brain.
Thus, there is a duality of man.
Choose your next words wisely.

>>22297145
i need to have something to respond to to choose my next words, please clarify your point

>>22297137
>you can't into discourse and logic, can you?
according to the premises of common sense, which includes relying on a consistent definition of intellectual intuition. if you know for a fact what happened to you, and you're not merely positing a theory, model, explanation, etc., then you have intellectual intuition. your insistence on being "honest" is more like an insistence on your own premises, which makes your attempt to police my "goalposts" ironic as fuck.

>>22297147
What? You just said that matter in itself is not conscious and unable to perceive. That matter takes an additional medium to perceive anything.

>>22297150
my point is that we are all positing theories, models and explanations about our experiences
>which includes relying on a consistent definition of intellectual intuition
I'm not relying on any definition of intellectual intuition because I'm arguing that it doesn't exist, and I never said that I experienced intellectual intuition because obviously I can't experience something that doesn't exist. I only said that I experienced the same thing which you other people have interpreted as intellectual intuition.
> "goalposts"
why is this in quotes when I never said it?
>>22297153
When I said the perception we were talking about happens entirely in the brain, I thought that we were talking about OUR perception, so I didn't clarify that. If we use precise definitions of perception and consciousness based on precedent, then corporeality has neither, but if by "perception" you mean EXPERIENCE, then I never said matter doesn't have that (as long as by "matter" you actually meant "corporeal entities", since again, if we use the term "matter" in a precise philosophical way, then it isn't a thing in itself but either an object of a subject or a "pure potentiality", whereas only subjects and things in themselves can experience)

>>22297137
>so what prevents being, essence, notion or whatever from having been garnered from empirical intuition?
because...they're not empirical. Really anon? Do I really have to go all the way back to Hume with you?

>>22297081

At least you finally exposed yourself as a charlatan.

>>22297180
I can easily make arguments for why these are empirical concepts. Being is an empirical concept because it comes from contrasting the presence of empirical intuitions with their absence. Essence is an empirical concept because it comes from observing that a thing does not always behave the way it seems, thus it must have a true nature causing its actual behavior. Do I really have to go all the way back to Locke with you?

>>22297171
> OUR perception, so I didn't clarify that
How is limb pain not part of my perception? Even if it were so that all perception happens in the brain the brain is as much as a compartmentalized organ as is the organism itself. What's the point, that all perception can be reduced to a single atom? Thus, the idea that all perception happens in the brain can equally be refuted. Even if it weren't so, that there isn't a holistic body experience, there is very much a holistic brain experience that happens around all of the brain at the same time that can't be compartmentalized, further prooving the point that not everything can be reduced to matter, that there are real existing things that aren't matter.

>>22297201
the represented limb is a part of your perception, but the real limb's "pain" is not, because you can never access in your consciousness the ORIGINAL NERVE SIGNAL that came from the nerves in the limb, you can only access what has already been interpreted. The brain absolutely is not experiences holistically because there is clear evidence that many of the operations of the brain are completely shut off to consciousness, for example, pretty much all the activities of the reptilian brain, and for example the part of the brain that interprets touch can't be accessed, but only its results are communicated to your consciousness. and even if you could experience all parts of your brain, that still wouldn't prove that it couldn't be reduced to matter, it would only prove that there existed a high level of unification and intercommunication within every part of that matter.

>>22297188
>Do I really have to go all the way back to Locke with you?
LOL no. Hume is already the refutation of Locke. Hume basically scrapped the Lockean system and brought us back to the drawing board where Kant tries a new path. If you're still a Lockean in 2023 you either haven't read enough or are being willfully ignorant.

>>22297252
Both Berkeley and Hume are Lockeans through and through, who only suggested minor modifications and criticisms of his philosophy. I guess I can't expect you to have read Locke, but did you read the excerpt I posted >>22296989 at all?

>>22297220
> you can never access in your consciousness the ORIGINAL NERVE SIGNAL that came from the nerves in the limb
Ok.
> The brain absolutely is not experiences holistically
No, the experience itself is what only exists holistically. One neuron firing to another neuron is the material event, all the events combined in the non-material factors of the event make the experience.
> operations of the brain are completely shut off to consciousness, for example, pretty much all the activities of the reptilian brain, and for example the part of the brain that interprets touch can't be accessed, but only its results are communicated to your consciousness.
Conscious is what you direct it to. If I direct consciousness to my foot I become infinetly more aware of what is happening in the foot than when I don't. Reptilian brain is a term I'm familiar with but I find it inappropriate. A reptile is as aware of what is happening around him as is the human, there being less complexity in his brain only makes his experience closer to events more intimately related to his bodily needs than is the human, who, because of his complexity, can willingly forget his hunger and thirst to direct his non-material consciousness to other things unimaginable to a reptile (if they have any imagination at all).
> t couldn't be reduced to matter
Individually, all neurons are material. However, all the events combined make the non-material experience, that in fact IS entirely non-material as much as it is really existing but on another dimensional term than matter.

