/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.11737207]

Is Rene Guenon right about western philosophy?

Only asking bc i havent really read any western philosophy other than rene guenon, and i want to know if its as huge a waste of time as he says it is

[Anonymous No.11737324]

>>11737207
To a large extent he is, although if you read through more of his work you find he cites many instances where Plato, Aristotle and even Aquinas were correct and he later makes all sorts of addendums and qualifications where he includes the Neoplatonists and Hermetics as being western people who 'got' metaphysics (in the sense he uses it) and his colleagues like Coomaraswamy go further in pointing out how select western thinkers like Philo, Eckhart, Bohme, Clement of Alexandria, Nicholas of Cusa, Spinoza etc were often able to reach the same or similar conclusions too.

[Anonymous No.11738677]

bump

[Anonymous No.11739302]

bump

[Anonymous No.11739314]

>>11737207
Yeah, post-cartesian philosophy a shit

[Anonymous No.11739400]

>>11737207
>Cartesian dualism: artificially opposing knowing and being, an opposition which is the negation of all true metaphysic

could someone please elaborate on this? not sure how the brain/soul duality opposes knowing and being

[Anonymous No.11739560]

>>11739400
Meaning that it puts knowing and being in opposition to one another, makensthen separate. True metaphysics is premised on the unity of knowing and being. The intellect is adequational. To know something is to become identified with that knowledge. Subject-object dichotomy is transcended in metaphysics (in the way Guenon uses this term).

[Anonymous No.11739614]

>>11737207
You're just going to get /lit/'s regular collection of Guenonfags. Western philosophers won't have a response because they haven't read some random nobody.
I don't know how you'd get arguments against Guenon's position. But ask yourself, is it really sensible that pretty much every great western thinker is wrong, or is it just the guy you've only ever heard of on 4chan?

[Anonymous No.11739628]

>>11737207
>Only asking bc i havent really read any western philosophy
pottery

[Anonymous No.11739635]

>>11737207
>other than rene guenon

he isn't philosophy and would prob be repulsed to hear you group him in like that

to answer your question, yes. but there are some good guys: heraclitus, plotinus, etc.

[Anonymous No.11739669]

>>11739614
>But ask yourself, is it really sensible that pretty much every great western thinker is wrong, or is it just the guy you've only ever heard of on 4chan

This argument could easily be made in reverse, especially since almost everyone in western philosophy disagrees with almost everyone else in it

>But ask yourself, is it really sensible that pretty much every great religious tradition of the east was wrong when they talk about the fundamental unity of everything, or is it the associated people grouped under western philosophy who all put forward their own personal interpretation of the truth that disagrees with dozens of other philosophers and presumes that they as individuals understood the ultimate nature of reality?

[Anonymous No.11739681]

>>11739614
But every "great" Western thinker disagrees with every other "great" Western thinker. So your point is totally moot. The whole history of Western phil is the history of brainy dudes disagreeing with each other.

[Anonymous No.11739685]

>>11737207
Yes, but it officially starts with the nominalism (the rejection of the reality of universals or essences) of William of Ockham. This is taken from The Last Superstition by Edward Feser, a must-read.

[Anonymous No.11739693]

>>11739685
Little known fact, but the so-called Protestant reformers were themselves highly influenced by the ideas of Ockham:
http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2014/01/post-tenebras-lux/

[Anonymous No.11739733]

>>11739685
>>11739693
>The downfall of western thought was set in motion by an Englishman

Angl*s once again out-jewing the jews

[Anonymous No.11739783]

>>11739733
It's all the Euros that are at fault desu:
>Anglos make everything droll, utilitarian, and materialist
>French radicalize everything
>Germans are obscurantists
>Ashkenazi Jews (they are Euros too) take the worse tendencies of each and create hybrid monsters (see Marx, Freud etc)

[Anonymous No.11739789]

>>11739783
Mediterraneans did nothing wrong.

[Anonymous No.11739792]

>>11739783
>Italians are just lazy and go along with the program, but never really get what's going on like people who walk into the middle of a conversation

[Anonymous No.11739846]

>>11739685
>>11739693
source your fucking shit, nigger

[Anonymous No.11739872]

>>11739685
absolutely based, but the immanentization of universals technically began with Aristotle

[Anonymous No.11739955]

>>11739669
>>11739681
>This argument could easily be made in reverse
Sure! The point is not that western philosophy is correct, but that Guenon is wrong. Guenonfags will never acknowledge their own shit might stink, they just start babbling about magic.

What OP needs is some critical analysis of the Gue-phil, and they should be aware they aren't going to get it here.

[Anonymous No.11739990]

>>11739955
>The point is not that western philosophy is correct, but that Guenon is wrong

But you claimed that Guenon was wrong by appealing to the authority of western philosophers. On what basis, if not on that, do you believe that Guenon is wrong?

[Anonymous No.11739997]

>>11739955
Give us this critical analysis, or some indication of where it can be found

[Anonymous No.11740186]

>>11739990
Everyone is wrong sometimes. But will you ever hear about it from these Guenon threads? No. Especially if your bias going in, like OP, was he's the best ever.

>>11739997
I don't know. I'd be (vaguely) interested to see it. But so far I've engaged with /lit/ guenonists a few times and I've never been impressed enough with their critical thinking to bother engaging with the source material. Neither is any other philosopher, as far as I can tell. I suspect the situation, and their beliefs, is similar to how I've never really felt like joining the Baha'i faith either.

[Anonymous No.11740205]

>>11740186
Share some of your own issues and critical views than

[Anonymous No.11740247]

>>11740186
If all you care about is critical thinking then you'd be far better off sticking with your philosophers. In order to properly appreciate him you first have to give up on everything that's modern. If you haven't made that step yet there's no point in reading him.

[Anonymous No.11740249]

>>11740186
>trust me when I say that someone is wrong despite that I've never read them and despite me being unable to come up with even some basic criticisms of his ideas

nice try kiddo

[Anonymous No.11740446]

>>11740247
>If you care about critical thinking
>>11740249
>never lose faith, never question
Yes, good examples of poor reasoning.

>>11740205
On which part exactly?

[Anonymous No.11740463]

>>11737207
>Is Rene Guenon right about western philosophy?
Probably not

[Anonymous No.11740520]

>>11740446
>On which part exactly?
We can start with anything, but I suppose it's better to start with general and broad objections and then move on to specifics. So what are some general criticisms of Guenon's overall weltanschaaung that you have?

[Anonymous No.11740536]

>>11739685
>Feser lives with his wife and six children in Los Angeles, California.
chad af

[Anonymous No.11741113]

>>11740520
"Traditionalism seems to be too reactionary and too nostalgic to offer a workable way to move through and beyond modernity. Its positive theses about perennial philosophy romanticize the occult aspects of the world’s religious traditions and are backed by unsupported assumptions, tenuous comparisons based on a prejudiced selection of materials, and rather wild speculations."

Rene seems to believe the solution to modernity is some soon-to-arrive hindu eschatology. When is it exactly? Is this like the Christian 'end is nigh'...two thousand years later? Is this really the best we can do? Just wait for everything to collapse?

Also the followers, and perhaps Rene, seem to have an anti-rationalism bias that is far less adorable than Lao Tzu.

[Anonymous No.11742033]

>>11741113
>"Traditionalism seems to be too reactionary and too nostalgic
Nostalgia literally means sentimental or wistful longing which has nothing to do with Traditionalism, which more pertains to an intellectual understanding and the related evaluations of things based on their merits or lack thereof. It has nothing to do with wishing to return to a 'golden age' for the sake of itself but rather the problems that plague the modern world are largely identified as stemming from modernity itself. It's for this reason that modernity is seen as bad and nothing to do with Nostalgia. Reactionary is perhaps less inaccurate but from the long perspective Traditionalists are really just advocating for a return to what has been normal for the vast majority of humankind's history.

