/lit/ - Literature

>>4519959
There's no way to reclaim a psycho history of a potentially fabricated character given the distance that the texts lie from their purported claims.

Is there really any evidence for W being a closeted gay? Not a troll, I am legitimately curious.

Sometimes I think we conflate the desire for love and friendship with homosexuality.

why is this even on /lit/

>>4519975
Because it speaks to the "human condition."

I always thought it was funny how when people say "he's probably gay" about a person who is straight but has views that oppose homosexuality or something, it's this kind of damning insult.

Though this thread is more along the lines "WHY CAN'T GOD BE A WOMAN" idiocy.

>bible
>supposed to be understood directly
Jesus christ, can you get any more retarded?

>>4519959
pretty sure mishima wasnt a closeted gay since his debut novel is 'hey look how gay i am'

>>4520060
Confessions of a Mask wasn't thought to be autobiographical back in the day you know. Nobody knew that Mishima was raised by an overprotective grandma or that he was physically weak.

>>4520044
But Jayses doesn't say anything about homosex, anon.

>>4520071

Nor is it so much as even implied he might have been one himself. This thread...

>>4520080
>Nor is it so much as even implied he might have been one himself. This thread...
No, it's just that he shares similarities with similar intellectual yet closeted figures.

Jesus, as far as the canon is concerned, is a pretty asexual figure.
Though a lot has been made of his supposed chastity, it could also be argued that to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John it simply didn't matter since they were focusing on other points.

>>4519959

You may have a documentary in this.

>>4519974

He wrote a note once saying that he masturbated to the to of one of his dudes and his waifu. Should have been burned. I don't know why anyone allowed it into the record. I felt uneasy reading it.

Haven't the gays already 'claimed' Da Vinci and like Abraham Lincoln or some shit? Aren't there enough real, confirmed gay people in history that you don't need to do this?

>>4520109
Well at least Wittgenstein and I share something in common, tehe.

>>4520110
It's like claiming historical persons as blacks/whites, atheists/proto-christians and so.

The people lack ability to see beyond their own kind.

>>4520110
Nothing but guesswork/what if..?'s/wishful thinking in most cases.
Leonardo's sodomy charge for instance was dropped twice. Then again, we do have pic related...

>>4520080
That isn't what the thread is about. OP was trying to psychoanalyze the historic Jesus to see if his behavior might mimic that of a repressed homosexual. Its a fun thing to think about but obviously no-one can prove it either way.

>>4519974
He was only as "closeted" as every gay was at the time. He had at least one male lover.

>>4520124
That picture...
>If Leonardo had deviantart
What horrors would we have seen?

>>4520110
Chill out hetrosexual person, you get all of the awesome historical figures. Statistically speaking loads of them must be gay, and it is fun to think about who they might be. Though from your claim that "you don't need to do this", I'm pretty sure history isn't a subject you take very seriously. Fuck historical figures, why would anyone want to know any more about THOSE cunts, eh?

>>4520140
Anatomically correct and beautifully rendered slash fiction?

>>4519974
>Sometimes I think we conflate the desire for love and friendship with homosexuality.
lel fag

>>4519974

No you're absolutely correct. It's more a conflation than it is actual homosexuality.

What people don't understand about him is that he was legitimately autistic. Autistic people have bizarre ideas of what relationships are supposed to be. In other words, the homosexuality between him and Francis, for instance, would be a case of a circuit overload, as it were, occurring upon an unusually intimate friendship.


Yes he did some gay shit, but it wasn't motivated through an intrinsic gayness, but rather, an intrinsic general weirdness. This type of homosexuality probably explains all allegedly 'gay' historical figures and perhaps even forms the basis of legitimate (insofar as it can be) homosexuality in itself.


As for Christ being a closet homosexual. Well first of all fuck you for your sacrilege/blasphemy, second, if you called him a closeted homosexual, you might as well postulate that there exists some form of latent homosexuality in all men, which, is perhaps actually true, although meaningless.

>>4519959
Not sure if you knew, but that's not supposed to be a rendition of Jesus.

>>4520207

You realize that you claim that he isn't a homosexual because he's autistic then claim that all legitimate homosexuals are gay only because they approach relationships like autists, right? You see that this is self defeating even before one challenges your faulty premises, right?

>>4520222

It's not actually contradictory. There's no direct contradiction. It's just insulting to homosexuals.


I first say he isn't homosexual, and then I would be saying homosexuality doesn't actually exist. You're saying it's a contradiction because I entertained the notion of the existence of homosexuality before I claimed that it didn't exist at all. Which is possible if you're making hypothetical statements or utilising a language game (heh).

>>4520222
>>4520227

In other words you think it's a contradiction because you think saying he isn't a homosexual somehow assumes that homosexuality truly exists. But claiming the negative of something doesn't necessarily assert a positive.

>>4519959
Jesus fucking Mary Magdalene makes more sense than he being gay. There is no evidence or hints of him being gay in the bible

>>4520207
That made absolutely zero sense.

Drop the facade of a logical syllogism and just be frank about it: you are uncomfortable with the idea of gay people existing at all. Maybe we should talk about why, it seems like a much more interesting topic.

What was your relationship with your father?

Jesus was a closeted goy

>rejects Jewish religion
>opens it to gentiles
>antisemite terrorist who attacks temples

>>4520053
[grace intensifies]

>>4520207

Also my case for saying homosexuality doesn't actually exist is in the idea of intrinsic gayness and the sufficient conditions thereof. You cannot have the concept of intrinsic gayness before it is assumed socioculturally. So exclusive homosexuality is a cultural construct, which mimics the somewhat more justified cultural construct of exclusive heterosexuality, which itself mimics the absolutely and necessarily justified biological construct of relative (inclusive) heterosexuality. But there is no logical transitivity; exclusive homosexuality is not justified by inclusive heterosexuality (because inclusive heterosexuality already is inclusive homosexuality; the former is a proper superset of the latter, and inclusive homosexuality subsumes exclusive homosexuality). In other words, in order to exist in and of itself, homosexuality needs a sociological component. In order to exist in and of itself, heterosexuality needs merely a biological component. Therefore, with respect to heterosexuality, homosexuality does not actually exist. It is already logically contained within heterosexuality.


So threads about historical figures being closeted homosexuals are, technically speaking, particularly meaningless. Closeted homosexuality is twice the mirage that open homosexuality is. It's not simply outward delusion but inward delusion. Now, is this entire relation explanatorily powerful in some capacity? It actually probably is. It betrays a psychological relation which is not tautological. But the name of this psychological relation would not specifically be called as 'closeted homosexuality', hence the thread is particularly meaningless.