>>22297257
>Both Berkeley and Hume are Lockeans through and through

>Be Berkeley
>Destroy the Primary/Secondary quality distinction

>Be Hume
>Can't derive causality empirically

They're only Lockeans in the sense they took Lockes premises and derived their consequences to show Locke was wrong.
trying to refute German Idealism with Locke is a lost cause

>>22297288
the only "non-material factor" is the result of the combination itself, and I already explained at the very beginning of this discussion that the experience itself is irreducible, which you express as "on another dimension", but that I was only every arguing that the actual CAUSES which lead to experience are all due to the brain.
>>22297301
>They're only Lockeans in the sense they took Lockes premises and derived their consequences to show Locke was wrong.
you're implying with this that they didn't believe anything else they wrote, but only play acted it all in one big scheme to debunk Locke. Hume didn't have alternative to explain how causality can be derived, because he was the Lockean who couldn't derive it. and getting rid of primary qualities doesn't change any of the parts of Locke's philosophy which are relevant to this discussion.

>>22297317
> CAUSES which lead to experience are all due to the brain
Not the point. Anyways, conscious experience cannot be reduced to matter. There is a metaphysical realm as large as the physical one that is entirely real, entirely independent of the physical realm itself. My apologies if coming to metaphysical notions of any sort is something too abstract to grasp for your intellect.

>>22296483
>why won't you people just accept that God doesn't exist?
Why do you want people to not believe in god? Moral obligations are a handicap. The more people limit themselves with made up nonsense the better for me, because I have no limits. It's if we're running a 100-meter dash and everyone is just jumping on one leg and I'm using both legs.

I WANT people to believe in a god. I always lie IRL and act like I believe in him too. I read religious book with arguments of god's existence and tell them to people. Most of them are too stupid to see the holes in the reasoning. They get covinced and start handicapping themselves with useless millenia old rules. It's ultimitaly survival of the fittest. And I'm the fittest.

That's what the kings and rulers did since the dawn of time. I feel connected to them. I'm an aristocrat in spirit.

>>22297387
HOOOOOOOLY BASED

>>22297387
you sound like you would rather be alcibiades than socrates, which is not a good plan.

Hegelian troon seethe is ridiculous

>>22297171
>I only said that I experienced the same thing which you other people have interpreted as intellectual intuition.
you didn't *only* say that. you said a myriad of other things, such as that it was *just* your brain chemicals going haywire. AND you pretended that it was honesty instead of you just foisting your worldview forward and expecting everybody to accept that.

the whole point is YOU DON'T KNOW THAT. if you DID, then that would ironically be a form of intellectual intuition, which would refute your point entirely.

>>22297749
>if you DID, then that would ironically be a form of intellectual intuition, which would refute your point entirely.
literally only according to your premises, which no has been able to successfully argue for in this thread
>AND you pretended that it was honesty instead of you just foisting your worldview forward and expecting everybody to accept that.
i'm not just foisting my worldview forward, as I have been supporting my view with arguments for this entire thread, while the intellectual intuition believers have merely been stating that I am intellectually inferior, or that they "just know", or that "the mind is not the brain" (while offering no arguments to support that the mind is not the brain, other than that it isn't "proven" that it is), or that they have experienced it (while failing to rebuke any of my arguments that their experience is unreliable).

you are simply taking this reductive stance that it is simply me "foisting" my worldview onto others because there are no good arguments to support yours, so you a priori forbid argumentation by stating everything is just someone's worldview.

damn. this thread really blew up. I had no idea this was so serious to you anons.

>>22297792
the invention of "intellectual intuition" was the metaphysical death throw not only of christcuckery, but all religious pseudery including theosophy and guenonism. there is NO epistemological basis for any of this crap without intellectual seeing. the extreme fragility in their position has manifested itself in their virulent hatred of anglos, science, and materialism, and the creation of the "bugman" and "I heckin love science" memes. they've entered the stage in their life cycle where propaganda and memes are the only thing which can possibly preserve their existence and make them feel secure in their weltanschauung. attacking intellectual sight is to attack them at their very weakest point, because it is precisely on this point which they have wagered their whole existence.

