/lit/ - Literature

Brian from Family Guy
Hegel was a retard btw

>>22382241
the absolute doesn't exist. therefore parmenides was the first to reach the absolute by recognizing that what is not is not.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/monism/

Knock yrslf out

The daimon I communicate with said Plotinus succeeded, but she was vague about how many others have done it.

Never read hegel, why does the meme of him being a satanic wizard exist?

>tfw there's currently no anon autistic enough on /lit/ to hegel post
it's over

>>22382600
He was Christian and serious about it. People just don't understand him

>>22382640
>People just don't understand him
you sound like a girl talking about your abusive boyfriend kek

>>22382241
The Absolute is fundamentally not conceivable

>>22382241
Depends and what we are referring to. Look, this board is mostly populated by existentialists and nihilists who will just pop in to say absolutes don't exist and post stirner memes, some of the "strict platonic rationalists" who post here will stop in to have a chat about the forms it may take, the Aristotle thread posters still believe the earth is flat, the sun revolves around the earth, and fire has a soul, I'm not exaggerating, that is literally what they believe. The remaining logical positivists, logicists, and the kant guys will tell you the best we have achieved is our understanding of pure mathematics and how this ends up working in the world when we apply it.

>>22382788
>by existentialists and nihilists who will just pop in to say absolutes don't exist and post stirner memes, some of the "strict platonic rationalists" who post here will stop in to have a chat about the forms it may take, the Aristotle thread posters still believe the earth is flat, the sun revolves around the earth, and fire has a soul, I'm not exaggerating, that is literally what they believe.
holy rent free seething kek

>>22382790
It's not seething, just giving OP the stack order of things around here. I actually enjoy the more creative stirner memes desu.

>>22382798
>Aristotle thread posters still believe the earth is flat, the sun revolves around the earth, and fire has a soul, I'm not exaggerating, that is literally what they believe
Show me on the doll where aristotle touched u

>>22382818

>>22382788
There's some highly educated posters here. The Shaivism thread from a few days back had a couple but they were busy roasting the Advaita dude. Platonism threads also sometimes get very interesting and intelligent posters, sometimes philosophy graduate students or PhD holders. You can't write off the whole board just because the dumbest posters are the most vocal.

>>22383696
I don't disagree, but how is that refuting the stack order posted?

>>22383696
The high IQ people meet in the high IQ threads and don't have problems for the most part. The people complaining about the board being trash are also part of the problem because they only talk about low IQ things and get surprised because the barrier for entry is low.

>>22382241
>Has any philosopher truly succeeded in reaching the Absolute through the intellect?
Yes

>>22383989
>entire philosophy rests on axiomatically accepting the Upanishads as divine revelation
>boils down the reason for anything existing besides the Absolute to the Absolute essentially doing it for the lulz ("it is in its nature to do so")
>"through the intellect"
"No"

>>22384254
Every philosophy rests on unproven axioms. Anyway, the attainment of the Absolute in Advaita happens as a result of the process of spiritual introspection and Self-discovery that it teaches and not through ruminating on some conceptual model, so what you are complaining about has little to do with attaining the Absolute in an Advaitic context. What Shankara explains to his reader is that there is a numinous, self-luminous and unconditioned awareness residing at the core of the living being that is in fact already known and self-evident, but is erroneously misidentified with other things and erroneously assumed to have other things attributes as its own. What Shankara points out is that when this error is sublated and replaced by the right understanding, all of ones fear, unhappiness and dissatisfaction is forever uprooted, since at contingent on this misunderstanding, and all of one’s psychological and emotional ills come to an end, and one is left dwelling in an unshakable peaceful bliss; and all of this is backed up by a fairly sophisticated analysis of the nature of consciousness, mind and identity that is philosophically defensible. The point that some people disagree with some of the theoretical premises of the doctrine doesn’t negate the truth that it teaches an intellectual path of study and contemplation that ultimately culminates in a final spiritual realization of the Absolute that occurs also in the intellect; so by any reasonable standard this is, in principle, a way of attaining the Absolute via the intellect, albeit a distinctly non-Hegelian one.

>>22382653
Wrong. Read Hegel. The Absolute conceives itself. We are just the moments of Spirit.

>>22384463
>"moments"
>"conceiving itself"
>"spirit"
SPOOOOOOOOOPY

>>22383989
>Bro everything is actually illusion and falsity.
No.

The attempt to flee from all definiteness is a retreat, it's the start of grasping the coming into being of the Absolute, not the final goal.

Unfortunately, Shankara got sidetracked by his religion and decided "nah it's true illusion but all is Brahma playfully doing lulz, because, uhh, his lulz intentionality."

It's an ok first step. DESU, IDK why Shankara became /lit/'s go to Hindu thinker in the first place. It's like for /lit/ the entire subcontinent just produced Shankara. I suppose this comes down to Guenon (who is an infallible scholar of Hinduism apparently too lol).

>>22384463
>The Absolute conceives itself
now explain how
>won't cuz can't

>>22382241
I did 3 times.
Fell to my knees many times.
Wierdly it went away when i started taking anti-psychotics

>>22382581
Literally came in here to say Plotinus.
Plotinus is the only philosopher who seems to be on to something. The rest are all grounded in some ephemeral material bullshit, even the ones that claim not to be. This is of course no coincidence why Plotinus is virtually ignored in philosophy courses today, given maybe one lecture at best, and is being gradually written out of the philosophical canon in favor of retards like Kant and Hegel. Tells you all you need to know.
Other honorable mentions are Heraclitus, Parmenides and Spinoza, and Wittgenstein for ending the intellectual dead end that is philosophy.

>>22385025
Why don't you like Hegel?

>>22385030
He was dishonest and a charlatan about his true motives for doing philosophy (as most philosophers are). Claimed to be a metaphysical philosopher, but at his core he was secretly a political philosopher. He thought that the Prussian Christian state was the logical conclusion to history and we can't possibly reach a higher ideal. He was basically the Fukuyama of his time.

>>22385025
Why Plotinus but not Plato or Aristotle?

>>22382241
You can’t. The intellect is illusion and the impediment. Reality is inconceivable, unknown.

>>22385451
Plato was a midwit. Plato basically mandated ethics into the philosophical discussion even though Protagoras already retroactively refuted it as pointless pseudoscience. This wild goose chase of arguing and debating over ethics has set us back centuries if not millennia. Plato is one of the most disastrous people ever in western civilization. His political ideas are also you-vill-eat-ze-bugs tier NWO shit and trying to social engineer man to serve the state rather than the state to serve man, which is the key failing of all retarded political ideologies and most "isms." Also, writing in dialogue form is stupid.

Aristotle had good ideas about how to actually practice philosophy but his actual ideas are kind of weak. The only thing of his worth reading today is his logic, and even that was dabbed on by Frege.

I did it accidentally.

If you are interested: https://youtu.be/xqY08gN_FCM

>>22385025
Plotinus and other neoplatonists are currently being popularized be verekae or some other jew I forgot his name. I even saw him tall about eriugena on some podcast with a million views.

>>22382600
I was looking for this post! It has an opposite

"Susan Buck-Morss provides a decisive reframing of Hegel in this wonderful book. The supposed idealist becomes a hard-headed realist whose concepts are formed while reading the morning newspapers. The idea of emancipation from slavery is itself emancipated from a model of noblesse oblige to one of struggle, risk, and sacrifice on the part of the slave. This is a thoroughly brilliant scholarly work that turns Hegel upside down in a new way, revealing this time that he was always already standing on his head."
W. J. T. Mitchell, University of Chicago

>>22385592
are you interested in some technology that lets you go back in time?

>>22385592
Would experimental evidence confirming that it is possible to selectively raise or lower the speed at which information propagates in a given medium have an impact on your ideas? Just curious.

>>22385531
How can you have such a superficial midwit take with STEMfag prejudice but then think Plotinus was good? Genuine question. It’s sublime.