>>4520247
the fuck are you talking about
There's plenty of people who aren't the least bit attracted to females.

>>4520241

Listen man, if you can't follow the logic, that's one thing, but to claim it's not right there before you? You're stripping yourself in front of everyone.

Read >>4520247


I'll respond to your nagging if you can give me a one-to-one correspondent counterargument. Otherwise don't waste your time.

>>4520251
>You're stripping yourself in front of everyone.

Interesting. Is the idea of exposing yourself among your peers a common fantasy of yours?

>>4520250

Yes, absolutely. And I'm not denying that they aren't themselves 100% convinced of it. But people are 100% convinced of things which are clearly not actually true quite often.

Feeling a certain way is tricky because you never know entirely and exactly how you feel. For if you did, it would be knowledge, not a feeling.

Homosexuality is in reality just a type of contorted heterosexuality. The empirical evidence is abundant enough but I went deeper here >>4520247 in providing the antecedent theory.

>>4520227
>>4520228

A language game denotes a use of language that takes into account the everyday social realty from which our words derive their meaning. Your usage of "homosexual" is entirely divorced from its everyday usage and is probably laden with pretentious metaphysical assumptions about what constitutes love and sex. So no you weren't doing a language game, but making an masturbatory and unintelligible comment about nothing more than your convictions. This is assuming that you aren't merely backpedaling now that someone has called out your nonsense. It's hard to believe that one would deny the existence of homosexuals while making a claim that there are "legitimate homosexuals" and "homosexuality in itself".

>>4520247
This is what happens when idiots into continental philosophy.

You are throwing about terms like "exists" and "in and of itself" in sentences totally foreign to their normal meaning. Gay or not, Wittgenstein would have no time for YOUR faggotry.

>>4520256

Is the utilisation of some semblance of psychoanalytic method your typical compensation for intellectual impotence? That's quite transparent, my fellow e/lit/ist.

>>4520257
Well if you wanna go that way, I'd say that most, if not all, people have some level of attraction towards both genders, but the homo side gets buried under societal pressure.
The internet phenomenon of traps and girly men illustrates this pretty well.

>>4520257
>The empirical evidence is abundant enough

[citation needed]

>>4520263

It's quite analytical I don't know from where you get continental.

>>4520258

>Your usage of "homosexual" is entirely divorced from its everyday usage and is probably laden with pretentious metaphysical assumptions about what constitutes love and sex.

It's actually precisely the opposite. I'm saying the common notion of homosexuality is that which doesn't exist. Now of course you meant to say my general idea of a sexual orientation, in which case, yes, that is something which is not common, it's quite formal, but I reconcile this by reducing it to a mere relation of relative biology, rather than some sort of metaphysical thing. So it's scientific reductionism. Or logical positivism.


And I don't follow. I'm saying that legitimate homosexuality and homosexuality in itself are precisely the things which do not truly exist. What's your point after that?

Homosexuality doesn't exist, but heterosexuality doesn't exist as well. We are all going for fetishes, regardless on biological function. The names go after the desires and the desires are always skewed from a center with nothing there.

>>4520271
A common trope in the continental school is the obsession with existence and things "in and of themselves", arguably both misreadings of Kant. You never find categories discussed in that manner in the analytic school, it is just a completely different mindset.

I'll give you Witty's own easy way out of this non-problem you've written yourself into: questions like "Can homosexuality exist in and of itself?" are merely symptoms of a more general malaise: in this case, a clear example of "language on holiday". You can say "Do black swans exist?" or "Can a physical body with no mass exist?" but questions of your order need not be asked, nor answered.

>>4520266

I would go not even as far as that. It's my hypothesis that the attraction itself is what's socioculturally fabricated. What exists objectively is the bare desire to mate. Who we deem viable objects for mating is rendered socioculturally. But in reality, mating only occurs through heterosexual means, therefore all types of sexuality must necessarily be fundamentally, at their most reduced/clarified state, heterosexual. There is very little room to argue against that fact. The only arguments which can be made ultimately succumb to tautology due to their relativity. Much like how you cannot truly escape d-incompleteness in formalisations of arithmetic. You can relativise the arithmetic, as did Gentzen, but you can never overcome the initial Gödelian incompleteness in any sort of mathematically meaningful way (otherwise the PM would still be in print to this day; it clearly isn't).

>>4520264
>impotence

You're a goldmine, anon. You have a recurring fear of being seen for what you really are by your fears that has manifested itself as a perverse fantasy, and a continual frustration at your own sexual impotence, an inability in your character to handle women in the virile fashion that is expected of you.

Anon, I think we need to have a talk.

>>4520286

It seems you've only read as far as early Wittgenstein because in his later works he secured a general method in which things which aren't essentially literally physical can still be meaningfully said to exist 'in and of themselves'. This was the whole point of logical positivism. The notion of a logical reduction. The idea that meaning, albeit necessarily arbitrary, can be secured by relating the genesis of a concept with its usage. So no, homosexuality cannot be meaningfully said to exist 'in and of itself' alone, but it CAN however be said to exist or not exist 'in and of itself' /with respect to/ heterosexuality (which comes into the equation once we consider logical genesis).

Read his Nachlass.

>>4520247

I know this is a parody of Wittgenstein's work, but still homosexuality has both sociological component (modern day gay culture,gay rights etc.) and a biological component.
the idea that homosexuality is the polar-sexuality opposite sexuality is really outdated and based on the older notions on how sodomy is the perverse polar opposite of vaginal sex.

Your argumentation is faulty because you assume homosexuality has no socio - historical basis whereas it is quite the opposite. There is nothing intrinsic within homosexuality nor in heterosexuality, however the "metaphysics" of sexuality have bounded heteresexuality to teh corporeal and legalistic agreements in a society (hence the marriage is just as much as business transaction based on the promice of biological production as it is a legal agreement), on the other hand homosexuality had to do with the kinship and spiritual search of knowledge (Plato). One was within the market based mode of production and the other was not.

Furthermore the idea that homosexuality has existed as social undercurrent in the past that it wasn't so much hidden is not that far behind,

Books like this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Secret_Life_(erotica)

show that homosexuality was an active phenomenon and an issue of discussion for the morals of the time not only presented as an exception but as a "real" sexuality.

>>4520303
I've never actually heard of someone so completely misreading Wittgenstein as this. I'm guess you are just a ruseman all along?

>>4520306
>I know this is a parody of Wittgenstein's work

Shit..now I feel like a complete idiot. It is a pretty shitty parody though that completely misreads the Late Wittgenstein's mindset in problems like this, so I use that as my defence.