>>22296483
>schizos who produced a neurochemical change through intellectual practices resulting in them developing a new faculty of direct cognition of supersensible reality and necessary universal truth.
ftfy

>>22296781
>The man who has to resort to dialectics for knowledge is a pseud and a weakling.
sorry anon who is not me but took over my debate, but dialectic is actually the necessary stage antecedent to speculation (intellectual intuition). Unfortunately you are actually the pseud, but continue to read books so you will no longer be one.

>>22296483
>why won't you people just accept that God doesn't exist?
Wtf is this bait and switch? what does God have to do with the debate about intellectual intuition? I thought for a moment you weren't an idiot but then you say this unrelated bullshit

>>22297888
>kant debunks proofs of God
>now you have two options
>one is intellectual seeing
>the other is Kierkegaard's irrationalism
intellectual seeing is entirely an attempt to save "god"

>>22297904
>>now you have two options
Options for what?

>>22297909
still believing in god

>>22297910
>needing proof of God to believe
this type of person never knew Him

>>22297835
>death throw
Don't you mean death throes? And to think you were calling people pseuds... kek

>>22297786
>literally only according to your premises, which no has been able to successfully argue for in this thread
Do you even know what my premises are? I'd like you to tell me them.

My "premises" have literally nothing to do with the argument, since it's based on a definition both you and I accept, what intellectual intuition is.

>>22297948
dude, i already explained this, at least twice. I never said I experienced intellectual intuition, thus its definition has nothing to do with what I said about my experiences, but only to do with my not identifying that experience as intellectual intuition.

>>22297951
And where did I claim that you experienced intellectual intuition? Quote the post.

>>22297965
>the whole point is YOU DON'T KNOW THAT. if you DID, then that would ironically be a form of intellectual intuition, which would refute your point entirely.
the fact that you think this somehow refutes me shows that you were under the impression I thought I did know.

>>22297970
Oh, now I understand what's your problem. Your inferential skills are terrible, so no matter how many times I show you that you're inadvertently assuming intellectual intuition, you'll never believe it because you never used the word.

Yet another example of how nominalists are low IQ.

>>22297978
why don't you fucking state your definition of intellectual intuition and then state how I inadvertently assume it?

>>22297978
I assume that what you're trying to say is that because I think I know what my experience meant, I used intellectual intuition, but I've already said repeatedly that I agree that I am also just creating a model of my experience, with the only difference being that I have been giving arguments to support my model, and you haven't addressed this at all. So if you meant something else, please spell it out for me, because you're right, when it comes to reading people's minds, my inferential skills are terrible.

>>22296483
why won't you people just accept that God exists?

>>22298005
>still no new IPs
do you ever stop seething?

>>22297999
You insisted that all you experienced was chemicals in your brain having a field day, nothing more, nothing less. You insisted that this was the same experience that other people had when they claimed they experienced intellectual intuition. You're retreating to a weaker claim of knowledge now, but that doesn't wash away the fact that you were so adamant about being "honest" earlier.

>>22298016
> You insisted that all you experienced was chemicals in your brain having a field day, nothing more, nothing less. You insisted that this was the same experience that other people had when they claimed they experienced intellectual intuition.
yes, this in no way assumes I used intellectual intuition
>You're retreating to a weaker claim of knowledge now
I am not retreating because I never claimed anything else. I even said in an unrelated thread that all knowledge is fallible here >>22297035 when our conversation had just started.
>but that doesn't wash away the fact that you were so adamant about being "honest" earlier.
I was never "adamant" about being honest, I said in one post that I was sincere about what my experience meant, by which I was implying I wasn't deluding myself into thinking I was better than other people because of it and possessed some special ability. Obviously yes, I am also implying that if you are honest about your experience, then it will lead you to my view, because obviously the only reason I believe my view is because I think it's true, so to say that I didn't think honesty would lead people to me view, would actually be insincere as well. But this STILL doesn't imply that I ever assumed intellectual intuition, because I've never thought anything but that knowledge is fallible, and it is completely consistent to simultaneously believe that your believes are true (for otherwise you couldn't have any beliefs at all) and to hold that your beliefs are fallible.

>>22298039
>yes, this in no way assumes I used intellectual intuition
Do you even know what intellectual intuition is?