>to offer a workable way to move through and beyond modernity.
They talk about specific examples of ways to do this (within the limits of what possible within a given cosmic cycle), specifically they talk about an elite forming and studying eastern doctrines as well as their own history/texts and using that combination to find and then reinvigorate the truly metaphysical doctrines that are nature to their own culture, and everything falls into place after that as the major problems are largely the result of these already being mostly lost.

>Its positive theses about perennial philosophy romanticize the occult aspects of the world’s religious traditions
Occult is entirely the wrong word to use here. Occult implies knowledge of the supernatural/demonic worlds which has nothing to do with Traditionalism which has to do with the divine and how this is interpreted as metaphysics/spirituality. The Traditionalists mostly (aside from maybe a few exceptions like Evola) do not romanticize anything but simply take the texts and doctrines on the terms laid out by these texts themselves without adding any added layer of interpretation or criticism.

[Anonymous No.11742038]

>>11741113
>>11742033

>and are backed by unsupported assumptions, tenuous comparisons based on a prejudiced selection of materials, and rather wild speculations."
This is wrong. There are an amazing amount of coincidences, similarities and nearly identical doctrines between Zoroastrianism, Vedanta, Tantra, Daoism, Mahayana, Sufism and Sihkism. Most of the people who claim what you did have not read much of the primary texts themselves but rely on secondhand summaries like Wikipedia descriptions. It's not the only possible conclusion one can reach but it's hardly a far-fetched one to notice that many of them seem to be describing the same thing. Furthermore the ideas the traditionalists reach are a natural conclusion of these texts. The Upanishads, Ibn Arabi's writings, The Zhuangzhi, the Guru Granth Sahib and other texts all describe an infinite, limitless and all-pervading divine reality of God, it's silly to think that this is only true 'within one religion'. If any of them are correct then this all-pervading god penetrates all things, all galaxies and planets, all cultures, all peoples and all religions, even if they don't fully understand it. If you take any of these texts and religions at their word that the One god is infinite and all-pervading than it's a natural conclusion that in It's infinite and all-pervading nature that other people could have noticed It and described It in this manner to.

>Rene seems to believe the solution to modernity is some soon-to-arrive hindu eschatology. ... s this really the best we can do? Just wait for everything to collapse?
He doesn't say that Kalki is a 'solution' but rather that it's just the nature of things to undergo a cyclic pattern, we happen to be within one particular stage. There are things we can do and actions to take to improve the status of humanity, but nothing is ever permanently ruined but the cycle just proceeds from one stage to the next. Nothing changes that the highest goal for the individual is always union/liberation during any cycle.

>Also the followers, and perhaps Rene, seem to have an anti-rationalism bias that is far less adorable than Lao Tzu.
He doesn't have an anti-rationalism bias but only seems that way in light of the recent (relatively speaking) trend in philosophy and western thought to take logic and rationality as ends in themselves. In actually he approved of logic but just in it's own place in the hierarchy of things, he agreed with all of the ideas of among other people Adi Shankara, who makes heavy use of logic to interpret the Sruti texts but always within the context of the recognition that the Sruti teach of a higher reality that transcends logic. Even Aquinas recognized that logic had it's limits and never tried to comprehensively logically establish why God is in fact a trinity.

[Anonymous No.11742275]

>>11742033
>>11742038
The vast majority of human history has been suffering and violence without reason or respite. We finally have a glimmer of a better tomorrow, and you want to go back to disease and delusion?

>cosmic cycle
This idea is makes Guenonfags sound like young earth creationists.

>occult
fine, "esoteric".

>core of religious truth
Did you know people believe their astrological charts, even when you read them the wrong one?
But let's say it isn't vague gibberish, even if humans have this perennial development of identical and non-vague religious doctrines, that wouldn't make the doctrines true. It could just mean humans have similar brains that like thinking about that idea.

>never proved the trinity
Of course not, how could Gregory of Nazianzus have found delight in coming up his irrational idea?

> ̶t̶r̶a̶n̶s̶c̶e̶n̶d̶s̶ ̶l̶o̶g̶i̶c̶ have no idea if something is true
Until theology produces something better than a radio, I'll take the scientism, thanks. At least the flaws come with, you know, anything good.

[Anonymous No.11742290]

>>11737207
>Trying to organize and influence thought and push it beyond contemporary boundaries is futile because there are too many conflicting opinions
No, the purpose is to constantly improve on previous knowledge or at least maintain our achievements

[Anonymous No.11742337]

>>11742275
Scientism is a cult

[Anonymous No.11742363]

>>11739955
>(((critical analysis)))

[Anonymous No.11742394]

>>11739733
The anglos have a long tradition of being judaizers. E.micheal jones goes into it.

[Anonymous No.11742401]

>>11740247
Yeah, i've notices pseuds gonna pseud for smart cred and have no interest in internalizing any values or knowledge. Philosophy is a novelty and surrogate activity. I see it with lots of Guenon fags as well though who use him as a counter to Evola which they associate with /pol/ brainlets they won't want to be linked to as that would discredit their smart cred.

[Anonymous No.11742408]

>>11742337
You can't reason with the unreasonable. People who do not understand can not understand, while a good chuck of people have traditional dispositions, there are those who have a spirit of rebellion withen them naturally.

[Anonymous No.11743518]

>>11742363
If only the jews can think critically, I guess I should convert.

>>11742337
>>11742408
What has theology ever built? Diseases it has ever cured? Anything useful at all?

[Anonymous No.11743529]

>>11743518
>muh utility

Yawn

[Anonymous No.11743549]

>>11743529
>muh dying of smallpox

[Anonymous No.11743636]

>>11742337
" you can't reason anyone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into."

this statement works in a negative light as well:

you cannot convince someone of renouncing something they themselves have convinced themselves into. The cult of reason is dominant and nothing can be done until people in themselves see the prisons which they inhabit. until the rational mind is no more believed as the sole recipient of being, all words will fall on deaf ears.

[Anonymous No.11744084]

>>11743636
>Circle the wagons boss, we got a heretic asking questions!
You'll never be more than a cult until you can answer rational objections. You might as well join Scientology.

[Anonymous No.11744943]

>>11742275
>better tomorrow
Are you just going to ignore the possibility of environmental catastrophe, nuclear annihilation or the creeping tyranny of google and facebook? Some of us just aren't that optimistic.

[Anonymous No.11744995]

>>11744084
You haven't listed any objections other than vague claims about technology and medical research being worth it. The answer to that is easy, the added material benefits is not worth the spiritual, cultural, moral and metaphysical degeneration that has accompanied modernity. The Islamic, East Asian and Indian classical worlds all were known for relatively advanced medicine for their time. It was not unusual for people to occasionally make it in their 60's and above if they were middle class. Yes, there may be some drawbacks on a personal level in terms of you personally might not have access to advanced cancer treatments etc but part of understanding this worldview is the realization that there are greater things than oneself, the luxury of having advanced medicine is not as important as making sure society is not completely dysfunctional.

[Anonymous No.11745010]

>>11744995
based

comfort/longevity is not the telos of history.

[Anonymous No.11745013]

>>11743549

science cultist algorithm in full effect. when are you going remind me scientists built the computer im typing on?