>>4520277

If you actually read the sources which you reference, you'd understand that an idea being socially constructed is not a refutation of its existence. In Foucault all knowledge is constructed, historically through the exercise of power in discourse. Nothing is an in itself, but an appropriated interpretation of the appearances in service of whatever end we've attached ourselves to at any given point in history. Scientific reductionism is such a movement/method which seeks to place limits on knowledge, but is no more true to the things in themselves as any other movement. (This is not saying that all knowledge is equivalent, but that an external and human criteria of "usefulness" exists always as a background for the formation of power-knowledge.)

Your argumentative structure does not what you say it does. Your use of "legitimate homosexuality" would normally be construed as a callback to "actual homosexuality". Stop being a pretentious ass and be more clear.

>>4520306

> and a biological component.

It does not in the sense I'm speaking of. If you're referring to the biological predisposition of homosexuality then yes, that exists, but mind my confusing choice of words. When I use the term 'component', I don't mean it like that. Think of it as an opposite, or rather, simply more general notion of a 'construct' (I didn't want to say biological 'construct', as that runs oxymoronic to some degree, but that's probably a better word choice after all).


>the idea that homosexuality is the polar-sexuality opposite sexuality is really outdated and based on the older notions on how sodomy is the perverse polar opposite of vaginal sex.

Well I wouldn't say you could feasibly argue that homosexuality was materially distinguished from heterosexuality due to sodomy being conceived of as 'dirty' sex and vaginal as 'clean' sex. I'd say that's a gross oversimplification and probably wasn't the basis for the initial distinction. The initial distinction in fact did not exist before the 19th century, which was when the notion of homosexuality really edged its way into tangible existence.

>Your argumentation is faulty because you assume homosexuality has no socio - historical basis whereas it is quite the opposite.

Well that's quite the opposite of what I said. I mean ignoring here for a second that you're talking the idea of a basis far too literally to fit in with my part of the discussion, what I said was that the sociohistorical basis is /all/ that homosexuality ultimately had. It is the scaffolding upon which the common idea exists... but that scaffolding is damned to relativity for at the bottom, there is no Earth, only the vacuum.

>There is nothing intrinsic within homosexuality nor in heterosexuality

I would materially disagree. There is of course nothing intrinsic to the phenomenal aspect of either, but this is due to the nature of phenomenology itself. Heterosexuality /does/ possess an intrinsic aspect, but the name of that intrinsic aspect is not possibly phenomenal, but noumenal, and therefore cannot be called as 'heterosexuality', despite the fact that, ultimately, that's what it really is. This is precisely what logical positivism did for philosophy. It showed that everything has a phenomenological aspect to it, but this does not go so far as saying that noumenal aspects do not exist, they simply cannot be named, as they are 'buried' under their phenomenology (Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muß man schweigen), but just because we cannot speak of them with language /specifically in a way which lends to concepts of sufficient analyticity/ does not mean we can't 'understand' them (in the Kantian sense) through language games.

cont.

>>4520306

cont.


I don't quite see where you're going with the rest of your paragraph. But if one is conducive to a 'market based mode of production' and the other wasn't, this is not meaningless, it is precisely significant. You're fallacious disassociating law and economics from philosophy. That's artificial. You can't say 'the one is favoured simply because it 'makes money' ', because it is meaningful for something to 'make money'. 'Money' is not 'made' arbitrarily, as it were. The one people who think stupid people can become rich are themselves stupid people, who are not rich, in other words.


>show that homosexuality was an active phenomenon and an issue of discussion for the morals of the time not only presented as an exception but as a "real" sexuality.


I'm not talking about what society or any individual person considers real. I'm speaking of what is actually real, using the method handed down to us by the logical positivists,not excluding the big gay teutonic homo we're discussing right now.


>>4520325

Ever consider that it's you who's misread him? Not that your interpretation isn't obviously the majority, but I've read every single word ever recorded by the man, I'm infinitely confident that my interpretation is correct.

>>4520334
>>4520341
See
>>4520325
He's using a really shitty half-baked interpretation of Wittgenstein that he probably inherited from one lecturer he once had, and has then projected onto all his other work.
>>4520348
Bullshit. You don't even recognise the era that "language on holiday" comes from wait

>cont.

B-but that Anon was arguing against you? You are both sides of the argument?

Interestingly enough, the Bible mentions a certain disciple 'whom Jesus loved a lot'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disciple_whom_Jesus_loved

>>4520334

>If you actually read the sources which you reference, you'd understand that an idea being socially constructed is not a refutation of its existence.


I never said it was. In fact read >>4520341 in which I say that the fact that everything possesses a phenomenal aspect does not relegate the existence of everything into relativity. A sociocultural construction is fine as long as it's not violable of a biological construction.


> In Foucault

Well Foucault did not actually claim that all knowledge is socially constructed through power struggles. He said that all knowledge acquires its phenomenological façade through this mechanism. In other words, that power games are the naturalistic function of production of what we know, and this is absolutely tautological, so tautological in fact that it becomes significant (the revelation of its tautology), which was exactly the point of Foucault.


>(This is not saying that all knowledge is equivalent, but that an external and human criteria of "usefulness" exists always as a background for the formation of power-knowledge.)

And maybe if this is what Foucault said (and not simply an obvious misreading on your part), he forget to read his Wittgenstein, enough to realise that this statement, that usefulness is the necessary genesis of all knowledge, is itself consumed in its own relation, and is therefore self annihilative. It shows by saying that all knowledge is bound to the human criterion of usefulness that this human criterion of usefulness is /precisely meaningless/, and thus we simply use it as a ladder to arrive at our true, ineffable destination, only to knock it down. Why else would the man's smile have been so wide?


If actual homosexuality cannot exist then homosexuality in any sense cannot exist.

>>4520368
>Some interpreters have suggested a homoerotic interpretation of Christ's relationship with the Beloved Disciple, although the majority of mainstream Biblical scholars argue against any hard scriptural evidence to this effect.[13][14][15] That the relationship was interpreted as a physical erotic relationship as early as the 16th century (albeit in a heretical context) is documented, for example, in the trial for blasphemy of Christopher Marlowe accused of claiming that "St. John the Evangelist was bedfellow to Christ and leaned always in his bosom, that he used him as the sinners of Sodoma".[16] Finally, Calcagno, a citizen of Venice[17] faced trial in 1550 for claiming that "St. John was Christ's catamite".[14][18]

I want /lgbt/ to leave

>>4520348
>I'm infinitely confident that my interpretation is correct.