>>22385901
I'm literally wrong about nothing I said.
Plotinus is the closest to being correct because monism is the only metaphysical model that even remotely makes sense. All other models are just wishful thinking and how the philosopher "wants" the universe to be, not as it is. Monism not only was proven logically correct by Parmenides, it also just intuitively makes the most sense. You learn it is true from simple life experience and the seeing the connections between seemingly disparate things. I'm aware that this source is basically "It was revealed to me in a dream" tier but I have very little interest in justifying things to you. Sorry you got triggered that I wrecked Plato that easily, but that's just how easy he is to dismantle.

Also, just to clarify, Plato did indeed have an idealist world view, but again, like Hegel, that was simply to justify his political ideas in the Republic. It's far easier to justify that there is a teleological end goal for the state if you already have the blueprint of the Forms to work with as "proof" that this must be so.

Now don't question me again and embarrass yourself again. I'm smarter than you.

>>22385992
not him but you're the worst kind of poster on this board

>>22385992
>I'm smarter than you but I'm sooo busy and have too much important shit to do to present a substantial argument to justify my beliefs just accept that I'm right and you're not lololol
Fuck off.

>>22386053
Yes. Correct. Why would I waste my time in thinking out a fully-fleshed rational argument when you'll just say it's wrong anyway?

Since you are all faggots who can't think for yourselves and only appeal to authority because you lack father figures, I will give you Parmenides' argument since you will take that seriously and you go ahead and try and disprove it.

1. Being is that which exists.
2. Non-being is that which does not exist.
3. It is impossible for non-being to exist, because non-being has no existence to begin with.
4. Therefore, being is the only possible reality and change is impossible.

Good luck.

>>22386045
Think of me as a gadfly. Nothing more satisfying in giving pseud humanities majors an ego check. And considering the demographics of this board, it is a lucrative business let me tell you.

>>22386148
>3. It is impossible for non-being to exist, because non-being has no existence to begin with.
>4. Therefore, being is the only possible reality and change is impossible.
Where is it proved that change equals that which does not exist?

>>22386161
>Think of me as a gadfly
no

>>22386164
Because it's self evident. I didn't include that part of the argument because I thought you would be able to deduce it but apparently not.
There are only two possible states, being and non-being. If something is in a state of being, that in itself is a state of "non-change." And I don't need to prove that, because for something to "be" also implies existence. Something cannot "be" and also have the quality of non-existence, that is illogical. Therefore, the opposite state of non-being must be change. But this is impossible because of the definitions of being and non-being. Being is that which exists, so to say that non-being (something that doesn't exist) has qualities is also illogical. Ergo, nothing in the universe goes through change, it is an illusion, and everything is just being, or one unified object.

>>22386181
something can be, not be, or change.

>>22386188
No, because if an object "changes," then it no longer "is" the object it once was. It's now something else. At some point during the changing process it simultaneously loses the original particular qualities that made it the object it originally was, and at the same time taking on the new qualities of the object it is turning into. But again, this is illogical because an object can't be 2 objects at the same time. If so, at what point does the change occur? Can you pinpoint it?
There is the famous ice cube analogy. When you have a solid ice cube, you have the cube, and when it melts you have a puddle. At what exact point during the melting process did that ice cube stop being an ice cube and become the puddle of water? Can you say?

>>22386207
>No, because if an object "changes," then it no longer "is" the object it once was. It's now something else.
meaning there is nothing in the object that endures... creating two states, which you right about and I got wrong, but the thing it was no longer exists if there is nothing keeping it the same over the period of change

At some point during the changing process it simultaneously loses the original particular qualities that made it the object it originally was, and at the same time taking on the new qualities of the object it is turning into. But again, this is illogical because an object can't be 2 objects at the same time.
there is no reason an object can't have orientations that can be classified as parts. there there one?

If so, at what point does the change occur? Can you pinpoint it?
something would have to have, like 4 parts for that to make sense I guess

>There is the famous ice cube analogy. When you have a solid ice cube, you have the cube, and when it melts you have a puddle. At what exact point during the melting process did that ice cube stop being an ice cube and become the puddle of water? Can you say?
i can tell you that is the Sorities (sp?) paradox.

>>22386230
I don't know if you are subconsciously doing it, but don't apply modern scientific definitions in thinking about this problem. Obviously we know melting points and things like that. This is more an issue of defining features of what makes a thing a thing.

Let me see if I can think of another example.
Let's say you have a hot girl. This is her original state. But eventually she gets old and gets saggy titties and Hank Hill ass. We all acknowledge now that she is gross and old and lament the impermanence of youth, and we all acknowledge that she unquestionably went through some kind of physical change. That is apparent. But the problem is defining when the change happened. Because it wasn't overnight or instant. What is the absolute latest point she could still reasonably be called a "hot girl" and what is the earliest point she could be called an "old woman"? Parmenides' point is that the lines are blurred and there's basically no way to prove it. Even science doesn't help much because we can have very clear cut definitions of things and make empirical observations about changes in matter, but it still doesn't get to the root of the problem of finding the exact point when a thing stops being a thing and becomes a new thing. If the definition of "hot girl" has certain definite qualities that are inherent to it and are necessary in order to be considered a "hot girl," then an old woman both is and isn't the hot girl she once was. She is the same in the sense she is the same object, but also not the same since she no longer fits the necessary requirements of the definition of "hot girl." But for something to both be an object and not be an object is a paradox, and Parmenides argues that the change that she undergoes is simply an illusion and our senses lying to us and really she was just the same object all along.

>>22386272
well, yeah, that's more specific and I see what you mean but it sounds very hyper specific and almost pointless to posit anything like 'phenomenology of Plotinus/Parmenides".

as in, Eleatic Stranger - a second trojan horse, or something. i'm not gonna read the part where I have a hot girl cuz i don't

>>22383989
Advaita is dogmatic even the advaitafags on this board recognize that
advaita can't defend any of it's arguments without relying on a "divine revelation" thus falling into an argumentum ad verecudiam fallacy(argument from authority fallacy) so no, advaita systyem is not logical or intellectual, is just another form of ontotheology

>>22384454
>Every philosophy rests on unproven axioms
not at all, most modern philosophy rest on self evident or logical axioms, for example the phenomenology starting point is the most basic and self evident fundament, "that i exist"(since if you say you don't exist you'll be clearly contradicting yourself) in modern philosophy the problem is not the axioms but the articulation of those axioms, advaita on the other hand rest it's entire philosophy on a completly unproven and contradictory axiom, brahman and his activity/non-activity of casting maya, so the whole system was doomed fromt the start

>>22385992
There's nothing wrong with wrecking Plato and Aristotle. If that's what you like, more power to you. It's strange to hate those two and love Plotinus considering that they're all "Platonists" writ large, and Plotinus considered himself to be synthesizing the two and thus carrying the torch for Plato's esoteric beliefs.
>if you already have the blueprint of the Forms to work with as "proof" that this must be so.
Yeah but Plato debunks this in the dialogue Parmenides, which is Plotinus's favorite dialogue.

>>22386161
You haven't said anything that indicated you've read more than what a humanities college freshman might have read cumulatively in his life. The air of superiority isn't intimidating, it's just cute. Like a little chihuahua baring its teeth.

>>22382241
>Philosophers will unironically make up total bullshit like ‘the absolute’ and proceed to make it a central problem of their discipline
Wittgenstein was right

>>22386148
Easily.
>5. Being includes what is possible, what is actual, and what is necessary.
>6. Existence is defined as actual being. Necessary being must be actual, but some actual being is contingent.
>7. Change involves transformations in the actual realm.
>8. Since change does not bring anything into being or into non-being, it does not violate Parmenides's precepts.

>>22386272
So time could be sorted of be called an illusion

>>22386973
Yes, Zeno discussed this in his paradoxes (who was a follower of Parmenides).

>>22382241
if you had any idea of what Hegel actually wrote you'd know the Absolute is not a beyond to reach. The only thing you have to grasp is the dialectical discourse which is the Dasein of the Absolute. Good thing you're already in this discourse

>>22387239
seems like the only thing within reach Absolute drivel

>>22386849
btfo'd

is this still about the absolute? is that truly the element of change? Idealism sometimes strikes me as humans writing the world rather than describing it.

>>22388122
damn....
>>22386841
so true

>>22389325
OP here. I use the term "reaching the Absolute" to mean something like "reaching the highest level of truth accessible to humans through the intellect only." Idealism isn't necessarily the only philosophy which aims to do this and Hegel isn't the only idealist but I figured he was a controversial enough thinker to invite some debate into the thread, through which hopefully something may be revealed.