>>22298055
you already implicitly granted that my assumption about what you were trying to say about my own use of intellectual intuition was correct, so if you again see some new error in my usage of the term, please explicitly state what it is, rather than merely alluding to my own ignorance.

Any system of thought has contradictions. This is the problem with theism or atheism. A weak thesis like agnosticism is truly better. You can disprove specific things wrt God. Some would say that is simply via negativa. But there is also via analogia. And via regia. The mind may indeed be brain. But the brain is the crown. The source ot phenomena is in fact noumena. How else does Schopenhauer ascribe will to the thing in itself if not through intellectual intuition? Materialism was a tenuous scientific belief in previous centuries but now we must at least be physicalist if not some sort of strange thing beyond all previous denotations. Anyway, tryna disprove ppl online reeks of insecurity. Supernatural does not mean opposed to the natural order. But the pure natural order beyond the scientific episteme is in fact supernatural according to many. This includes hallucinations and visions. Madness and mysticism are intertwined. Perhaps there are evolutionary reasons for such. Science does not close possibilities but open new ones. The God of gaps as some say will never fail to find a hiding place. What you seek is just acceptance. Shamanic possession may be material. But certainly beyond our current ken. So clearly hypermaterial. Why be butthurt about theist? Some believe in sets of all sets. Or Buddhists with null sets. Others say they are a parallax. It's all gravy under the crazy train bridge that we'll burn when we come to. Many atrocities have been commited by science. Do you judge whole same as religion off such outliers?

>>22298108
this. good post.

>>22298108
>Any system of thought has contradictions.
except the Hegelian system

>>22298108
it's not persuasive to say everything has contradictions, since everyone thinks their own beliefs don't have contradictions, or else they wouldn't believe them. natural and supernatural is an inane division. madness and mysticism are not intertwined as often as they are, as most schizos are either just delusional or pseudo-mystics, and anyway, it's not given that mysticism is a "good" thing to begin with.
>Why be butthurt about theist?
because I live in a society
>Many atrocities have been commited by science
a method of inquiry cannot commit atrocities.
>tryna disprove ppl online reeks of insecurity
or maybe just having absolutely nothing to do on a sunday?

>>22298124
why do you not believe in God anon?

>>22298222
the notion of a monotheistic god is incoherent without accepting revelation, for everyone says that God is incomprehensible, thus revelation is the only reason we have our idea of God that we do. So the question "why don't I believe in God" really means "why don't I believe in any revelation" which is just a matter of the interpretation of history and of holy texts. but I could explain why none of the holy texts are credible and why the testimony of ancient christians or muhammadeans is not reliable, but the real reason I don't believe in God, is simply that all the times religion was explained to me as a child, it did not make a strong enough impression on me to make me feel any strong pull to believe in God. in the absence of a pull to believe in God, there would be no reason anyone would believe in him. the answer is I simply have no desire or need to believe in God.

>>22298248
>I simply have no desire or need to believe in God.
literal bugman

>>22298332
and so what? if I am really a bugman, and all your arguments for religion assume I am not a bugman, then you have no basis on which to criticize me for not being religious, any more than you have the right to criticize an ant for not believing in god. it means that all my arguments are valid and that I immune to your criticism. so if it's true that i'm a bugman, the only person who wins here is me.

>>22296548
You did not experience God. You had a delusion of The All, a logical end point which has no metaphysical being, a common symptom of possessing the powers of reason. I would recommend going a therapeutic reading of Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason and watching videos of people tweaking on Salvia to better understand how the mind can fall into mistaken experiences such as this.

>>22298419
so then why does people believing intellectual intuition is real make you seethe so much to post OP? are your bugman beliefs threatened by us?

>>22298589
I have argued enthusiastically about the most trivial points of philosophy which would not change anything about my fundamental beliefs to change my opinion on, so this point is moot

>>22298419
>you have no basis on which to criticize me for not being religious, any more than you have the right to criticize an ant for not believing in god
you-- compared yourself to an ant-- which is a bug.

>>22298596
yes and? I was saying I was a bugman, what will you do now? If I'm a bugman, how can I be criticized for not believing in God? I'm just a bugman who's incapable of it, I'm an idiot.

>>22298597
>I'm just a bugman who's incapable of it, I'm an idiot.
bro it's ok it's ok I feel you *hug* give it time

>>22298596
Kys christcuck

>>22296534
Literally who. There aren't even any amazon or goodreads reviews.