[Anonymous No.11745587]

>>11743518
>its only good if it makes my life more comfortable

wow

[Anonymous No.11745739]

>>11739789
Meds were instrumental in starting the renaissance, which most trad authors identify as either the beginning of the downfall or a key moment in it

[Anonymous No.11745996]

>>11743518
Gas stemfaggots

[Anonymous No.11746156]

>>11737207

i hope nobody thinks this critique is unique to guenon. he is distilling the essential difference between the eastern and western methods.

unfortunately for him, he falls into the same trap the philosophers he is critiquing fall into: inflexible subscription to rigid dogmatic modes of thinking. he rejects the validity of the kantian exploration because it hurts his feelings. it does this because he cannot, for all his talk of the hegelian negative, see both sides of the equation.

he cant see that to synthesize the opposition between knowing and being requires the work of knowing oneself. of knowing knowing, knowing being, being knowing, and being being. sad man, the former set has just as much necessary value to the quest as the latter. yet he cannot, perhaps he has a silver soul, see beyond the horizon.

by no means is recognizing, and investigating, the duality of appearance giving it a higher truth value relative to the unity. investigating the faculties of cognition does not necessarily imply cartesian dualism. hes arbitrarily elevating the unity of being to the duality of knowing, and is trying to imply the futility of the quest for wisdom through knowledge. fuckin sad man, hes like a musician who refuses to learn theory because improvisation is a spiritual practice.

[Anonymous No.11746170]

>>11746156
>the real answer was the kants we made along the way
no

[Anonymous No.11746183]

>>11746156
>he cant see that to synthesize the opposition between knowing and being requires the work of knowing oneself. of knowing knowing, knowing being, being knowing, and being being
>and is trying to imply the futility of the quest for wisdom through knowledge

This is completely wrong. He talks frequently in his books about how it's only knowledge which leads to the higher stages of realization (knowing oneself, knowing knowing etc) and that once you reach the final stage there is no longer any distinction between knowing and being. He specifically mentions how it's only knowledge which dispels ignorance and leads to liberation, enlightenment, wisdom etc. He points out that it's only knowledge which is mutually opposed to ignorance and not action and so it's only knowledge which can eliminate ignorance and give rise to the aforementioned things, just as knowing the contents of a jar is mutually incompatible with being ignorant of its contents.

[Anonymous No.11746187]

>>11746156
I think he's just saying self-realization through study is a more mediated route than direct experience, and in that he's right. some of us need a crutch to get halfway up the mountain

[Anonymous No.11746293]

>>11746170

its very easy to say kant is draconic thus invalid. its far more difficult to undertake the kantian investigation.

you seem to want to disregard the validity of that investigation because youre more comfortable doing whatever it is youve been doing. just because kants system, when taken to its ultimate conclusion, was a failure, does not mean there isnt truth within it.

if you want to obliterate your ego, reject all thinking as illusory, then be my guest, please. enjoy your transcendental experience as you close your eyes and hold your breath. i prefer the process of becoming a totality, not some fractured self contained unity thats convinced itself through feeling it has become one with one.

>>11746183
ok thats fine, but he is deifying the eastern method over the western, or at least rejecting the validity of the western. im saying we need both, that theyre two sides of the same road, and the threshold cant be crossed until every splinter has been removed from the door. i dont think anybody, even descartes with his dualism, has thus far been "wrong". they just havent been right. you learn something when you learn about cartesian dualism, and you learn more when you understand its limits, and even more when you break it with itself. the mind is embodied.

embrace the unity intrinsic within duality. we exist, reality appears to us through our faculties of perception. the truth is rational and empirical. systematizing is fruitless, but we obtain understanding from both knowing and being, from being and nothing, from becoming other and same again.

i agree with him on the opposition of knowing/being = the negation of metaphysics, which im betting he would say is being/nothing. so its curious hes anti kant and pro hegel, i dont think u can have one without the other. yes there is a world where duality evaporates and all is unity, but here we fucking are, dualified in existence. so to reject duality on principal as a lower/lesser experience than unity seems to me to be hollowing the whole.

>>11746187
i dont think its a crutch, its literally one of our two legs. if you want to hobble and hop up there, sure go for it. but a man stands. there are things that cannot be known through meditation. you cannot deduce/understand everything from your singular experience. it takes community, we are social creatures, and not by random chance; whatever we are, we are for a reason. no single being can completely remove the veil obscuring divinity and share it with the world. its a shared effort that gets us a shared understanding. we are blind men investigating an elephant.

[Anonymous No.11746349]

>>11746293
>you cannot deduce/understand everything from your singular experience. it takes community, we are social creatures, and not by random chance; whatever we are, we are for a reason. no single being can completely remove the veil obscuring divinity and share it with the world. its a shared effort that gets us a shared understanding.

I fundamentally disagree with this. you're alone in this world, fundamentally, if not in life then in death. any dependency is a deficiency, and cutting out all dependencies might be unrealistic while we're still embodied but there's something to be said for minimizing them.

[Anonymous No.11746559]

he sounds like hegel desu

[Anonymous No.11746685]

>>11744943
Yes, I'm going to ignore a bunch of things that haven't happened until you tell me what good theology has actually done.

>>11744995
>>11745013
1. What are these great harms of modern society that didn't exist for the medievals?
2. List a benefit of theology that doesn't require someone to already believe in your metaphysics?

>>11745587
No, "its only good if it does anything at all."

>>11745996
I'm a philosopher.

>>11745010
quit samefagging, word's out >>>11740748

[Anonymous No.11746772]

Yes he is

[Anonymous No.11746784]

>>11746685
>Yes, I'm going to ignore a bunch of things that haven't happened
better pray to your scientists that they don't ever happen, or else you won't be able to stick your head in the sand anymore

[Anonymous No.11746811]

>>11737207
He is a shitskin-lover who resents the West. He is not right, he is a charlatan.

[Anonymous No.11747320]

>>11742401
>have no interest in internalizing any values or knowledge

this is the most important thing said in this thread

[Anonymous No.11747364]

>>11747320
Yea, because you can tell how much knowledge or wisdom someone has internalized from anonymous throwaway 4chan posts

[Anonymous No.11747391]

>>11741113
Rene Guenon deals explicitly with what you are saying and condemns people who try to "revive" western spiritualism, seeing no real future in it. Never once does he call for a "spiritual revolution", of sorts, this is just your own fictive imaginings

As for him "selectively" taking materials, this too is pretty wrong. He does believe in perennialism, but after that he identifies which world traditions are closest related to it and the least changed. He personally thought it would be easiest to identify with Islam, but he praised Indian traditions highly for being close to the "truth".

I understand why people have a negative perception of him, especially if they have read Evola whomst've is a lot more aggressive and non-charitable in this rhetoric, but Guenon is legitimitely quite comfy reading with some very interesting points, and I didn't feel forced to do anything at all when I finished with his books

[Anonymous No.11747394]

>>11743518
>What has theology ever built?
It brought contentment and fulfilment to peoples lives. What did science and skepticism bring? It only made people less secure and more anxious in themselves and their place in the universe, even though we know a lot about it and ourselves now

[Anonymous No.11747396]

>>11746156
>hes arbitrarily elevating the unity of being to the duality of knowing, and is trying to imply the futility of the quest for wisdom through knowledge. fuckin sad man, hes like a musician who refuses to learn theory because improvisation is a spiritual practice.
You clearly haven't read Guenon, why would you post about him then?

[Anonymous No.11747432]

>>11737207
Yes, he's bang on. No hard boundary of dualism has been established by reason or empiricism, and the accepted dualism is of questionable relevance to guiding us in life.