>>22389354
Sounds like you don't really know what the Absolute is then.

>>22384254
>>boils down the reason for anything existing besides the Absolute to the Absolute essentially doing it for the lulz ("it is in its nature to do so")
>>22384486
>all is Brahma playfully doing lulz, because, uhh, his lulz intentionality."
I'm not an Advaitan but this refutation is weak. If "it is in its nature to do so" is not a good answer, then explain why energy and matter in a physical universe does what it does? Why would, for eg, an Abrahamic God do what he does? For any answer, you can just ask "but why would it do/want/be that?" again.
When talking about the essential behaviors of what everything is or what everything comes from, eventually you have to stop at "it is in its nature to do so". There's nothing further below or outside of it to explain it in relation to. Any reason or "why" for its behavior that doesn't end at "it is in its nature to do so" would require a cause for that behavior that is more fundamental than it.

>>22389995
I asked a friend who's into Hegal what the Absolute was. Over the course of half an hour we made zero progress towards defining it. Circular arguments that kept returning back to - the fact that you can't define it is what makes it the Absolute. What a load of nonsense. The Absolute is the Absolute. Excuse me? Why is this wordcel gibberish a concern of anyone?

>>22385679
Of course. Not sure what it would look like though.

>>22385712

I'm not sure how you mean. Elaborate?

>>22389354
no one can do that. for Marx because the material conditions can't be ideal, and for Hegel because appearance is all there is. Something appearing already creates a new absolute standpoint. What you want is world view that happens after everything has already happened, because it can have no result.

>>22386148
>>22386849
kek, Eleatics in shambles

>>22385044
>Writes 10 times more about religion and metaphysics than politics because he is secretly a political philosopher.
>Implying the Philosophy of Right isn't sharply critical of the contemporary Prussian state but not explicitly so because it had to pass the censors.
>Implying the authorities didn't sick Schelling on Hegel because they thought Hegel was against the state and a reformer.
>Getting your understanding of Hegel from shit tier sources like Popper.

No one writes the Phenomenology and Logic because they actually want to talk politics.

>>22391941
would this be impossible be nature is no longer a veritable cornucopia?

>>22386148
This just shows why substance metaphysics is retarded and that Plato and Aristotle fucked up by falling for Parmenides bullshit. Process metaphysics ala Heraclitus or Hegel has no such issue.

And note, process as replaced substance everywhere in the sciences.

We now talk about heat as average movement instead of the substance caloric.

Combustion is now considered a process instead of the substance phlogiston.

Life is now considered a far from thermodynamic equilibrium dynamical system instead of in terms of elan vital.

We now know even "fundemental particles," have a beginning and end. Atoms and protons, etc. are energy well stabilities.

Larger systems, galaxies, planets, life, are far from equilibrium systems.

Everything is process and change. Sure, some theories still fall back on substance, namely string theories, but they can also be interpreted by as progress. It From Bit and relational quantum mechanics are about process.

Your point has been badly BTFO. Change is fundemental. Strong emergence is no problem for process metaphysics because a different process is different. We don't need to worry about something coming from nothing, Hume's argument about fact definitions doesn't hold.

And this also shows how mainstream physicalism is BTGO. Superveniance makes no fucking sense. Humans replace 90+% of the atoms in their body on a regular basis. What matters does a flame supervene on? All is process and pattern, information.

What theory looks at process and can include both our subjective experience and the world of nature as discrete? Developments of Hegel, most importantly, pansemiosis using Peirce's tripartite model that is cribbed of Saint Augustine.

>>22386230
>>22386207
I was going to help you out with the answers to these but I can't post the PDF. It's on LibGen though. Skip to capture 2.

>>22391966
>Life is now considered a far from thermodynamic equilibrium dynamical system
Lol no. You don't know how to properly define terms.

>>22391984
>>22392103
which one is more accurate?

life for Hegel is a logical idea, and in the table of contents Biology is the first complex system. Also c.f Althusser who says Aristotle and the idea of a biological science followed the idea of a new physics.

presentism never ends and then the present vanishes

>>22392128
correction on my part, the idea of a biological science comes before new physics in Althusser.

>>22382241
Geist is for homosex tranny faggots. Seele 4 lyfe.

>>22391966
As much as I want to see Eleatics debunked, you haven't debunked anything yourself, unless you're relying on arguments other people have made.

Why should we have a process metaphysics as opposed to a substance metaphysics? Isn't that essentially (lol) turning process into the substance, thus taking us back to where we started in a fundamental way?

>>22382577
What is the difference between this and Advaita?

>>22392356
>Process conceptions of the world have had a presence in Western thought at least since Heraclitus, but have been dominated and overshadowed by substance and atomistic metaphysical frameworks at least since Empedocles and Democritus. In fact, Parmenides argued against Heraclitus that, far from everything being flux, change is not possible at all: in order for A to change into B, A would have to disappear into nothingness and B emerge out of nothingness. Nothingness does not exist, so change does not exist. The nothingness that Parmenides was denying perhaps has a contemporary parallel in the notion of the nothingness outside of the universe (vacuum is not nothingness in this sense). It is not clear that such a notion makes any sense, and this was roughly the Parmenidean point. Furthermore, for the ancient Greeks, to think about something or to refer to something was akin to pointing to it, and it is not possible to point at nothing. For a modern parallel to this, consider the difficulties that Russell or Fodor (and many others) have had accounting for representing nothing or something that is false.

>In any case, Parmenides’ argument was taken very seriously, and both the substance and the atomistic metaphysical frameworks were proposed as responses. Empedocles’ substances of earth, air, fire, and water were unchanging in themselves, thus satisfying the Parmenidean constraint, and Democritus’ atoms were similarly unchanging wholes. In both cases, apparent changes were accounted for in terms of changes in the mixtures and structural configurations of the underlying basic realities…

>The default for substances and Democritean “atoms” is stability. Change requires explanation, and there are no self-movers. This is reversed in a process view, with change always occurring, and it is the stabilities of organizations or patterns of process, if such should occur, that require explanation.


>It makes no internal sense to ask why Empedoclean earth, air, fire, and water have the properties that they do, nor why they have the relationships among themselves, nor where they came from, and so on. They constitute a ground of metaphysics...

>That has certainly not prevented such questioning, but the questions are necessarily of the metaphysical framework itself, not questions within that framework. This kind of barrier to further questioning is a further consequence that is reversed by the shift to a process framework. In general, it does make sense to ask of a process why it has the properties that it does or the relationships to other processes or where it came from. The possibility that the process in question is emergent from others by itself legitimates such questions as questions within the process metaphysical framework. Answers may or may not be discoverable, but there is no metaphysical barrier to asking the questions and seeking for answers.

>>22392516
Example: the game of life where a man on a grid square decides to either die, keep living, or come back to life based on what his neighbors are doing (being living or dead).

From very simply rules about when to live or die the game of life can produce a universal Turing Machine.

From whence all possible computable objects in this system of basic on/off rules? The reality of the computation comes from the process, it isn't reducible to any cellular automata on the lattice.

Plenty of physicists, Lloyd, Tegmark, Deutsch, Davies, Rovelli, etc. think the universe must be computable. If our entire reality is a computable objects, and such object can be spawned from simple rules, then it's the rules and relations that are essential.

>But you have to have the automata, the object as primary! It's the logic gate or qbit that is the real object.

No, because these things only exist in how they interact. This is Rovelli's relational quantum mechanics or Floridi's relational maximally portable ontology of difference. You don't need things, you just need difference and relation.

Donald Hoffman makes a very good point on how evolution shaped us to think in terms of discrete objects, entities, but how this doesn't seem to reflect reality. This is why we have such a hard time conceptualizing our world at scales that were irrelevant to evolution; the very small (quantum mechanics) or the very large (relativity).

The primary element of difference, in the qubit, looks a lot like the emergence of being from the Unground in Boheme or as elaborated by Hegel. There is first the infinite possibility. Being finds itself to be coidentical with nothing. An infinite string on 1s or 0s equally contains no information in information theory because it contains no surprise. It is the simplist series to encode in terms of Kolmogorov Complexity. But there is the infinite possibility of what a qubit can collapse into, 1 or 0. Interaction and relation then causes the dialectical birth of definiteness from the nothing of pure abstraction.