We can understand that as part of your insufferable pretension because Wittgenstein was never a logical positivist. Even the early work serves as a refutation of their goals because their aims are unspeakable. The early work is not a proof of the logical structure of the world, by rather a descriptive document describing how our language achieves grasps the world intelligibly. It's a sort of phenomenology. He does not reach beyond us to the things themselves. The late work refutes the basic notion that we may only approach the world scientifically and asserts that human social reality is the primordial origin of meaning.

You've read him entirely wrong.

>>4520352

Do you honestly feel like you have anything to say here? All I see from you is exactly what you're attempting to project onto me. Some incredibly feeble, malnourished interpretation which most everybody who reads him acquires when they have little sense of his essence. What a big surprise there.

>>4520385
I had a point, and then I realised that you are arguing against yourself so I gave up on it.

>>4520384

You're missing the entire point about human social reality being antecedent of scientific reality. You think he thinks language games are artificial, ad hoc utilisations, and that somehow they are primordial, when what he really said was that language games /are/ the scientific primordiality, just that the ascertainment of their phenomenology is precisely only ever given through their use, never their basis.

In other words, a scientific reduction of the world exists, it's just that we have to actually work for it, rather than simply calculate it, as in what the TLP touches upon.

>>4520389

Great counterargument. Beating up people by running away from them. Classic.

>>4520341

>'construct'

Everything is a "construct", if you want to dabble in in the metaphysics of the matter, then be more clear.

>The initial distinction in fact did not exist before the 19th century, which was when the notion of homosexuality really edged its way into tangible existence.

The distinction existed in the past, but it was during the 18th century that discution of homosexuality as a 'unique' seperate sexuality arose, hence the penalization of the sodomites.

>I mean ignoring here for a second that you're talking the idea of a basis far too literally to fit in with my part of the discussion, what I said was that the sociohistorical basis is /all/ that homosexuality ultimately had

A sociohistorical basis is what all sexuality has, nothing more. Sexuality doesn't have to do with metaphysics, but with psychology,biology and anthropology if you want to delve on the 'ontic' metaphysics of the matter, take up theology.

>This is precisely what logical positivism did for philosophy. It showed that everything has a phenomenological aspect to it, but this does not go so far as saying that noumenal aspects do not exist, they simply cannot be named, as they are 'buried' under their phenomenology (Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muß man schweigen), but just because we cannot speak of them with language /specifically in a way which lends to concepts of sufficient analyticity/ does not mean we can't 'understand' them (in the Kantian sense) through language games.

Firstly thats not what logical positivism is at all about, if you want to stress the importance of language concepts then I guess Quine and Davidson woudn't disagree discussing them but I don't see how dressing them up us "noumenal" makes them any less abstract and metaphysical. You can understand them, just like I can also understand the immortal soul (also intrinsic to the human body acording to christians) doesn't make it any more meaningful though.

>That's artificial. You can't say 'the one is favoured simply because it 'makes money' ', because it is meaningful for something to 'make money'. 'Money' is not 'made' arbitrarily, as it were. The one people who think stupid people can become rich are themselves stupid people, who are not rich, in other words.

Way to miss the point, precisely because economics and law are relevant to the philosophical discution of sexuality as a concept because they make it historical and material.


>I'm speaking of what is actually real, using the method handed down to us by the logical positivists,not excluding the big gay teutonic homo we're discussing right now.

Homosexuality is actually real, it is real historicaly, it is real as a concept, as an identity,culturaly and it is real biologicaly. What are we debading about here? Wittgenstein did indeed have major qualms about dubious ontologising concepts used in psychoanalysis and philsophy, but like you said, he didn't mean that linguistic concepts in general didn't mean anything.

>>4520370

You saying that things are meaningless tautologies does not make them so. It was Wittgenstein who said that his work consisted almost entirely of pointing out the obvious.

So how is the new Om?
I haven't listened to them in years.

>>4520398
No I mean literally you are arguing against yourself, replying to your own posts pretending to be someone else. I can't be doing with this shit.

There's not enough evidence. Besides, the evidence for Jesus as a historical figure is tenuous at best.

Maybe you should repent and be saved instead of listening to your marxist lesbian professor.

>>4520416

It kind of sucked from what I recall. Sounded like something that would play in an organic coffeeshop.

>>4520094
>Though a lot has been made of his supposed chastity, it could also be argued that to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John it simply didn't matter since they were focusing on other points.

This is the kind of thing that people with absolutely no knowledge of the Bible say.

No, Christ definitely did not have any form of sex with anybody, according to the Gospels. It's very easy to prove:

1. From Christ's words, you can see that he took the Old Law of Moses seriously and as such, he would never have had sex outside of marriage.
2. There is no mention of Jesus marrying except in some apocryphal text that was probably written by a Gnostic cult.
conclusion: he never had sex.

>>4520424
>>4520427

Jesus seems to me like a hysterical closeted fag, like not the closeted fag that gives you a reach around when you are alone and plays it off like nothing happened nor the "manly" man fag that tries to fool everybody and then gives blowjobs in bars.
I bet he had temper tantrums and thats why the whole notion of him being the "son of God" compensated his massive inferiority complex and the whole hygienic idea that his mother was a virgin. (lol seriously?)
His insistent moralising reveals a monomanic hysteria quite linked with him being closeted.

>tfw you discover that "homosexual" is a barbarously hybrid word that was coined in the 19th century by some radical feminist or some shit, and that the terms only purpose has been to turn the practice of sodomy into an entire personality / way of life.

Seriously, there's no such thing as homosexuality/gayness. It's just a personality that people who want to commit sodomy fabricate neurotically in order to not hate themselves. The idea of basing your entire soul/identity on your sexual desires is fucking laughable and beastly. It never occured to the people in the ancient world to do this, because they weren't insane. Men that banged other men were just called effeminates or sodomites, and looked down upon as lesser.

>>4520443
Why label at all? It only puts up boundaries.

>>4520401

>Everything is a "construct"

Just like how everything is an opinion. Everything is a phenomenology, even that which is noumenal. All facts are opinions, but they are still facts. A fact being an opinion in other words does not change the fact that it is in fact a fact. It's simply that opinion is the means by which facts are communicated. This is obviously meaningless, as is saying of everything that it is a 'construct'. Of course everything is a construct. That's how things in general are conveyed, constructively. That's just a fact of the nature of communication itself. Communication is necessarily constructive. The point is obviously that not everything is in and of itself constructive, despite the fact that this is its necessary means of mobility. As for things which are not constructive, they are precisely that which is unsayable, in Wittgenstein, as they are therefore not communicative.