That said, I'm not particularly cynical about the motives of Western/Continental philosophers, and they have produced some brilliant insights. I'd favour the analytics, but if you're interested in developing your own capacity, you should still engage with the opposing perspectives. Just be careful not to get trapped in the semantical, always try to understand the most basic essence of what is being discussed.

[Anonymous No.11747475]

>>11746349

[Anonymous No.11747494]

>>11737207
*splutters indignantly* How dare he criticize Kant?! Doesn't he know that Kant is the most important thinker since the Greeks and that anyone who doesn't subscribe to his ideas is stupid? All the non-dualistic transcendental experiences described by almost every eastern tradition are fake and gay because you can't know the thing-in-itself.

[Anonymous No.11747909]

>>11746559
There are more similarities than one would suspect at first glance. In part but not entirely due to the influence of Spinoza, Hegel's ideas are similar to or align with eastern thought in several areas. Zizek wrote a favorable review for pick related which compares Hindu thought to Hegel.

[Anonymous No.11747931]

>>11747909
Oh shit this looks good, what did Zizek say? Can you link the review? I think there's a lot of interesting resonances between Vedanta and Hegel

[Anonymous No.11748083]

>>11747909
but hegel hated hinduism

who gives a shit what zizek politely said

[Anonymous No.11748126]

>>11743518
>What has theology ever built?
The foundations on which all subsequent western thought, including science, is based on.

[Anonymous No.11748137]

>>11747931
It was more of a blurb on the back than a full review (pic related). I agree there are interesting parallels with Vedanta particularly. Apparently Hegel studied India and wrote a lot about it, mostly criticizing it although his thought also aligned with Hindu thought in many aspects.

[Anonymous No.11748145]

>>11748083
Who gives a shit about Hegel

[Anonymous No.11748152]

>>11748083
Even if he did hate India it is still interesting to compare his thought with Indian thought (at least, if you are already familiar with and have an interest in both)

[Anonymous No.11748157]

>>11748083
>who gives a shit what one of the most relentlessly accurate interpreters of Hegel today thinks

>>11748137
Thanks. Is the book mainly Hegel's views on India or does it go in-depth? I'm particularly interested in the confluence between witness-consciousness and sense-certainty

[Anonymous No.11748317]

>>11748157
Here is one review that is not super-favorable. It seems the authors contrast them but mostly just focus on Hegel's critiques and reactions rather than any in-depth discussion of Hindu metaphysics itself. In the footnotes of this review though are cited several authors who do make this detailed comparison and who critique Hegel from the perspective of Vedanta for example.

http://www.academia.edu/36456568/Review_of_Hegels_India

[Anonymous No.11748336]

>>11739314
>post
lmao now there’s a spook. fuck everything post heraclitus

[Anonymous No.11748344]

>>11748157
> Zizek is an accurate interpreter of Hegel

[Anonymous No.11748346]

>>11739400
read the first two sections of the meditations (no more than fourteen pages in msot editions). basically the idea is that abstracting out “being” from “knowing” (le thought-experiment im a brain in a vat lmao bullshit) is horseshit and the logical conclusion of that is something like kant where you get 700 pages of robust skepticism and muh space/time a priori features wowe copernican revolution.

[Anonymous No.11748366]

>>11748346
sorry for all the typos. this is just the cynicism that comes with spending six years studying western philo to end up with a bunch of fucking dualistic monkeys and not a lot to say other than that. honestly nietzsche and deleuze are the best things to happen to Western philo in that they both accurately describe it’s impotence and try to restart the whole project to center on values and/or sociopolitical situations. Just read the Chinese and Hindu tbhq.

[Anonymous No.11748370]

>>11748336
Plotinus > Heraclitus

[Anonymous No.11748442]

>>11739685
>defrauding a laborer of his wages
Any examples of this being one of the four sins?

[Anonymous No.11748496]

>>11748346
Clearly not horseshit. We have failed to resolve his question, and now we are all just brains in vats waiting for the end.

[Anonymous No.11748531]

>>11748496
>we

speak for yourself realizationlet

[Anonymous No.11748563]

>>11748531
So you get to larp as a yogi in Monsantoland.
Good for you, you're a lung in a vat rather than a brain.

[Anonymous No.11748565]

>>11748344
>guy who hasn't read either Zizek or Hegel trying to tell me about them

never change /lit/

[Anonymous No.11748580]

>>11748366
absolutely based. Western Phil is a kid trying on his dad's pants when he isn't home. Yes so many of the western giants were brilliant men and ill never stop reading them but ya, read the Chinese and Hindu.

[Anonymous No.11748588]

>>11748317
ok yeah the philosophy is what I'm interested, thanks bud Ill check it out

[Anonymous No.11748591]

>Rene Guenon

[Anonymous No.11748600]

>>11748580
So wouldn't that make Eastern larpers the boy trying on mom's yoga pants...

[Anonymous No.11748604]

>>11748600
>>11748563
Pretty good burns desu but not an argument

[Anonymous No.11748621]

>>11748563
>implying I live in the west
>implying that anyone who studies anything that's not the dominant mode of thought where they happen to be born is larping
>when you instinctively realize the shit you are in but get angry when other people appear to be above it so you try to pull them down to your level out of resentment

lmaoing at your life

[Anonymous No.11748624]

>>11748591
not an argument

[Anonymous No.11748657]

>>11737207
He's right that it's impotent, but wrong as to why. All philosophy, including Guenon's, is an exercise is intellectual masturbation. It's the love of knowing that destroys knowledge, like a love of food consumes its object. Philosophy is man's first sin, man's first curse, and it would have been better for Guenon to have died as the sickly child he was before he got into all the stupid occult stuff. Imagine spending your entire life chasing "Gnosis" and being buttmad that Western philosophy was doing the same thing.

[Anonymous No.11748658]

>>11748621
>muh resentment
>muh realisation
So you live in an even smaller vat.
Thanks for proving my point.

[Anonymous No.11748660]

>>11748621
>get realised faggot

[Anonymous No.11748667]

>>11748658
>hurr you live in a vat

wow I'm so btfo you definitely took apart eastern thought there wtf I love decartes now!

[Anonymous No.11748706]

>>11748660
Asia is a big place anon, not all of it is a smog-filled cityscape

[Anonymous No.11748857]

>>11748706
>the West is small
>Western philosophy a bonsai of that smallness

[Anonymous No.11748863]

>>11748667
>doesn't realise his defensive reaction is self-applicable

[Anonymous No.11748900]

>>11748863
>Implying that it's possible to defend the all-pervading and infinite Self from anything when It's the only thing which really exists
>implying there's fundamentally any difference between you, me and anything else
>implying that I'm not just humoring you while simultaneously bumping the thread so more anon's have the chance to see the truth

[Anonymous No.11748969]

>>11748657
He didn't really have any philosophy other than explaining various eastern doctrines and noting the occasional areas where they agree (which isn't philosophy)

[Anonymous No.11748991]

>>11748900
>dude we're all just cereal and hotdogs
>and you're me
>and I'm you
>and the universe is God
>and the hot dogs in the cereal is the universe
>which is me
>and you
So powerful. Is that why it's okay to boil dogs alive and use sewage to fry your rice?
Now I see why Chineyliberalism has overtaken the neolibs. True Enlightenment.

[Anonymous No.11749000]

>>11748991
yawn

[Anonymous No.11749005]

>>11746685
the absolute state

[Anonymous No.11749015]

>>11749000
How very Western of you.