>>22382241
I think the problem with most intellectuals is that they lack real experience. I think to try to achieve complete enlightenment through only explaining or only intellectualism is nonsense. Your rejecting natural reality. You have to be educated on both and put your body to the test.

>>22392516
>>22392543
did you copypaste this or CPT this? it seems like it didn't directly address my question

>>22392550
Experience of what?
Put the body to the test how?

>>22382313
There is something like the Absolute, but few of you can reach it because most you don't have a real soul, you're just animals.

>>22382241
Only in the east.

>>22392771
>critique of breath

do you really

>>22392552
It's pasted from an article. But it does answer your question.

>Why should we switch to process metaphysics?
Because substance metaphysics is:
A. Proven to be wrong over and over in the natural sciences (quantum field theory is another example, here the "fundemental particles" is not fundemental and actually only describable in terms of the whole field)
B. Because substance/atomistic metaphysics can't deal with strong emergence. But without strong emergence it seems very hard to explain first person subjective experience.
B 2. Following Davies, it's also unclear that the visible universe has the information processing capabilities for computing even simple life forms. His proof is complex so I won't go into it here but it suggests that the strong emergence must exist.

>Isn't process the same thing.
No, the article covers this with the comparison between Heraclitus and Parmenides. With substance the problem is explaining change, because things or a thing is fundemental. With process the problem is explaining the apparent existence of static things. So far, it's been far easier to explain static things from processes, like computation, or semiosis, then it is to explain change out of primary substance.

With primary substance you also get into John Edwards argument about how, if something came from nothing, we shouldn't see more something's coming from nothing all the time. The acausal has no limits on its cause.

>>22392859
You forgot to answer (what I think) was the most concerning part of my question:
>Isn't that essentially (lol) turning process into the substance, thus taking us back to where we started in a fundamental way?
Everything else is just an appeal to pragmatic science. But science only deals with models of the world. It doesn't ever reach what "is", and science has proven that, in many ways, it never can.

Besides, we can't have knowledge of things that change unless our knowledge can change "in accordance" with the changing thing. So it's in our best interest that there are static things in the universe (e.g. static laws of physics). If what is ultimately at the core of the universe is change, then true knowledge is not possible.

bump

>>22382241
>Has any philosopher truly succeeded in reaching the Absolute through the intellect?
Plotinus, more than once

>>22394386
true

>>22394386
The Animate and the Man... I'm in

>>22386148
>Therefore, being is the only possible reality and change is impossible.
you never show that being=non-change so the point 4 is not logically linked with the other 3
also aristotle already proved that change and being are not mutually exclusive with his metaphysic of being in act and being in potence and the polysemy of being

>>22382241
as in, raising their doctrine of truth to the element of the absolute?

>>22395275
As long as they actually did reach the absolute what's the difference?

bump

>>22382241
hahahahaha

>>22382241
intellect is totally overrated

>>22397716
What's the alternative? Mystical experience that you can't communicate or understand or work into a systematic philosophy?

>>22398259
>the reason-world may be equally styled mystical – not however because thought cannot both reach and comprehend it, but merely because it lies beyond the compass of understanding.

>>22398407
Wasn't Hegel's whole thing developing a system (supported by both rational and historical arguments) in which the Absolute is knowable by the finite, or rather that the Absolute knows itself through the finite?

>>22392937
>Isn't inherit flux actually just a static thing.

No.

Just because you can perform hypostatic abstraction on processes's haecceity doesn't mean saying "process is substance" makes any sense. That this even seems like a valid line says something more about how dominant substance and atomism have been. "But like, isn't it actually impossible for substance metaphysics not to be the case because everything is actually substance in its essence," is question begging and refuses to see the difference between the two.

>>22399526
I have already Crossed the Rubicon

>>22392937
>Besides, we can't have knowledge of things that change unless our knowledge can change "in accordance" with the changing thing. So it's in our best interest that there are static things in the universe (e.g. static laws of physics). If what is ultimately at the core of the universe is change, then true knowledge is not possible.

I don't see how this follows in the slightest. Things do change all the time. Knowledge and change are not a particularly big problem in epistemology, unlike say Gettier problems, etc.

>>22399526
>Just because you can perform hypostatic abstraction on processes's haecceity doesn't mean saying "process is substance" makes any sense. That this even seems like a valid line says something more about how dominant substance and atomism have been. "But like, isn't it actually impossible for substance metaphysics not to be the case because everything is actually substance in its essence," is question begging and refuses to see the difference between the two.
I want to continue this line of inquiry. However, I have to remark that it seems like you too are a fellow Peirce enjoyer. Would that be correct?

>>22399529
>I don't see how this follows in the slightest. Things do change all the time.
You've gotten used to the problem to the point where you don't recognize the problem and you have a low standard for knowledge. The extent which you are correct despite a changing world is due to either chance or a relative lack of change, keeping that one-to-one correspondence between your representations of the world (beliefs) and the world itself.
>unlike say Gettier problems,
It's solely a problem of mechanism (and the difficulty of grasping it) and can be linked to the problem of knowledge in a changing world with some effort.

>>22386849
>7. Change involves transformations in the actual realm.
I think that was what you were meant to prove...

>>22391966
>process philosophy ala Heraclitus
Filtered. Don't pretend this retarded ideology has any traditional source.

>>22400151
The crux of the problem posted by Parmenides is that something can't come from nothing, which is why change can't exist. But I've shown in 5. that things can "be" in multiple aspects, like possibility and actuality. If something goes from possible to actual, then we have something coming from something. And if it stops existing and recedes back into mere possibility, then we have something going into something. Nothing ever truly ceases to "be" and enter the realm of non-being, and thus we've allowed change back into the picture.

>>22382241
>Has any philosopher truly succeeded in reaching the Absolute through the intellect?
There isn't anything but the Absolute, so it isn't ever reached in any way anyone expects. This can't be realized by intellect alone, because "reaching the Absolute" really means to intuitively discern the real from the imaginary or the permanent from the impermanent. Intellect, or the mind in general, mistakes the imaginary as real because the mind is itself imaginary and impermanent.
Many in the East and some in the West discovered this at least thousands of years ago. I can't speak on Hegel but from what I know of him no doubt he needlessly obfuscated this very simple message.

>>22401115
>I can't speak on Hegel but from what I know of him no doubt he needlessly obfuscated this very simple message.
You're missing out, I think you'd find his ideas interesting even if you don't agree.

>>22401973
I'm open to it if I can find the time and motivation. Is there a place to start that you'd recommend? Should I just risk getting filtered and go straight into his main works?

>>22402138

>>22402138
If you're already well-versed in Kant and related thinkers, I've heard great things about H.S. Harris' Hegel's Ladder as an exhaustive commentary on the Phenomenology of Spirit slash companion read to the work itself.

>>22392859
>B. Because substance/atomistic metaphysics can't deal with strong emergence. But without strong emergence it seems very hard to explain first person subjective experience.
can you explain? I don't see how that is related

>>22392771
cope in your superiority complex

>>22382241
You'll never be able to even delude yourself into thinking you've found this 'absolute' without resting on the perch of dogma. We can't find it because we don't know what it is, and we don't know what it is because we can't find it. Perhaps we're even to say it doesn't exist.

I was going to elaborate my thoughts properly but I can't be bothered– so enjoy my retarded vague nonsense

>>22402437
>retarded vague nonsense
We prefer the term "metaphysics".

>>22382241
sabotaging the Hegel mysticism thread

>>22402437
>We can't find it because we don't know what it is, and we don't know what it is because we can't find it.
refuted by Hegel (pbuh) in section 85 and 86 of the Phenomenologie

>>22389325
>dogmatic
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_IepvcqGp4&t=10s

>>22402393
If substance metaphysics can't explain first person subjective experience, the most obvious and immediately observable facet of our world, then it is unlikely to be correct. After all, what good is a system of inquiry and understanding of the world as it is if it can't explain us or our conceptions of it.