>The distinction existed in the past, but it was during the 18th century that discution of homosexuality as a 'unique' seperate sexuality arose, hence the penalization of the sodomites.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_homosexuality#Historiographic_considerations

It was the 19th century in which the dichotomy was fabricated.

>A sociohistorical basis is what all sexuality has, nothing more.

No, heterosexuality is a logical entity, because it is precisely that aspect of sexuality in general which allows sexuality to exist in the first place, because heterosexuality is analytically reproductive (hence it is a logically recursive entity). Therefore heterosexuality is the proper name for sexuality in particular.

cont.

cont.

>Sexuality doesn't have to do with metaphysics

I don't see why you fail to read what I write like this. I mean I get that English isn't your first language, but I specifically said that sexuality did not have to do with metaphysics, because it is explained through logical reduction, which is the method of the logical positivists, who were the ones who rejected metaphysics. I'm talking about logic here and you interpret it as metaphysics. Perhaps because you don't understand that metaphysics is actually just logic, as Wittgenstein's work insinuates.

>...makes them any less abstract and metaphysical.

It is a case of demonstrability. Metaphysics is dubious because it cannot be logically verified. All of these logical things can. You can actually show (gezeigt) precisely how these understandings are meaningful. It's easier said than done, of course, and probably lies outside of the scope of this current discussion, but it is in fact possible, and that's what distinguishes it from typical metaphysical blather.


> What are we debading about here?

About whether or not it is real logically, which is what is meant when I speak of something existing 'in and of itself'. Heterosexuality exists in and of itself because it professes material existence, in its possibly recursive logicality. Homosexuality then is unreal as it possesses no possibly recursive logicality. You cannot naturally reproduce through homosexual means. If you could it would simply be heterosexuality. It's a matter of analyticity.

>>4520407

Okay. You're saying they are in fact significant so you'd be making the positive claim here. I'm open to hearing your proof of that.


>>4520419

I've not done that. Tell me where believe the infraction has occurred and I'll screen cap/prove my innocence.

>>4520395

Wittgenstein never concerned himself with scientific reductionism. He was an opponent of logical positivism and scientism in general. His preoccupations were with meaning and language. While a biological reality does underlay the peculiar human formation of meaning, reducing meaning to scientific reality was never the objective of his thought. He opposed the idea thoroughly, as a matter of fact. I quote:

>People often say that aesthetics is a branch of psychology. The idea is that once we are more advanced, everything - all the mysteries of Art - will be understood by psychological experiments. Exceedingly stupid as the idea is, this is roughly it.

>Aesthetic questions have nothing to do with psychological experiments, but are answered in an entirely different way.

>>4520455
>Why label at all?

Have you not read the first few chapters of Genesis wherein God instructs Adam to name things?

>>4520445
Again m8, you are only revealing your lack of knowledge. Every point you raise has a Biblical/theological explanation.

> the whole hygienic idea that his mother was a virgin.

This is because the Messiah was prophesized as being born of a virgin. The reason, also, that Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant. The Ark of the Covenant in the Old Testament was the chest that contained the stone tablets of the Law that Moses received on Mt. Sinai. It was the center of worship for the Jews. It's mentioned constantly throughout the Old Testament. Jesus, the Messiah, is said to establish an Eternal Covenant, to replace and fulfil the one that was received by Moses, and as such Mary is seen as being the new Ark of the Covenant, because she carried the New Covenant (Jesus Christ) in her womb. As such Mary is considered by theologians as being given the grace by God to be exempt from the Original Sin that subsists in every other member of humanity since the Fall in Eden.

>His insistent moralising

Jesus Christ is the culmination of the Old Testament prophets. "Insistent moralising" was the modus operandi of the prophets. Christ was continuing that tradition. You'd know this if you had read some of The Bible.

>>4520474

I'm not saying of him what you think I'm saying.


I'm not saying scientific reductionism will ever be able to explain things like art or aesthetics in general, but it is definitely the single correct method (à la logical positivism) in which linguistic meaning can be ascertained objectively.


That's my point. So many people misconceive Wittgenstein as claiming, with his notion of a language game, that language is some sort of 'art', when that's exactly the opposite of what he said. He did not say that meaning exists via language games and therefore that meaning is this relative, unascertainable thing, but rather that meaning exists via language games, and this means that, language games, which one would have thought to be relative, 'free' things, are in actuality constricted and susceptible to logical reduction. The revelation wasn't that objectivity was actually subjectivity, but that subjectivity was actually objectivity.


I forgot the specific philosopher who made the point about the actual artificiality of 'later' and 'early' Wittgenstein, but that is relevant here. Wittgenstein himself would not have thought of his later period as a volte face from his early. In reality he would have viewed the latter as a justification of the former, just that the one was simply a maturation of the other. In other words, the two philosophies were in fact 'related', they are different versions of the same thing.

>>4520484
Also, if you had read the Gospels you'd know that Christ does not insist on his mother being a virgin. I don't think he even mentions it himself.
There is nothing neurotic about the way Jesus spoke. If anything, it was the Pharisees that behaved neurotically because they were always scrambling for ways to excuse themselves when Christ showed in a very straightfoward manner, citing Scripture, that they were wrong. It might SEEM like he behaved neurotically, but only if you have no knowledge of Jewish culture and the way that they behaved.

gay is fetish attraction for one's own sex. similar to sub/dom, furryness, etc.

when you realize that a gay man feels the same way about cock as you do about women's feet, getting kicked in the dick, people dressed as animals, or whatever you're into, then you must conclude that being gay isn't so strange.

and don't say that "fetishes are strange" because most, if not all, people have them and they are thus naturally inherent in our psyche.

>>4520517


>and don't say that "fetishes are strange" because most, if not all, people have them and they are thus naturally inherent in our psyche.


Sure is a nice day for a naturalistic fallacy.

>>4520459
>Okay. You're saying they are in fact significant so you'd be making the positive claim here. I'm open to hearing your proof of that.

You already give one proof in your irrelevant diatribe about how knowledge isn't socially constructed but acquires its phenomenological façade through social construction.

On the second point, you've completely failed to understand Foucault's position. He doesn't make the claim the knowledge exists apart from the knower. Knowledge happpens for us in the context of lives full of meaning, goals, attachments, and productions. I put usefulness in scare quotes because I mean it in the broadest way possible. Knowledge is formed because we care about the world in ways that make particular ways of seeing and apprehending superior to others.

>>4520524
naturally, as in, occuring within a man without the will of the man himself. being born with it or it developing in the mind due to exposure to some external force while the man remains unaware of its construction. also there's no moral argument here

>>4520536

>He doesn't make the claim the knowledge exists apart from the knower.