[Anonymous No.11749078]

>>11748991
>dude because I find it distasteful that one particular culture eats a certain animal that invalidates multi-thousand year spiritual traditions lmao

imagine thinking this was a good thing to post unironically

[Anonymous No.11749126]

>>11748496
YOU MISSED THE PART WHERE KANT
discarded

[Anonymous No.11749145]

>>11748496
Okay, in what way is it not horseshit? You might have some cultural knowledge of the notion Descartes is after, but do you know his actual conclusion/justification? Do you know the ambiguity left by Kripke nearly half a century later? Obviously, you lack canonical knowledge of the paradigm of Kant if you unironically thing full blown dualism or rationalism is still on the table. and don't get me started on the circle jerk of terms we can tease out and expose as ambiguous, luckily Quine and other post-positivists did that work for us.

[Anonymous No.11749147]

>>11749078
>haha no man I find great spiritual fulfillment in sewer dog soup it’s just like too deep for you westerners to understand lmao

[Anonymous No.11749176]

>>11749145
*think
But the important thing to keep in mind here is that LITERALLY NOTHING SUBSTANTIAL HAS BEEN SAID ABOUT METAPHYSICS OR EPISTEMOLOGY IN WESTERN PHILOSOPHY SINCE KANT, AND ONE COULD BE A REDUCTIVE ASSHOLE AND SAY THAT PLATO POINTED OUT MOST OF HIS CONCLUSIONS OVER A THOUSAND YEARS EARLIER[/SPOILER]. Hence why the philosophy that most people are after is best found in the Eastern traditions. At best, the west can be characterized as philosophical laborers in the Nietzschean sense.

[Anonymous No.11749189]

>>11749145
Just...

[Anonymous No.11749199]

>>11749078
>>11749126
>GUENONFAG SEETHING
>WESTBROS BOUT TO GET REEEEAALLLLLLLIIIIZZZZZZEEDDD!!!!

[Anonymous No.11749204]

Eastern philosophy is 90% pulling shit out of one's ass and presenting it as some "deep insight." At least Western philosophy has a modicum of rigour.

[Anonymous No.11749212]

>>11749147
I'm not seeing any arguments

[Anonymous No.11749216]

>>11749176
So who are these Uberchineys transmogrifying transcendence out of gutter oil?

[Anonymous No.11749221]

>Artificially opposing knowing and being
What does that even *mean*? I challenge any Guenonfags in here to explain this.

>>11749212
Not seeing any from your end either. Step up.

[Anonymous No.11749248]

>>11749204
Mental and spiritual rigour are predicated on the physical. You can't have any real rigour without asceticism or monasticism. Aside from a few exceptions like the Neoplatonists (who were honorary easterners) and certain Christian thinkers, the east has always understood this much better than the west and have had more genuine rigour and not the pretend rigour of armchair-seers.

[Anonymous No.11749263]

>>11749248
And how do you intend to back this truth up, that it's not possible to be mentally or spiritually rigorous without being physically rigorous? How does asceticism and monasticism fundamentally change how one thinks about, say, what can and cannot be known? Besides, most Western philosophers isolated themselves to better focus on their work. Is that not the "physical rigour" you speak of?

[Anonymous No.11749274]

>>11749263
by doing it you mongoloid

[Anonymous No.11749275]

>>11749248
>heh, apart from 99% of the Western Tradition the Western tradition gets it wrong
But let's assume this is true. Why do you need a Westerner to understand Eastern thought for you?

[Anonymous No.11749284]

>>11749248
>sit in cave all day mumbling some hoodoo
>hey guys, cows lmao
>local village now bathes in cow dung
wow so much rigour xD

[Anonymous No.11749312]

For every West-hating Guenon's bootlicker ITT: please deport yourselves to the shitting streets of India you love so much ASAP.

[Anonymous No.11749316]

>>11749274
Doing... what exactly? Looking back to the history of philosophy, I see many brilliant thinkers who don't subscribe to your stifling worldview arriving at incredible insights and influencing millions. And then there are the ascetics and the monks, who arrived at... what exactly? A Buddhist monk comes to the conclusion that "everything is one," a Christian that the Buddhist is wrong; and is your methodology of physical rigour going to help us differentiate between the two? Are to measure them by *how* physically rigorous they were, and then believe the winner? It's absurd; stop beating around the bush—if you want to be taken seriously, speak clearly.

[Anonymous No.11749319]

>>11749284
>it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.

[Anonymous No.11749329]

>>11748657
Occult stuff it's outside the realm of masturbatory philosophy as it implies universal truths outside limitations, that doesn't make them have an answer fot it, and that's ok.

The issue with Hume is that made the limitations the norm, knowledge goes till here, it's great for marking the line in the ground, but terrible for finding new solutions.

[Anonymous No.11749337]

>>11749312
Ummm... /lit/ is a traditionalist board now sweety. While you were off playing hentai video games we were studying the great sages and came to the realization that the only way to make the west great again is through a religious Neoplatonic revival that distills the perennial truth described by most eastern traditions in a way that's familiar and native to the west.

[Anonymous No.11749344]

>>11749275
Nobody is saying that we do

[Anonymous No.11749377]

>>11749344
It seems to be so, when the only way any of you arrive at those "truths" is when Westerners interpret them for you, package them up and present them to you on a silver platter.

[Anonymous No.11749380]

>>11749337
based

[Anonymous No.11749416]

>>11749316
In almost all of the religions of the world and their most mystical/esoteric/metaphysical areas, a fundamental unity to everything is described, ones that don't include this are rare exceptions and can be considered aberrations and a sign of intellectual degeneration. In Zoroastrianism, Sufism, Vedanta, Tantra, Daoism, Sikhism, Mahayana Buddhism and Neoplatonism are described all-pervading, infinite, limitless, perfect realities/god/states that one either becomes one with or ceases to be something other than; this is even found to a minor degree in Orthodox Christianity and certain areas of Jewish mysticism. The things that are wrong with the west and modernity can mostly be traced back to this understanding being largely lost in the west. Philosophy itself can be considered as a kind of symptom that arises in response to when this understanding is lost and people are left grasping around in the darkness for the truth.

[Anonymous No.11749474]

>>11749416
Lol.
First of all, you haven't at all quantified your "almost all" statement. I don't think that's a safe assumption to make.
Also,
>The religions which agree with my view have access to a fundamental truth about the world
>The religions which disagree with my view are degenerate
Fucking lol.
Also,
>I have access to a fundamental truth about the world
>But the only thing that can actually examine and engage with that truth with any rigour [philosophy] is hopeless and degenerate because it doesn't assume that truth to be true
You have no idea how retarded you sound.

[Anonymous No.11749476]

>>11749204
Okay bud study the tradition and get back to me about how a bunch of autistic abstractions and truisms are 'rigorous'

>>11749216
I have no clue what you are talking about but if you are making a racial point i want you to stop and realize how bad this can backfire for you with the slightest characterization of the contemporary west

[Anonymous No.11749480]

>>11749474
>dogmatist accuses someone else of dogmatism

round and round we go

[Anonymous No.11749503]

>>11749476
You monkey, I know the tradition better than you can ever. I actually study philosophy, unlike you. Let me guess, you discovered this stuff on the internet.
>>11749480
I actually showed how he's a dogmatist. You just assume I am because I don't agree with you. A balanced study is something very foreign to you

[Anonymous No.11749522]

>>11749503
Okay you can rely on ad hominems or whatever you want to call it but you best start talking, because me and my dissatisfied BA-in-philosophy-from-a-highly-respected-analytic-camp-ass aint buying it. I'd rather go read LITERALLY ANYTHING WRITTEN BY ANY CHINK EVER than cycle through another dead-end, epistemologically naive text from a Western swine.