This isn't true for all substance focused systems. Hegel for example is Aristotlean in many senses but also has a process vision for the coming into the being of the Absolute, and he can account for a unity of nature and subject.

Probably the biggest problem in philosophy and the sciences, which produces dozens of books a year, is "how does mind emerge from matter," prehaps only trumped by "what is information and absential phenomena?" This seems to suggest a deep metaphysical problem and substance/atomism seems like a major culprit. Atomism is itself already so unpopular that we might call it dead in quantum foundations.

>>22400092
Oh yes, I find C.S. Peirce to be very interesting. Or those who came before him with similar ideas, particularly Hegel and later Saint Augustine. Saint Augustine's tripartite semiotics in De Dialecta is pretty much the same thing as Peirce's system, he just doesn't flesh it out as well and drops it for a dyadic model in Christ the Teacher because he is still simply trying to map the Plotinian Hypostases to the Holy Trinity. This doesn't work though because the hypostases are inherently hierarchical, whilst under Nicean orthodoxy the Trinity is co-equal.

So in De Trinitate, Augustine moves to mapping the Trinity to the semiotic triangle. And here he also has the idea that man, in the image of God (and so the image of Being) is also essentially triadic and embarks on an exploration of pure thought that recalls the Greater Logic of Hegel. And the style ends up being quite similar, if much less rigorous, as we move through triads to discover the essentially semiotic nature of relations and the foundational role in being.

Rovelli mostly looks to Hindu thought for inspiration in explaining his relational quantum mechanics and it is a shame because he might have found even more to work with in Augustine and Peirce.

>>22382241
omg shut the fuck up you gay looser and go for a walk in the woods

>>22382653
Is Absolute another word for Infinite?

>>22403586
none of them could define it for you, it's absolute nonsense

>>22382241
>"Hegel, installed from above, by the powers that be, as the certified Great Philosopher, was a flat-headed, insipid, nauseating, illiterate charlatan, who reached the pinnacle of audacity in scribbling together and dishing up the craziest mystifying nonsense. This nonsense has been noisily proclaimed as immortal wisdom by mercenary followers and readily accepted as such by all fools, who thus joined into as perfect a chorus of admiration as had ever been heard before. The extensive field of spiritual influence with which Hegel was furnished by those in power has enabled him to achieve the intellectual corruption of a whole generation."

>>22403500
>Saint Augustine's tripartite semiotics in De Dialecta is pretty much the same thing as Peirce's system
They're worlds apart in that Peirce's semiotics is just the tip of the iceberg of a system that is heavily rooted in metaphysics, logic, and "the joints of nature itself." Peirce has much more in common with Aristotle in his metaphysical inheritance or even Plato with his generation of number.

Anyway, the reason I spoke about Peirce is because you used the term "hypostatic abstraction", "haeccity", etc., which are either Peircean-created or Peircean-revived terms.

Invoking both Aristotle and Peirce here, processes are always between at least two subjects, with an active and a passive subject. And these processes can always be described of something (see the corresponding categories in Aristotle's Categories). In other words, they're predicates.

You can always consider an action to be the "third" itself, or in more complicated sequences of actions which are broken down into dyadic statements, you can always link a series of dyadic statements through the "third" action linking them all together. So process has to be something belonging to thirdness.

I understand that hypostatic abstraction, the art of turning a predicate into a subject, has to be based on something real in order to be something beyond a mere convenient mental fiction. But, considering it belongs to thirdness, and that process can map onto hypostatic abstraction in a 1-to-1 manner, doesn't it suggest there's something there?

Why can't we make process into substance?

Also:
>"But like, isn't it actually impossible for substance metaphysics not to be the case because everything is actually substance in its essence," is question begging and refuses to see the difference between the two.
Is a weird quibble for me, considering that all substance is defined by its essence, conceptually-speaking. The only difference is that a substance's material arrangement may differ despite maintaining a similar essential makeup.

>>22403484
>If substance metaphysics can't explain first person subjective experience, the most obvious and immediately observable facet of our world, then it is unlikely to be correct
What makes you think that it cannot do so?

>>22403484
>>22403941
Peircean substance-predicate metaphysics absolutely can through his categories and the Peircean reduction thesis. The categories of first, second, and third are the elements of the joints of nature. The triad, as the realm of hypostatic abstraction, is what links predicates and subjects and is the fundamental basis of conscious thought.

>>22403941
The arguments against strong emergence from the substance view and the fact that substance has been replaced by process throughout physics.

>>22382241
>Has any philosopher truly succeeded in reaching the Absolute through the intellect?
No.

1st Corinthians 1:21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

1st Corinthians 3:18-20 Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness. And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain.

>>22403959
Process is linked to substance through predication and can itself be seen as substance.

>>22403632
Everyone who derides Hegel's thought as nonsense was brutally filtered and seethes over that fact.

>>22403960
What do you make of Aquinas' intellectual project?

>>22403959
>The arguments against strong emergence from the substance view
How does that relate to the original question of whether substance metaphysics can explain first person subjective experience? I don't see you directly answering the question unless I'm missing something

>>22404015
>priests
>intellectual

>>22404043
Who is the third party you are laughing with anon?

>>22386718
>most modern philosophy rest on self evident or logical axioms
Calling them "self evident" or "logical" doesn't make them something that is actually proven, kek.
>advaita on the other hand rest it's entire philosophy on a completly unproven and contradictory axiom, brahman and his activity/non-activity of casting maya
It's no more unproven then any other unproven axiom that any other philosophy relies upon, it's also not a contradiction since by non-activity they just mean that Brahman Itself undergoes no change or shift, which isn't mutually exclusive with saying that it has a timeless 'function' or 'operation' always going on unceasingly through the operation of Its power that brings about the appearance of plurality.

>>22404105
Nta
So what are criteria for proving something?

>>22404042
Are you not aware of the arguments against strong emergence?

>>22403974
>Actually, process IS inherently substance which is the true ontological basis.
This is just begging the question unless you have an argument for why this is the case.

>>22404127
>So what are criteria for proving something?
My own personal view is that nothing is ever completely proven and that logic just helps suggest or indicate which possibilities are more likely to be true and which are more outlandish/implausible.

>>22404219
I can respect such a view. Well said anon

>>22404140
>Are you not aware of the arguments against strong emergence?
I’m aware that strong/weak emergence is a thing that people debate over, but I don’t see how that directly ties into the question of whether substance metaphysics can account for firsthand subjective experience since different thinkers and systems labeled as substance metaphysics sometimes give varying epistemological accounts of experience.

>>22382241
>>22384463
The beginning of empathy, one poster in this thread missed it:
"This overcoming of the object of consciousness is not to be taken as the one-sided process in which the object shows itself as returning into the Self, but is to be taken in a more determinate way, thus: the object as such presents itself to the Self as vanishing, but, more than this, it is the estrangement of self-consciousness that posits thinghood, and this estrangement has not only a negative but a positive meaning, and has it not only for us or in itself, but for self-consciousness itself. For self-consciousness the negative of the object, or its self-sublation, thereby has a positive meaning, or self-consciousness knows this nullity of the object, on the one hand, because it estranges its own self,—for in this estrangement it posits itself as object, or, in virtue of the inseparable unity of Being-for-itself, posits the object as itself."
>>22382313
>>22385992
Arrogance blinded you:
"The thing that can be thought and that for the sake of which the thought exists is the same;for you cannot find thought without something that is, as to which it is uttered. And there is not, and never shall be, anything besides what is, since fate has chained it so as to be whole and immovable. Wherefore all these things are but names which mortals have given, believing them to be true—coming into being and passing away, being and not being, change of place and alteration of bright colour."
Being and non being are human names for the same thing mutating as you change view. "we both do and do not step twice into the same river" can mean not only that a new river flows, but also that a new you is stepping in the river, the old one gone. You flow in a beautiful universe. Are you moving or is it moving?
>>22382581
"It is absolutely necessary to postulate the existence of a nature different from bodies, by itself fully possessing genuine existence, which can neither be born nor perish. Otherwise, all other things would hopelessly disappear, as a result of the destruction of the existence which preserves both the individuals and the universe, as their beauty and salvation. The soul, indeed, is the principle of movement (as Plato thought, in the Phaedrus); it is the soul that imparts movement to everything else; the soul moves herself. She imparts life to the body she animates; but alone she possesses life, without ever being subject to losing it, because she possesses it by herself. All beings, indeed, live only by a borrowed life; otherwise, we would have to proceed from cause to cause unto infinity. There must, therefore, exist a nature that is primarily alive, necessarily incorruptible and immortal"
>>22385025
Toss a broken soul a broken gem and it will see the cracks, toss a joyful soul a broken gem and it will see it whole.
It is not what you say but how you say it. (Dis)respect always comes back around. Look at a tree - synthesize or die.
https://pastebin.com/P3rVFrue

>>22401115
>Many in the East and some in the West discovered
Why do so many people still worship le Eastern wisdom? The Indians had some interesting ideas—Buddhism is completely moronic though. Taoism is vague sometimes (can’t read Chinese so maybe it’s just the translation) but at other times alright I guess. In the west I don’t think Confucius would even be considered a philosopher, but I haven’t actually investigated him enough to be sure.