This is I think your faulty interpretation of him. This is the common misconception anyway. No credible philosopher would ever make the claim that knowledge does not exist apart from the knower. This is just the simplistic interpretation of them when they say that the phenomenology of knowledge does not exist apart from the knower, which is what I'm calling a tautology. And that's what Foucault is, a tautology which is so big and intervening that it ends up being significant through peripheral means. It's in fact this concept of significance through peripherality which spawned the absurdity which is postmodernism. Postmodernism is the exploitation of this possibility, and postmodernism is only merited precisely where this possibility is not deliberately/actively exploited (so, like with anything, postmodernism is different from that which is essentially postmodern, although they are relatively the same thing. So heterosexuality is different from that which is is heterosexual, where that which is heterosexual is simply that which is 'logically sexual', but they are, relatively speaking, the same thing, as the phenomenal aspect of a noumenal object is nevertheless phenomenal (this is precisely the transparent nature of the noumenal)). So the phenomenology of knowledge cannot exist apart from the knower, but this is not identical to saying that knowledge itself cannot exist apart from the knower. Because, if we cite Wittgenstein, we see that he never said that which is metaphysical absolutely does not exist, simply only that it does not exist in language. And then so many people think Wittgenstein said that all that which actually exists in that which is language, and this is what he literally said, but what he actually meant in saying this was precisely its opposite, as he later clarifies in 5.6 (in the TLP) onward.

(This is why I call your guys' interpretation of him naïve. You take him literally, to the point of designated absurdity, and you stop there, and end in absurdity, when the effect was that you should take him literally, to the point of the designated absurdity, and stop and realise it's absurd. This was his intention. He didn't even leave it up to mystery, this is exactly what he intended to show with the ladder remark. It wasn't even an original quote, it was taken from Goethe, why else would he have included it? I don't however need to convince any of you by just using the TLP. Again, read his Nachlass and see for yourself.)


cont.

>>4520536

cont.

>Knowledge happpens for us in the context of lives full of meaning, goals, attachments, and productions.

Precisely, this is exactly what the phenomenology of knowledge is. You're confusing this with knowledge in itself. (Which to you doesn't exist because the necessary condition for existence in your mind is phenomenology! And this is exactly the plane we escape by ascending Wittgenstein's ladder, as explained in the prior parenthetical remark. To you, a 'misreading of Kant' is simply anybody who understands Kant. Who takes him to his intended logical conclusion.)

>Knowledge is formed because we care about the world in ways that make particular ways of seeing and apprehending superior to others.

The phenomenology of our knowledge. Not knowledge itself. Hence this is tautological.

>>4519959
Where did Jesus preach about Chasity? That was all Paul who went so far as to say believers shouldn't marry.

>>4520489

The existence of meaning is ineffable in the early work and socially construed in the later work. It has nothing to do with logic in either case. He implicitly argues against meaning being logically specific with his beetle thought experiment. The meaning of beetle in that case is not identifiable with the insect in the box, but rather with our common understanding of how to use the word, which is fuzzy and dependent on how close our experiences are to one another.

I don't think you've ever actually read the PI.

>Four years ago I had occasion to re-read my first book (the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus} and to explain its ideas to someone. It suddenly seemed to me that I should publish those old thoughts and the new ones together: that the latter could be seen in the right light only by contrast with and against the background of my old way of thinking.

>For since beginning to occupy myself with philosophy again, sixteen years ago, I have been forced to recognize grave mistakes in what I wrote in that first book. I was helped to realize these mistakes—to a degree which I myself am hardly able to estimate—by the criticism which my ideas encountered from Frank Ramsey, with whom I discussed them in innumerable conversations during the last two years of his life. Even more than to this—always certain and forcible—criticism I am indebted to that which a teacher of this university, Mr. P. Sraffa, for many years unceasingly practised on my thoughts. I am indebted to this stimulus for the most consequential ideas of this book.

>>4520593
> That was all Paul who went so far as to say believers shouldn't marry.

Actually, Paul said that believers SHOULD marry, because it's better to marry than to commit fornication. All he said was that he would prefer it for people to be completely chaste, but for those people who are unable to be chaste, it is far better for them to marry.

>>4519974
Who? DFW?

>>4520593

Jesus doesn't forbid marriage, but in the Sermon on the Mount he says

-don't commit adultery
-don't even look at someone with lust, it's the same as adultery
-(implicitly and arguably) don't masturbate
-don't divorce except in cases of "sexual immorality"

From which it makes some sense for Paul to say that if you don't think you can pull it off it's better for you not to marry.

>>4520578
>>4520580

Only Platonists could possibly construed to make the claim that knowledge exists apart from knowers, but even this is false, for knowledge according to Platonists is innately possessed through our spiritual connection to the form which makes the others intelligible (The Good or Logos/God). For everyone else, knowledge tends to be some variation of verified true belief. Truth could exist independently, the arche exists independently, but not knowledge as it requires the assertion of propositions and modes of verification.

Knowledge in itself is a stupidity of wrought of the progression onto-theology. It is divorced from the primary experience of human beings. The phenomenologist brackets existence and other metaphysical baggage to see things as they present themselves in themselves. Heidegger showed that these things are inextricably tied to our sorge by analyzing dasein with a phenomenological method. Foucault inherits the results of the Heideggerian project, he makes no claims about what exists or does not exist in itself, but instead calls to attention the many different modes in which we have let being present itself. Foucault is not a postmodernist in the vulgar sense because he is remains critically engaged with knowledge and the world.

You are concerned with noumena, when none of the philosophers hitherto discussed have made noumenal reality a major subject of concern. Your interpretations of Wittgenstein and Foucault are irrelevant because the writers never sought to address the problem which concerns your thinking.

>>4520517
>when you realize that a gay man feels the same way about cock as you do about women's feet

It's a lot closer to how I feel about pussy and tits, not a woman's feet.

>>4520794
As a gay dude with a foot fetish, I agree it's definitely not the same way.

>>4520755

It's like you don't even read my posts. You're speaking of the phenomenology of knowledge (which is probably truth). You're clearly still trapped in the relation of assuming phenomenology as a necessary condition for existence. You're stuck on the fact that knowledge per se cannot exist phenomenologically, because knowledge is precisely that which is noumenal. You think this implies that knowledge in and of itself does not actually exist. If you were ever brave enough to take this to its logical conclusion, you would not be able to evade the glaring fact that it is purely nonsensical. Saying that knowledge does not exist in and of itself because it is not in and of itself phenomenologically apparent is logically identical to claiming that everything doesn't exist because you cannot see everything.