[Anonymous No.11749532]

>>11749522
I hate analytic philosophy too. Just saying. But I don't know, you read whatever you want. But don't lump yourself in with these Guenon drones, it reflects badly on you.

[Anonymous No.11749547]

>>11739789
Nah, the Meds may have been worlds ahead of modern Europeans, but they still began their metaphysical degradation back in antiquity. Guenon even points out they began to spend too much time on idle philosophising than just straight-up focusing on spiritual liberation.

The only non-degenerate civilisations are in the East.

[Anonymous No.11749553]

>>11739685
He's close, but his problem is throwing in Christianity as if it's a reasonable alternative to secular insanity.

[Anonymous No.11749600]

>>11748657
>he says, as he conducts philosophy

[Anonymous No.11749634]

>>11749474
>because it doesn't assume that truth to be true
This is literally only because it's failed to cognise this truth for itself. Supramundane experiences of the Sublime are available to all who have mind and ears to seek them out, including you, but they require guidance and spiritual mastery to acquire. Since the West has refused to acknowledge their existence, the paths to get there (and the accompanying social networks to support those who undertake this task) have all but been abandoned.

It's like someone trying to describe the taste of chocolate to someone who's never tried it before. Chocolate is a very real and very tangible thing, but if the person they're describing it to even refuses to believe in its existence, then they will find all manner of reasons to explain why the things being described to them can't possibly be real.

[Anonymous No.11749655]

>>11739685
I’m sure the guy isn’t an idiot, but his arguments are brainlet tier to me, and if you’re more intelligent than the average Master’s student, they should be to you, too. E.g.,

1) ‘sodomy flows from a positively unnatural desire, where ‘unnatural ‘, it must always be remembered, is to be understood in the classical realist sense (Platonic, Aristotelian, or Scholastic)’.
He contrasts this with the mostly natural desires which lead to murder, and says sodomy is worse along this specific spectrum of ‘natural vs non-natural’.
This doesn’t make sense for the simple reason that you can perfectly imagine sodomy to flow from the ‘Classically natural’ desire of pleasure, specifically sexual pleasure, much like vaginal intercourse or masturbation. If he wants to deny this pleasure as the motivating source of the act and instead restrict the source to ‘the unnatural desire to copulate with other men (being myself a man)’ then his case is only as strong as the weird argument he’ll have to generate to justify this restriction. If someone here wants to argue this, go ahead, but my money is on it being absolutely unconvincing to anyone who doesn’t already want to believe the guy’s conclusion, or to anyone who has strong analytical thinking skills.
2) A line like ‘If there is no such thing as a natural order (again, in the classical realist sense) then there can be no basis for morality at all.’ Is weak, weak, weak. Modern Philosophy gets us to moral antinomies, relativism, emotivism and the overall rejection of solid foundations for morality in any realist sense (you may disagree and think some modern philosophers make a solid case for morality having some basis, and in this case you disagree with Feser’s statement, which you must agree is weak). When Feser gives us a wholesale fancy realist basis for morality, you can understand how his claim goes pants on head: ‘if my specially carved out metaphysics which can justify a morality are rejected, then we cannot justify morality!’ Yes, dumbass, that’s what the people you’re arguing against would say. ‘If my side isn’t right, then the other side is right!’ Welcome to symbolic logic. His initial statement is either wrong, or so trivial its mentioning should warn you against the author’s judgment. The only interesting thing in there is something like ‘my special classical model can indeed justify morality’, which he’s told us multiple times by this point of the extract, all the while dishing out less sources than a sand pile.

If someone that knows Feser well can justify this I’d be happy to read their opinion, because right now it seems more like ideology-confirmation-porn for right wingers who want to REEE at liberals, which is fine, but at least read someone with coherent arguments if you want to take philosophical arms in the culture wars.

[Anonymous No.11749708]

>>11749655
Based and nuancepilled

[Anonymous No.11749799]

>>11749319
>hare krishna hare rama hare krishna hare rama hare krishna hare rama

[Anonymous No.11749857]

>>11749655
>but his arguments are brainlet tier to me
Because they are. Freser is only good for blowing out meme movements and their ideas, such as New Atheism or Rothbardian’s ancaps.

[Anonymous No.11749872]

>>11749316
>I see many brilliant thinkers
This doesn't mean anything. Marx could be considered a "brilliant thinker" and yet his ideas ended up being responsible for the deaths of millions.

>b-but that wasn't his fault! That was people intepreting his works!

Exactly, any discerning mind worth its salt would be privy to the sort of impacts their ideas would have. There's a reason why virtually all wisdom traditions teach that one should be cautious with their speech.

In our example, Marx clearly wasn't aware of the rather obvious negative impacts his ideas would create. Why is that? Because he wasn't interested in the holistic application of wisdom; he was interested in his very specific, arcane and arbitrary ideas about reality that even a high schooler can effectively criticise. He was, in many ways, not a wise man; he was a fool, and it cost the lives of millions.

When was the last time you heard about millions perishing in social revolutions led by an ascetic guru? How about the countless Jews who died as a result of the teachings of a taoist sage? How about the ecological destruction wrought by following the soothing wisdom of Tibetan lamas?

Virtually never, because there's a world of difference between rather arcane and masturbatory "philosophy", and the true, practical and timeless wisdom that has been spoken of by virtually ever advanced civilisation since its inception.

[Anonymous No.11749899]

>>11749655
>it must always be remembered, is to be understood in the classical realist sense (Platonic, Aristotelian, or Scholastic)
This is the key and where your objections fall flat. To reply in a crude summary, "pleasure" cannot be the aim (the final cause) of man's sexual nature, it is simply an effect. Procreation is clearly its real aim, in the same way "pleasure" isn't the aim of man's need to eat, but rather nutrition is. Second, the natural order he mentions assumes a moderate realist position on universals, and what he means most by morality is something fixed and objective, not variable and subjective, hence his claim. Without realism about universals it is very difficult to see how one can derive a system of morality with any degree of objectiveness.

[Anonymous No.11749950]

>>11749872
>When was the last time you heard about millions perishing in social revolutions led by an ascetic guru?
Have you ever heard of the Heavenly Kingdom?

[Anonymous No.11749976]

>>11749899
But then any action taken for the pure purpose of pleasure, or otherwise fails to comply with the adequate purposes of the natural order, ought to taken as immoral was well.

[Anonymous No.11750001]

>>11749976
And they are because such actions are inherently irrational and "unnatural", meaning contrary to the nature or essence of a thing.

[Anonymous No.11750014]

>>11749872
>How about the countless Jews who died as a result of the teachings of a taoist sage?
sounds like taoism must be pretty cringe and bluepilled to me

[Anonymous No.11750027]

>>11749899
>This is the key and where your objections fall flat. To reply in a crude summary, "pleasure" cannot be the aim (the final cause) of man's sexual nature, it is simply an effect. Procreation is clearly its real aim, in the same way "pleasure" isn't the aim of man's need to eat, but rather nutrition is.
Is rape for the sake of procreation better than rape for the sake of pleasure?

[Anonymous No.11750028]

>>11749950
Hong Xiuquan was not an ascetic or a guru.

[Anonymous No.11750033]

>>11749634
>haha duuuuude you just gotta be open to it man
>*hits bong*
so this is the power of Eastern Wisdom..