>>22382241
Not even memeing. He has carried the legacy of Kant's and Hegel's original concerns better than anyone after them.

>>22404008
>no no anon, you see it's not overwrought garbage, you're simply too stupid to understand PEEgel's pros!

>>22404400
Surely you're writing all this as someone who read, fully understood, and simply disagreed with Hegel's thought, right?
You aren't just parroting what others think of Hegel without ever understanding himself... right?

>>22404400
why on god's green earth would i invest the time reading Hegel necessary to 'understand' him? what good could possibly come of it? the fanatical Hegelians i've had the misfortune to meet IRL have all been dreary uninspired dweebs of weak spirit and are totally artless. it is a frustrating and tedious exercise trying to wring any sense or clarity out of them. no fucking thank you, what a ghastly idea.

>>22404549
>>22404438

>>22404549
>yeah bro hegel's writings are too overwrought and deliberately obscure its all time wasting bullshit and occultist fart huffing
>of course I've never read him why would I ever waste time actually reading or understanding him only gross dweebs do that lmaooo

>>22404560
you totally do not need to do a close reading to gather from first impressions what nonsense lies within or when simply observing the mass confusion and personality suicide the text has in effect on the goons that take it seriously. it is impossible to have a practical straightforward conversation with a Hegelian, this is a known fact.

>>22404573
Sure thing, buddy. Whatever you say.

>>22404577
it is frustrating to know that no one outside of your murderous pseudo-mystical clique will take you seriously, not even your own cat yes yes i know this to be the case

>>22403960
>KJV
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHhhHAhhahahaHAHAHAH
AAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAhh
Είσαι ομοφυλόφιλος αιρετικός και δεν έχεις διαβάσει ποτέ τη Βίβλο

>>22404615
The Codex Vaticanus is a proven counterfeit. The minority/critical texts don't even agree with each other.

Meanwhile the King James Bible is the English Bible accurately translated from the text best supported by history.

You can't even make any real argument because the truth isn't on your side.

>>22404631
Oh, so the Alexandrinus and Sinaitica codices must also be fake? And the miniscules? All Alexandrian and Byzantine texts are invalid?
Then what the fuck was the Textus Receptus, hmm? What was Erasmus' source and how was his incomplete source revised (i.e. not backtranslated from the Vulgaris?) You know the history of the KJV, right?
Furthermore:
Μηδεὶς ἑαυτὸν ἐξαπατάτω: εἴ τις δοκεῖ σοφὸς εἶναι ἐν ὑμῖν ἐν τῷ αἰῶνι τούτῳ, μωρὸς γενέσθω, ἵνα γένηται σοφός.
ἡ γὰρ σοφία τοῦ κόσμου τούτου μωρία παρὰ τῷ θεῷ ἐστιν: γέγραπται γάρ, Ὁ δρασσόμενος τοὺς σοφοὺς ἐν τῇ πανουργίᾳ αὐτῶν:
καὶ πάλιν, Κύριος γινώσκει τοὺς διαλογισμοὺς τῶν σοφῶν ὅτι εἰσὶν μάταιοι.
is 1 Corinthians 3:18-20. If you knew anything about the context of the words KOSMOS and SOPHIA you might come to some dramatically different conclusions as to what Paul is getting at.

>>22404631
>The Codex Vaticanus is a proven counterfeit.
This is a bald faced lie and you are just making shit up because this doesn't even fucking make sense if you know anything about early Christian manuscripts that have survived to today. It's not like the Vaticanus is the only surviving example of examples of Alexandrian text, it's just the earliest complete one that we have.
>Meanwhile the King James Bible is the English Bible accurately translated from the text best supported by history.
No it's not, and the English used in King James has nothing to do with the Bible, and people who quoteth the bible in King James English are massive faggots. Furthermore, KJV onlyists are heretics.

>>22404649
You already proved yourself not worth my time with your first post. Not like your logical fallacies in that post are any better.

>>22404667
It's not a lie, also see above.

>>22404667
Also, the phrase is "bold faced" and you are so vulgar and profane and dishonest that I know you're not a Christian.

>>22404669
Both of those are me and you're still a fucking retard claiming that all the early koine Greek manuscripts are invalid.
>early Byzantine texts -> Erasmus -> Textus Receptus -> KJV
You are demonstrably wrong, I have proven that you are wrong, I have given irrefutable sources, and now you're acting like a little fucking baby. So now you're an infant AND a heretic.
Attacking the codex vaticanus because of the picture I used when I posted about the entirety of the original koine is intellectually dishonest on the level of pilpul. You are in bad faith, and you cannot back up your claims, only baselessly continue to assert your completely false and refuted statements. Fallacy after fallacy. Go fuck yourself, brainlet.
>inb4 muh ad hominem
My argument isn't "you are wrong BECAUSE you are a heretic and an infant". But it can be concluded that you are an infant and a heretic BECAUSE you are wrong. Not like you give a shit about making truthful statements.

>>22404674
More non arguments and fallacies, lol. You can't refute what I argued. I am right, you are wrong, and I proved it beyond the shadow of a doubt. All you can do is attack the way I said it or resort to literal ad hominem ("y..you're not a christian!!!" like that has any weight on the soundness of my statements)
I accept your concession.

>>22404693
>>22404701
The only thing you've proven is that you're not a Christian.

But you proved that with your first comment too. >>22404615

>>22404615
>you're a homo
>>22404649
>fuck
>if you knew anything
>>22404667
>shit
>fucking
>massive faggots
>heretics
>>22404693
>fucking retard
>little fucking baby
>infant AND a heretic
>Go fuck yourself
>brainlet
>shit
>>22404701
Christians don't talk like you talk.

It's funny you call me intellectually dishonest too and project your bad faith. I haven't really tried arguing with you because you're an irrational psycho, just look at how deranged you are, half of what you've posted is arguing against the schizo voices in your head and your own strawmen. Maybe if you were using a real Bible instead of that Alexandrian trash and forgeries and garbage from the pathological liar Origen and the Vat-of-sin you wouldn't be so full of hate and murder and lies, maybe you wouldn't be so clearly insane.

What few "arguments" (fallacies) you made in that sea of schizophrenia have already been refuted by real Christians who use God's preserved words in English in the King James Bible (who aren't insane like you), but I'm not going to entertain you because you're a lunatick. I just wanted to show everyone how exactly you're not a Christian before I go since many may not see it for themselves as most are unfamiliar with the Scriptures, people like you make Christians look bad.

Ephesians 4:29 Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers.

>>22404840
>>22404701
>>22404693
Take the denominational slapfight to another thread unless you relate it to the OP.

>>22404385
Unironically. The people who call him meme did not read Suttree or Passenger/Maris. Probably got filtered after a few pages of BM, so call him a retard.

>>22404549
>the one person I know in real life who reads Hegel (press X to doubt) is a dreary uninspired dweeb
>therefore Hegel himself must be bad
You're right, don't try Hegel. You wouldn't get it.