>when none of the philosophers hitherto discussed have made noumenal reality a major subject of concern

This is exactly why I can't take you seriously. If you can't spot the obvious fault in that then you are as intellectually naïve as they come.

Let me spell it out for you:

They never address these problems because the problems themselves are not addressable. But what they did address, one of the at least, was specifically that which is not addressable. Break on through to the other side.

>>4520816
> You're clearly still trapped in the relation of assuming phenomenology as a necessary condition for existence

No.

>knowledge is precisely that which is noumenal.

Wrong.

>You think this implies that knowledge in and of itself does not actually exist.

No.

>If you were ever brave enough to take this to its logical conclusion

If I was pretentious enough to reach beyond human understanding, I would perhaps, but you've created a false dilemma with your ignorance of philosophy or inability to parse arguments.

>They never address these problems because the problems themselves are not addressable. But what they did address, one of the at least, was specifically that which is not addressable. Break on through to the other side.

The modern tradition attempts to solve this problem, not sure how you think it's impossible to approach, especially when you're so fixated on Kantian terminology.

>>4520847

I'll respond to you when you afford me a proper response. Not just a handful of ur rongs and empty attacks upon semantics or projections of your own ignorance/inability.

>>4520853
>> You're clearly still trapped in the relation of assuming phenomenology as a necessary condition for existence

The first step of phenomenology is the bracketing of existence. I've said this.

>>knowledge is precisely that which is noumenal.

Knowledge is found in true propositions which are true via a isomorphic relation to reality. A proposition pictures a fact, etc.

>>You think this implies that knowledge in and of itself does not actually exist.

I make no claims about what exists or does not exist in itself, only that it is unavailable and unknowable and less useful than a more sophisticated view for even the task of natural science.

You don't understand phenomenology. You don't understand what knowledge means in philosophy generally. You don't understand the logical positivist understanding of truth. You don't understand the meaning of PI or the TLP. There is no reason to take you seriously.

>>4520053
You've confused the currently trendy interpretation among people you know, with the one and only correct interpretation.

Tiny minded children like you make any community worse. Fuck off the internet. You don't even deserve Reddit.

>>4520044
God isn't a woman, but wisdom is
read ur Solomon

>>4519959
yo great album. fucking love emil.

>>4520158
i guess you didn't look enough the pic

>>4520875

>The first step of phenomenology is the bracketing of existence. I've said this.

That bears no relation to what I said.


>Knowledge is found in true propositions which are true via a isomorphic relation to reality. A proposition pictures a fact, etc.

That bears little relation to what I said. Knowledge is precisely that which is noumenal but this does not inhibit knowledge from having a phenomenal representation, which, as I said, all things necessarily do. If you remember in the TLP he states that the relation of a picture to its reality is ineffable. This is the noumenality of knowledge. Let me find the exact numbers:
>2.172
>2.173
>2.174
>3.13
>You don't understand phenomenology. You don't understand what knowledge means in philosophy generally. You don't understand the logical positivist understanding of truth. You don't understand the meaning of PI or the TLP. There is no reason to take you seriously.

Took the words right out of my mouth. Glad you realise this. Don't speak in the third person next time though. That's creepy.

>>4520810
Plus there's the romance aspect as well.

I'm sure that homosexuality isn't just a fetish.

>>4520932
>That bears no relation to what I said.

"You're clearly still trapped in the relation of assuming phenomenology as a necessary condition for existence."

What the hell is wrong with you? Here you make the faulty assumption that I am at all concerned with existence to which I respond that a phenomenologist brackets existence.

>2.172: A picture cannot, however, depict its pictorial form: it displays it.

>2.173: A picture represents its subject from a position outside it. (Its standpoint is its representational form.) That is why a picture represents its subject correctly or incorrectly.

>2.174: A picture cannot, however, place itself outside its representational form.

>3.13:A proposition includes all that the projection includes, but not what is projected.
>Therefore, though what is projected is not itself included, its possibility is.
>A proposition, therefore, does not actually contain its sense, but does contain the possibility of expressing it.
>(‘The content of a proposition’ means the content of a proposition that has sense.)
>A proposition contains the form, but not the content, of its sense.

This has nothing to do with the existence of a noumenal reality and less still to do with the existence of noumenal knowledge. You need to demonstrate that Wittgenstein or any other philosopher in the history understood knowledge to exist independent of mind or minds.

>>4520987

The romance aspect is arbitrary. If feet could talk and feel emotions we'd be become emotionally inclined towards them too.

Everything is ultimately 'just a fetish', even the phenomenological aspect of heterosexuality. The point is that heterosexuality is a functional fetish. And a functional fetish turns out to be the definition for what we thought would have been called 'not a fetish'. The difference between a fetish and that which is not a fetish, or a 'legitimate' sexuality is precisely functionality. This bifurcates heterosexuality from everything else, so it may seem simplistic, but the truth always is.

So one may argue that it doesn't seem right that everything besides heterosexuality should be considered a fetish, but surprise surprise, this is what was said in the first place, before we began to normalise sexual perversion and attempt to rationalise it as just some alternative type of 'orientation'.

>>4520996

> to which I respond that a phenomenologist brackets existence.


You keep saying that without explaining how it's relevant.


>This has nothing to do with the existence of a noumenal reality and less still to do with the existence of noumenal knowledge. You need to demonstrate that Wittgenstein or any other philosopher in the history understood knowledge to exist independent of mind or minds.


See >>4520816 and then read >>4520932 once more.

Those listed propositions explain very clearly that the relation between the picture and its depicted reality is noumenal. I could quote any of the sentences in that set of propositions to cite this fact but 3.13, especially the first sentence,
>A proposition includes all that the projection includes, but not what is projected.
And 2.172
>A picture cannot, however, depict its pictorial form: it displays it.
explicates it the best.

You're saying it has nothing to do with the existence of noumenal reality because Wittgenstein never literally uses the word, or refers to the concept, and it is this sophomoric degree of understanding of what the philosophy is actually saying that leads one to believe you have no place in this discussion. You are not thinking for yourself. You're expecting everything to be spelled out for you, which is fine if you want to learn, but it's not fine if you want to attempt to speak. Though it's really none of my concern as to whether or not you ultimately end up understanding. I could care less. If you don't, then sucks for you, you simply don't understand it and nothing more or less.

>>4521032

To demonstrate your assumptions you need to consult texts in the context in which they were written and provide arguments. This is how scholarly work is done. Scholars do not provide quotes out of context and then force them to fit their pet theories. If you think your theory is legitimate you need to support it with more than a few ambiguous statements that can be read to suggest what you assume.