[Anonymous No.11750034]

>>11750001
>And they are because such actions are inherently irrational and "unnatural", meaning contrary to the nature or essence of a thing.
I don’t think I expressed myself properly in my post. I meant that anything that doesn’t conform to said natural law would be fundamentally immoral, which when taken to their logical conclusion, would mean that even simple listening to music, putting spice in the food, or reading for personal entertainment would be immoral(I think that some even argued for just that).

[Anonymous No.11750046]

>>11750033
>>haha duuuuude you just gotta be open to it man
Yes, exactly.

[Anonymous No.11750068]

>>11750028
He draw heavily from a christian-confucian pastiche, which had and have a strong element of asceticism, and while he was hypocrite that indulged in the pleasures of the world, so were most communist leaders.

[Anonymous No.11750093]

>>11749655
>using logic to justify sodomy

modern phil was a mistake.

[Anonymous No.11750114]

>>11750034
No, in such cases immorality would not apply. It is not irrational, for example, to derive pleasure from a meal that is also nutritious. It is irrational, however, to isolate pleasure as the sole basis for such a meal. The same applies to the other things you mention. A man must work, but so must he rest, therefore leisure falls perfectly within the range of his nature.

[Anonymous No.11750117]

>>11750068
hence the importance of actually practicing some form of physical discipline

[Anonymous No.11750119]

>>11737207
>Only asking bc i havent really read any western philosophy
I guarantee that 99% of Guenonfags are just like you

[Anonymous No.11750126]

>>11750093
Scholastics weren’t any better. Or do people forget that they were fine with cutting young boys balls so they could sing better?

[Anonymous No.11750140]

>lol dude I haven't actually read anything but this guy who says all of these books that I haven't read are bullshit is totally right
/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.11750209]

>>11750114
>It is not irrational, for example, to derive pleasure from a meal that is also nutritious
Except that spices aren't free, and rarely needed for nutritional value, which means that obtaining and putting them on the food is ultimately an hedonistic act with a cost. A similar thing happens with rest: A man needs to rest, put actually doing anything pleasurable within his rest time demands an effort investment of either time, effort, or money, all which could be better used by the man to actualize his nature through means that don't affect his rest(an example of that would be praying or meditating, rather listening to music).

[Anonymous No.11750214]

>>11750126
I'm still fine with this

[Anonymous No.11750221]

>>11750126
deplorable maybe but at least it was for an artistic effect, not cummies.

listen, if you're not a soullet you know you're not supposed to stimulate your dick with another man's ass, our inability to prove this with syllogisms isn't an inadequacy of tolerance but of logic itself. them's the breaks

[Anonymous No.11750243]

>>11750117
>hence the importance of actually practicing some form of physical discipline
The underling point was that the physical discipline doesn't causes the ideas that the practitioners came up to actually be any less prone to large scale bloodshed as rule(case in point: The Boxers).

[Anonymous No.11750252]

>>11750243
>as rule
as a rule*

[Anonymous No.11750281]

>>11750014
based

[Anonymous No.11750293]

>>11750209
You are correct that secondary circumstances could sway a decision toward or away degrees of irrationality. Though, as such, it isn't immoral to rest or to enjoy a meal given the features of the natural law with respect to man's nature.

[Anonymous No.11750333]

>>11750293
>degrees of irrationality
There is no such thing. An action either is rational or it isn't. A group of decisions can be more or less rational, but only insofar in the sense that more or less of the decisions that compose said group are rational or not. Thus, putting spice in your food is irrational, hedonistic, and immoral, and so is basically any act that doesn't involves locking oneself in a convent to pray, only to come out to work(and only either to fulfill your basic needs, or to assist in something related to the glory of God) or pump out some kids.

[Anonymous No.11750375]

>>11749337
All I want is to become a cool levitating monk who has achieved direct knowledge of the divine and to play hentai video games. That's not too much to ask, is it?

[Anonymous No.11750430]

>>11739685
>>11739693
The problem is, nominalism is correct.

[Anonymous No.11750439]

>>11750430
What is red-ness then?

[Anonymous No.11750452]

>>11750439
a word

[Anonymous No.11750527]

>>11750014
cringe and bluepilled

[Anonymous No.11750536]

>>11750452
nominalists are deranged

[Anonymous No.11750564]

>STOP POSTING GUENON, FUCKING KILL YOURSELFVES GUENON-FAGS, GO BACK TO READING KANT AND HEGEL, STOP IT STOP IT STOP IT, POO IN LOO POO POO POO

[Anonymous No.11750596]

>>11749416
>In almost all of the religions of the world
>except some major obes adhered to by billions of people, but that doesn't matter, they're "abberrations" unlike my literal who faiths like zoroastrianism and obscure mysticism

[Anonymous No.11750600]

>>11750033
anons will make fun of this without realizing how cringe this >>11750114
sounds. you niggas need an education.

[Anonymous No.11750611]

>>11750439
Aren't colors a perfect example of arbitrarily defined concepts?

[Anonymous No.11750628]

>>11750611
no, because it's on you to account for why people would need to arbitrarily group such radically different particulars under one designation in the first place. gradations of red don't refute red-ness m8

[Anonymous No.11750645]

>>11750596
>except some major obes adhered to by billions of people
hence the absolute state of the west,

> they're "abberrations" unlike my literal who faiths like zoroastrianism and obscure mysticism
When you add up the total number of Hindus, Mahayana Buddhists, Sikhs and Muslims who are active in Sufism the number is larger than Christians

[Anonymous No.11750667]

>>11750628
They don't need to, but it's useful to.

[Anonymous No.11750676]

>>11750667
useful for what dude? for organizing similar properties under one name? how do you account for the similarities?

[Anonymous No.11750699]

>>11750439
An abstract concept used to describe what is ultimately an especific bodily reaction to the absorption of eletromagnetic waves under a broad and somewhat poorly defined wavelengh by the eye.
>>11750676
>how do you account for the similarities?
By the wavelengh of the eletromagnetic wave.

[Anonymous No.11750713]

>>11750699
so red-ness has an objective existence but not a subjective one? are you retarded?

[Anonymous No.11750734]

>>11750645
actually, the number is about the same or a little less but the point still stands

[Anonymous No.11750745]

>>11749634
How do you even know the truth of your "transcendent" experience if you don't apply any intellectual rigour to it? I have no reason to disbelieve in the taste of chocolate. I have plenty of reason to disbelieve in a magical experience so fundamentally qualitatively different from regular human experiences that it singlehandedly transcends the problems of the veil of perception, the limits of human understanding, and every existing and possible intellectual and explicable-in-terms-of-real-ordinary-human-experience objection to it.

[Anonymous No.11750768]

>>11750745
>how do you rationally demonstrate what can only be achieved by a rigorous process of spiritual and mental purification
>you can't? i call bullshit

[Anonymous No.11750774]

>>11750713
>so red-ness has an objective existence but not a subjective one? are you retarded?
I am not really good at this(english isn't my first language), but I will try:
The wavelenghs exist in the material world, but this "red-ness" is an abstract concept used to describe our perception of said wavelengh by our bodily organs(eyes) and how we process said perception. However, our perception of "red-ness" is ultimately a result of how we perceive it by our eyes, and is overall a somewhat arbitrary characterization given by us to a somewhat arbitrary spectrum of the wavelengh, and should the way/form/means we perceive said wavelenghs, then the "red-ness" would change, both objectively(where in the spectrum we tend to put it on), and subjectively(how we "feel" about the "red-ness" itself).