>>22404905
decry my fallacious argument it is not important -- all i point to is the the nature of the typical HeGAYlian's spirit, not of Hegel himself whom i have met personal. impudent anarchists resentful say communists who cannot look in the eye and a number of jewish crypto-self haters. i have spent much time in Isreal so i can say these things. i study the fine arts masters at LONDON university where there is close work to be done with the departmenbt of philosophy. there i have had the misfortune of meeting many self-proclaim acolyque of various ''thinkers'' -- the Hegelians and their bastard nephews the BENJAMINIANs all have the dullest of character. i apologies to you anon for i do not having peer-reviewed study of this phenomenon--perhaps you will find such a thing on lessrong.com--all i find with such people is so much brouette of drivel non-arguments and a ghost;y epistemic habit of circularity and realty constructions downstream from words--ghastly. it is good fortune that we also have many Wittgenstein acolyhte on campus also, whom it is from possible to obtain clarity but not always. at one time we had embalmed corpse of repute '''thinker'' in glass cabinet like of some demented Hirst sculpture."physical impossibility of the Absolute in the mind of someone living" yes yes it is true. this ''thinker'' would attract many of those not directly bridged to out department--yes for the sake of ''interdisciplinary'' something i find to be oxymoron as philosophy and the fine arts rub shoulders that produce astrocities such as ''spectate realism'' and ''ooo'' very spooky and demented imaginings of animated matter who's practitioners have some fetishistic love of the contemporary artist for, heaven knows why--these people who would visit the famed site have had bad habit of lingering here and there places where they sought out post graduated students to talk '''theory'' with. they are a nuisance bug-bear in particular those so thoroughly devoted deep into ''theories'' of Hegel and his stooges and also of Hedigger whom I also find tiresome. there is all so much chatter of metaphysics and ''New materialisms'' which I also find ghastly. we had in the past while he resided there, a group of dissident students and i, to steal the head of this embalmed ''thinker'' so that perhaps the philosophizzzers would be sent warning to leave us be for our creative practices. it is unfortunate the our faction of new abstract realists--we were exporing ideas as cuch ''object ecologies'' and vampiric formalisms''--we were outnumbered by true conceptual shite heads. terribly and awful. and so our plan never made good we were also concerned about certain endocrine disrupting effects of embalming fluids used. for now we are housed some other place on campus away from ''theory'' brutgoons but they have found ways on my program to force of this insipid regimes of ''interdisciplinarities'' seminar which are worse than fruitless unless with campus STEMtard grad once.

>>22405146
Damn that's crazy haha

so if im getting this right, i should just stop reading and start fucking bitches right?

>>22402173
>>22402195
Much appreciated.

>>22404370
I don't worship the East, but I do find there the clearest expositions of the (phenomenological, if not metaphysical) truth I was referring to. Western philosophy is generally concerned with gaining intellectual knowledge, beliefs, frameworks, ideology, personality etc i.e. objects; whereas Eastern traditions like Buddhism, Taoism, Advaita etc are primarily concerned with "the knower" of knowledge i.e. the subject, and the "liberation" thereof. In my experience the major Western philosophers/traditions/religions often (usually unintentionally and subtly) turn the subject into an object and examine that instead, and when they don't they're typically not as explicit, clear, and direct as some Eastern traditions are.
>Taoism is vague sometimes
These traditions can seem vague or nonsensical at first, and Taoism is relatively enigmatic and poetic, but really they're often surprisingly straightforward and/or literal. For eg, we're so used to "looking out" at objects that when they say things like "look inward/within / for your self / for the subject / for the root/source etc" we either think it's cryptic and abstract or we look to our body, mind, personality, knowledge, concepts etc without realizing they are all objects, and therefore continue overlooking that which is looking.
I was going to give more examples of seemingly enigmatic statements being fairly straightforward but this is getting long and kinda off topic so I'll refrain unless you or someone else requests them.

>>22405146
Come again, motherfucker?

>>22404105
>that is actually proven
doesn't need to be proven because tehy're self evident, and the opposite position would lead to a contradiction, for example if i say "i don't exist" the fact that i can say that already contradicts that argument
>It's no more unproven then any other unproven axiom
the problem is not that is not unproven but that is contradictory, this world is not actually the world is like saying A is not equal to A, so if you want to overcome that contradiction you need to explain or prove how that can be thecase, Advaita can't do that and in turn just say is in the nature of things for thing to be this way
not ot mention other clear contradictions like the concept of falsity, which is not real but also not unreal, which is like saying something is not a dog but also not a non-dog, breaking the law of non-contradiction, and saying that falsity is a possible "third option" breaks the law of the excluded middle
>>22390057
yhea but the problem with that is that "it's in his nature to do so" is not an answer, what you're really doing is hidding the fact that you can't articulate the problem any longer, so instead of saying that "it's in his nature", you should say, i don't have an answer for that, but non of those mystics can do that because they need to validate their systems, so instead they use the excuse of revelated truth which is just a big "just trust me bro"
in the end Hume refuted all that shit by proving that the problem of a first cause is shallow and inadequate, an honest thinker would recognize there's no such thing as a first cause, causes are a subjective way of the mind to understand reality(the proof of that is that we can find them in our minds but not in reality), but that would also imply that these "trascendental principles" are also just a subjective part of the mind and not something that actually exist, and people like shankara that need to establish the status quo in india can't do that

>>22405379
>doesn't need to be proven because tehy're self evident
They aren't self-evident to everyone because not everyone agrees with them, so that's not an argument that supports accepting them over another view, but even if they were self-evident to everyone that's not the same thing as them being proven true, so it makes no sense for you to imply that an idea being "self-evident" is a substitution for proof of that idea being true. People sometimes accept ideas which they find at the time to be self-evident but which later on turn out to be not true, so self-evident ideas can still be wrong.

>that is contradictory, this world is not actually the world is like saying A is not equal to A,
That's not what was said, this has nothing to do with the original point you raised about non-activity, that point was already answered by saying that in Itself Brahman undergoes no change and that in this manner is unlike the acts of embodied beings which involve the agent changing and which are connected with willpower/volition, however that Its utilization of Its power to bring about the appearance of Samsara can be considered a kind of perpetual function or operation; so that's no contradiction at all but it's just distinguishing between the mundane worldly sense of activity and a more abstract form of activity involve no change/volition in the entity, the denial of Brahman doing anything or acting is only in the former sense and not the latter sense so there is no contradiction unless you are trying to construct a strawman.

>>22405379
>not ot mention other clear contradictions like the concept of falsity, which is not real but also not unreal, which is like saying something is not a dog but also not a non-dog, breaking the law of non-contradiction, and saying that falsity is a possible "third option" breaks the law of the excluded middle
All of that is incorrect, what Advaita says about falsity doesn't violate either law. All of your misconceptions can be corrected in a single instant by understanding that in this context Advaita uses real in the absolute sense, as in "absolutely real and metaphysically independent i.e. has svabhava"; when you understand this then it's evident that there is no contradiction because saying that falsity is not "real or unreal" in that context just means that it is not (A) Absolutely real and independent with svabhava OR (B) pure nothingness but rather something which does not belong to either category; even a moron can plainly see that this formulation violates neither logical law because a relatively-real phenomena that depends on something else lacks independence/svabhava and thus is NEITHER (A) absolutely real with svabhava NOR (B) pure nothingness since it has characteristics and is experienced.

Saying that the relatively-real object (X) is false doesn't violate the LNC because it's not affirming two contradictory things at once; saying that a relatively-real X lacks svabhava is not contradictory with (1) saying that X is not absolutely real (with svabhava) and is also not contradictory with saying it's not pure nothingness, in fact all three of these can be affirmed at the same instant without any contradiction whatsoever, so there is no violation of the LNC here. And it doesn't violate the law of the excluded middle because "Absolutely real" and "nothingness" are not exhaustive of all possible options, as anything that is an experienced phenomena and which depends upon other things is by definition not belonging to either of these categories.