Conventional Wittgenstein scholarship does not support any of your claims as Wittgenstein is understood to be unconcerned with the modern project of proving or proving that we have access to the external world. He reverses things by explaining how we do have access to it. There is no thing in itself in his philosophy, but only a thing intelligible to us through language and logic. In the final chapters he claims that the distinction between subject and thing in itself is faulty because "The limits of language are the limits of the world." (TLP 5.6) as he has demonstrated earlier in the text, implying that "[I]t can be seen that solipsism, when its implications are followed out strictly, coincides with pure realism. The self of solipsism shrinks to a point without extension, and there remains the reality co-ordinated with it." (TLP 5.64). Clearly this is not Kantian idealism for which the subject and world are irreducibly separated. The Kantian usage of noumena does not apply to his thinking. Again his work is closer of phenomenology than it is to modern work. There is an external world, but no thing-in-itself because thingness is necessarily mediated through Logos/God/Good/language/arche.

>>4521221

This matter is above scholarship. Scholarship is attempted understanding. This is a matter of actual understanding. They are two distinct actions and the former is not necessarily simply a subset of the latter, neither is the latter necessarily simply a superset of the former.


You sounded like the type to have been bogged down by academic practice, rather than actual philosophical motivation. You've confirmed that here.

As for the pejorative comment, my 'pet theory', if you'll refer to above, it should be clear enough that this theory is properly that which cannot be claimed. If it is indeed actual understanding, then it is none other than Wittgensteins' himself. That is to say, if a scholar ends up actually understanding a philosopher, it is not properly speaking the scholar's interpretation of said philosopher, but the philosophy itself, simply posthumously extended. If I correct Wittgenstein, rather than simply interpret him, then that correction is indeed not my possession, but his. The fact that he is no longer alive, or that he himself did not explicate it in such a specific degree of articulation is of no matter here. It's a time of temporal prejudice which convinces one of otherwise. If one creates a logic, and does not explicate all the primitives of this logic, the fact that further primitives were discovered later on does not meaningfully elude his authorship: he is the one who created the logic from which they were necessarily derived. It is simply that the necessity here only exists within the logic, not within either reality or time. This is of no matter in this case, though, because these suppositions are in fact things which Wittgenstein himself reasonably confirmed. Simply never in an explicit manner. Do you naïvely presume that every deliberate aspect of a philosopher's work must be explicated literally in order to be of his intention?

There is the possibility that scholars simply do what they do incorrectly. The good scholar is then he who accepts this necessity, and presents his scholarship in spite of the fact that it is ultimately futile. The others are patently naïve.

>>4521221


Conventional Wittgenstein scholarship has simply never made the connection. This does not mean it does not exist. The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. Besides, anybody who understood Wittgenstein, and understood the reasons why he did not literally explicate these aspects of his theory (aside from the existence of the 7th proposition in the TLP; the insinuation which exists in the fact that it concludes the work, in the particularly abrupt manner that it does) (despite the fact that, relatively speaking, in his case, literal explication defines impossibility), would not themselves attempt to explicate it. So that is the necessary failure in my existence in this discussion, which admits your opinion here as true, albeit only to a tautological extent. It does not exist in the scholarship for a very good reason. Though a discussion on /lit/ needn't be proper scholarship, mind you.


>There is no thing in itself in his philosophy, but only a thing intelligible to us through language and logic.

This is precisely what he did not say (gezeigt), by saying (gesagt) precisely this. See >>4520395 and >>4520489.


>In the final chapters he claims that the distinction between subject and thing in itself is faulty because "The limits of language are the limits of the world."

This is plainly wrong. The actual translation of 5.6 is "...are the limits of MY world". This makes all the difference. He is not saying that the limits of language are the actual limits of the world, and therefore that the world is inherently relative with respect to language, rather, he is stating that the limits of one's OWN world, or the totality of personal phenomenology is defined by the limits of language. This relates to the prior point in which you claim that he makes the point that the only thing which exists is that thing which is linguistically/logically intelligible. This is the EXACT opposite of the point of the TLP, and it's very important to highlight this, because this is agreed upon by most scholars, so you can't even begin to claim that it's something to do with my personal agenda. The point Wittgenstein made in the TLP was that the world does exist, but that language is insufficient to grasp it, not that the world itself was somehow insufficient. Though, of course, this is the literal execution in the text, and, again, if you don't follow the point into its absurdity and realise you've encountered an absurdity, if you don't reconcile that absurdity (his intention), but rather blindly trust him, then you've precisely misunderstood his entire philosophy in this period.

>>4521221

5.64 is a refurbishment of precisely the same thing I'm explaining here. Solipsism coincides with pure realism precisely because everything has a phenomenological component, even the noumenal itself. This does NOT however imply that the noumenal is essentially phenomenal, as you would be claiming here. Wittgenstein hopes you see the absurdity of a world which is sheerly phenomenal, so that you will concede that such a world could not possibly exist divorced from a noumenal centre.


I suppose no one can stop you from clinging to your naïve interpretation of his work. It really does no harm to anybody but yourself, in which case, at least I can say I tried. Ultimately I simply wish that I myself would not be the one inadvertently forcing you into this fallacious attachment. Please do take a step back and consider its possibility.

A song for you anon.
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fWyzwo1xg0

>>4519959
>>4520910


Yeah Om is pretty great

>>4520435
>1. From Christ's words, you can see that he took the Old Law of Moses seriously and as such, he would never have had sex outside of marriage.
>2. There is no mention of Jesus marrying

Never disputed that, my point was that even if Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John had knowledge otherwise, they wouldn't have focused on it because that wasn't what was important to them or to the reader.

>conclusion: he never had sex.
Or that it simply wasn't important to Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John or it just didn't fit their agenda. Thing is, there's a lot we don't know about the real historical Jesus. There's a lot of time that isn't accounted for.
Of course you're going to take what I'm saying with a grain of salt if you're a true believer of the dogmatic kind but that doesn't make the open question any less valid. Who was Jesus before he became Christ, really?

Joseph died dude.

Jesus loved the hell out of him. He taught him carpentry as an good father would.

mine didn't ;_;

>>4521620
Joseph had a hard life.
Imagine playing the cuckold to the holy spirit.
No wonder he never put it in Mary after that, how was he going to compete?

>so many people in this thread who think they know stuff

Lol, contemplate the forms fags. Learn to theurgy, fate-controlled sheep. Can you even into theoria?

>>4521653
>*tips theoria