>a but the problem with that is that "it's in his nature to do so" is not an answer, what you're really doing is hidding the fact that you can't articulate the problem any longer
If that is the actual truth of why the source of the universe/all does what it does, then that IS the correct answer, regardless of whether any individual feels like that "articulates" things to his or her desired degree, whatever an individual thinks about how an idea should be articulated has no bearing upon what the actual ultimate truth of everything is.
>in the end Hume refuted all that shit by proving that the problem of a first cause is shallow and inadequate
No he didn't, he argued that assuming the problem is unnecessary if you have alternative views about causality but in arguing this he didn't provide any verifiable proof that his own alternative conception of causality is correct

>>22405481
>They aren't self-evident to everyone because not everyone agrees with them
you're confused, a self evident truth is not something that's evident to you in a subjective way, is not a truth based on conventions, when we're talking about self evident truths we're talking about truths that are "logically" self evident, could not be "evidnt" for some people, but taht's because those people ignore the logical implications of said truth, as i said before, someone could htink he doesn't exist, but the fact that he thinks that he doesn't exist proves that to be false, in that sense the argument "i exist" is self evident, it has nothing to do with what is evident for people, but what's evident logically
>as them being proven true,
again, those types of truths don't need to be proven truth, because they're self evident, and the opposite position lead to a contradiction in terms
>>22405481
>at all but it's just distinguishing between the mundane worldly sense of activity and a more abstract form of activity involve no change/volition in the entity
this dichotomy is what present itself as contradictory, since you're posing "two worlds" with different attrinutes but that in the end are the same world, or one exist while the other don't ,even when it actually "exist" for my perception, in any way the notion of existence itself end up being a contradiction to which advaita has no real answer besides "its in brahman nature to do so" which as said before is no answer at all, but a metaphysical cop out

>>22405483
>even a moron can plainly see that this formulation violates neither logical law because a relatively-real phenomena that depends on something else lacks independence/svabhava and thus is NEITHER (A) absolutely real with svabhava NOR (B) pure nothingness since it has characteristics and is experienced.
not at all, since if that where the case then falsity should have it's being form brahman making falsity part of brahman, thus change is part of the unchangin/brahman, and you'r eback at the contradiction of something that changes and not changes at the same time
>Saying that the relatively-real object (X) is false doesn't violate the LNC
yes it does, cos now the relative truth is "relative" to the absolute which is the unchanging brahman, thus change and non-change are the same, and the LNC is broken again, but if you said that falsity can exist by itself, outside of brahman, then falsity is it's own substance, thus inboth ways the LNC is broken, or brahman is changing and static or falsity is not self sufficient and self sufficient at the same time
>If that is the actual truth of why the source of the universe/all does what it does
but you can't prove that's the "actual" truth you can only use it as a cheap argument
>didn't provide any verifiable proof that his own alternative conception of causality is correct
he doesn't need to, because he doesn't have an alternative coneptionof causality, causality just doesn't exist

>>22405483
>saying that a relatively-real X lacks svabhava
if it lack svabhava then it shouldn't be able to exist, sinc ethere's no causes or conditions for it to manifest
>as anything that is an experienced phenomena and which depends upon other things is by definition not belonging to either of these categories.
something experienced in phenomena should be part of the absolute reality, if not then absolute reality is not absolute, absolute by defifnition must encompass everything, if not you have "the absolute" and "something else"making the absolute not so absolute anymore
>Saying that the relatively-real object (X) is false doesn't violate the LNC because it's not affirming two contradictory things at once
yes it is because you're saying that something "real" is also "false" a contradiction in terms, just like saying somethin can exist and not exist at the same time, or saying that something can manifest without an essence/svabhava which is by deffinition that which should be under any manifestation

>>22392422
there isn't one.

>>22384466
Honestly this. The absolute WHAT?

>>22405361
I am spent

>>22405146
Yes it's a real problem. There's far too much chaff and very little wheat. Philosophy academics are harmless however.

>>22382600
The changed the metaphysics of material reality. Literally unleashed knowledge that humans weren't supposed to harness. He did sleep well though because he believed in Christianity in a very humble normie way and wasn't bothered with much. But others(like the young Hegelians) couldn't and they made marxism to come with the Absolute Knowledge.

>>22385044
>He thought that the Prussian Christian state was the logical conclusion to history and we can't possibly reach a higher ideal.

Yes, Prussian and Meiji cameralism were the height of human political achievement. The best of all 3 good forms of government.

>>22406653
yes they are harmless yes yes but still a terrible nuisance. such is their chaff--as you say--i suspect only that a little spark or tinder woulsd ignite their flimsy postulations. such are the fantasies i have. while they are terrible bugbear the more sinister of characTARD are the diabolical ideas of such ''sustainability'' and ''solving'' od world problems through our art--as if such things are the remit of our practice--if not often in attaque position to them, yes-- comfort that these heGAYlians are so tense with and lost in there babble they have no time to instrumentalize us in global wars for flat horizontal politiks.

>>22382241
If there is difference between noumena and phenomena how could that evet be possible anon? In that case you will never get to absoloute as it is for you can reach it only in regards how absoloute is interpretated by subjective nature of human mind. It is what religion is.. all tallking about same thing but with different makeup and the most funny of all is the thing they tallk about mqy be makeup it sellf.

>If you ask me whar an apple is ill answer you banana

>>22382241
Marx: Transition to matter
Roman eclipse of Greece: Material

>>22407509
You've got it all backwards. The Absolute can *only* be known by the subjective human mind.

Bump

>>22386181
Holy shit, I did not realize the depths of Parminedes' (and most Greeks) stupidity. Being as a state of non-change is not self evident. Not even logically. Go read Kant and Hegel you pseud. Being is existence, fine granted, existence being a state of non-change is so wholly not representative of living things I cannot imagine what could have deluded anyone otherwise. Even fucking rocks change over time holy shit

>>22386207
At no point. It was always a puddle of water, what changed was it's relative temperature, causing the puddle of water to appear as a cube. It did change but not from cube to puddle but from puddle in one shape to puddle in another. If you were to boil it all into steam it's still the same water, merely changed to gaseous form. It was always the same water changing it's appearance. Ergo, things qua thinghood can change, even if this change is only superficial

STIP BEING SO SLOW /LIT/

>>22382241
O ly because they misunderstood. Hegel went so far as to reach I to the cultural organism, as Spengler would call it, and then went even further to beyond our own as culture bearers. I cannot say whether or not he succeeded, but I do know he went further than any man hitherto.

>>22410411
>and then went even further to beyond our own as culture bearers.
What do you mean by this?

>>22385044
>He thought that the Prussian Christian state was the logical conclusion to history and we can't possibly reach a higher ideal.
Are you fucking blind? Look at the sorry excuse of statecraft in the 20th and 21st century. World wars, nukes, concentration camps, unaccountable megacorps, and the rest bullshit straight out of the nightmares of dystopian and cyberpunk fiction writers, except it's you're not reading fucking fiction, it's the newspapers.

>>22410402
Slow boards are good. Go clean your room or do some chores.

>>22411468
Read his post again goofball, you're agreeing with him.

>>22386207
>But again, this is illogical because an object can't be 2 objects at the same time. If so
what you're using is the law of non-contradiction, invented by aristotle, he also said that an object can have the potency to become something else, in this case solid water has the potency of being liquid water, both are two different instances of being that can co-exist without breaking the law of non-contradiction

>>22392757
Hit the gym, join the hoplite's ranks

>>22411319
>As Spengler would call it
The higher order aggregate. The ant to the ant hill

>>22412347
You're saying this because you can hit 1/2/3/4 for reps... right?

>Christians arguing about which texts are real or not
>when the whole thing is an illusion
?

>>22412825
Does something being an illusion mean that it has no meaning?

>page 9
I am forgotten...

>>22382241
Yes Martin w. Ball and Tara Springett

>>22412865
it depend,s if the sole pourpose of the illusion is to convince you it's not an illusion tthen it has no real meaning, beyond being a simple trick

>>22391966
Terrance Deacon's Incomplete Nature has a neat theory of how consciousness emerges that is grounded in thermodynamics and reintroducing formal causation, but it's also a process not a substance metaphysics based view.


Yeah, substance based ideas in general seem doomed. They will remain the most popular because they are the most intuitive, but in actual philosophy and science I can't see them becoming anything but a minority holdout.

There was a french guy that reached awakening by thinking so much about Descartes work. Don't remember his name.

>>22415041
But the fact that the illusion exists at all implies that it exists at the behest of the Absolute, and if it exists at the behest of the Absolute then that implies it does in fact have meaning.