[Anonymous No.11750785]

>>11750774
but this is like saying a song doesn't exist because two people perceive it differently, and that's nonsense


it might be that an animal doesn't see red-ness when it sees "objective" red-ness but that doesn't refute the fact there is a similarity, there is a consistency of pattern, across these instances

[Anonymous No.11750809]

>>11749655
retarded fag enabler

[Anonymous No.11750824]

>>11750768
I'm not asking you to rationally demonstrate it. I'm asking you to give me anything at all I can understand. Otherwise, why should I believe you?

[Anonymous No.11750825]

>>11750785
>but this is like saying a song doesn't exist because two people perceive it differently, and that's nonsense
Again, I don't know if I really expressed myself right/well, but to use your analogy, while the these two people will receive the same physical information(the sound waves), how the classify the information/"feel" about it(ie whatever they like, think it just noise, try to pin-point the musical genre, etc) will be subjective/"arbitrary". Note that I actually believe that "red-ness" exist, but as a subjetive "experience" that comes from objetive material phenomena which said subjetive "experience" isn't an intrinsic part of, and is then formalized by sociocultural norms and pressure.

[Anonymous No.11750836]

>>11750824
what do you want? a treatise on metaphysics? you find something in you that doesn't depend on logical demonstration to be true. the givenness of experience is always prior to what is given. it takes years of study and work for it to click, and even then. there are professions that take decades to master, did you think this'd be any different?

[Anonymous No.11750853]

>>11750825
I know what you're trying to say. an insect could see blue where we see red. but red-ness in and of itself becomes all the more inexplicable for that. if anything we have to accept a consistency of objective properties filtered according to different perceptual apparatuses

[Anonymous No.11750869]

>>11750836
I'm not asking for a logical demonstration. It seems to me that you're caricaturizing Western philosophy because you don't understand it.
Why do you believe that what you believe is the indubitable truth?
How do you seriously expect me to accept your view when what you're telling me is that what you say is the absolute truth, blocking any discussion to the contrary, and telling me that what would give your view credence is something that, as far as I am concerned (as you surely understand), gives me no more reason to believe in its reality than any fiction of mine or your invention. At the very least tell me why I should care about what you're saying.

[Anonymous No.11750879]

>>11750869
I don't care if you care, im telling you these ideas are only demonstrated with your being and not on a tatar horseshoe smithing forum. why do I believe they're the truth? cause im experiencing it myself. if u want to learn the resources are there

[Anonymous No.11750883]

>>11750853
>if anything we have to accept a consistency of objective properties filtered according to different perceptual apparatuses
I get that. Functionally, we should act was the "red-ness" is an objective constant, even if once we sit down and do the math we end up figuring that it a subjective classification that we came up with(would that what, pragmatic subjectivism? I am not familiar how this position would be classificated).

[Anonymous No.11750884]

>>11750879
So why are you telling me any of this? Why do you post? Serious question.

[Anonymous No.11750889]

>>11750884
because im trying to make a simple point that what you're asking is fruitless, might as well ask me how I know working out at the gym will build muscle, just do it or don't dude

[Anonymous No.11750896]

>>11750889
Your point amounts to, "what you're asking is fruitless because I can't tell you. It's too deep to understand"
Why should I believe you? A point is made with the intention to convince, no?

[Anonymous No.11750907]

>>11750896
im not saying it's too deep to understand, I already told you what it was, you have to purify yourself and find your center, but that sounds insipid and cliché, it's only something you can experience for yourself. observing your own mind. being grounded in yourself. realizing the mechanisms of your thought processes and detaching yourself from them. realizing what it is you do that is harmful to this movement and what is conducive to it. all of this is practical and takes hard work, but without that work it's just a list of inanities you're going to forget by tomorrow morning anyways

[Anonymous No.11750922]

>>11750907
You tell me these things, but I'm not asking for them. I'm asking why you think I or any other poster with a semblance of critical thinking skills can in any way believe you. You know yourself how much inane blather we deal with from all directions on the internet. So far, you haven't differentiated yourself in any way from most of it. Put yourself in my shoes.

[Anonymous No.11750939]

>>11750922
>why do I have to believe the results of praxis without actually doing it

you don't. good night.

[Anonymous No.11750954]

>>11750939
Praxis is always founded on theory, and if the only foundation for your theory is the praxis derived from it, you can't ever hope for it to appeal to anyone. There are innumerable such closed loops in the world, and I don't have the time or energy to try every single one of them to determine which of them may hold some semblance of "truth." Especially because every single one of them seems to demand of me my whole life to know its truths. Goodnight.

[Anonymous No.11750988]

>>11749329
Occult stuff is the ultimate masturbatory philosophy because it imitates a love of knowledge like masturbation imitates sex.
>>11749600
>hey he used his fucking brain for longer than two seconds he's conducting fuckin philosophy bro

[Anonymous No.11751031]

>>11750954
I've tried such arguments with the guenonists before. They always give the same run around. I'd honestly like to believe in perennial, our sounds comfy. But their response makes me suspect that's all there is to it, thoughtless comfiness.

[Anonymous No.11751203]

>>11751031
>I refuse to accept the possibility of something unless someone spoonfeeds me

just read the texts

[Anonymous No.11751205]

>>11748442
>Any examples of this being one of the four sins?
Maybe as an interpretion of thieving. Otherwise, no, since both Aristotles and Aquinas openly defended slavery.

[Anonymous No.11751239]

>>11751203
You and your fellows' arguments are so thoughtless and circular I am certain I have better things to read. If an eight year old tells me how convincing they found The Book of Mormon, I'm still not in any rush to buy a copy.

[Anonymous No.11751257]

>>11750988
>Occult stuff is the ultimate masturbatory philosophy because it imitates a love of knowledge like masturbation imitates sex.
This.
>>11751031
I don't think I have a bias against their views. It's just frustrating because it seems that they have an inability to understand the epistemic situation. I think you must be right.
>>11751203
>Spoonfeed
How you about you tell me anything substantial at all first.

[Anonymous No.11751590]

>>11751257
>How you about you tell me anything substantial at all first.

It's not about 'telling you something substantial', it's about whether you have the capacity to recognize or whether you are at a stage where you can recognize the value of something or not. Since you obviously seem to have no interest in reading Guenon et al you should just try checking out some primary texts themselves, it should be apparent what their value is. What they describe is true and many people have personally experienced it.

These texts and doctrines teach the way to limitless and auspicious bliss, equanimity, tranquility, peace etc.; where, to quote the Mundaka Upanishad 'the knot of the heart gets untied, all doubts become solved and all one's actions become dissipated'. If you aren't interested in that then don't bother reading them but we are indifferent either way. If anything the people in this thread are being kind by taking the time to help you, if you box yourself in and cut yourself off from this knowledge as a way to spite us you are the only one who is missing out. Here are some texts that demonstrate what the people in this thread are talking about. I hope that you can let go of whatever anger or annoyance you have at the people in this thread so that you can approach these with an open mind.

>The Enclosed Garden of the Truth
http://www.sacred-texts.com/isl/egt/index.htm

>The Ashtavakra Gita
https://realization.org/p/ashtavakra-gita/richards.ashtavakra-gita/richards.ashtavakra-gita.html

>The Zhuangzi
https://terebess.hu/english/chuangtzu.html

[Anonymous No.11751652]

>>11750221
Tell that to the Greeks.

[Anonymous No.11751870]

>>11747394
>theology has brought contentment
Brought it to those that are suffering the ravages of war and disease. You know what science has done? Limited wars and cured diseases!
Why are their no atheists in foxholes? Because it is horrible down there. You know why there are so many atheists now? Because it's not really that bad anymore. Thanks science!

>>11746784
>pray to science for salvation
Can you do so much different with your prayers than hope? Mine might be answered.

>I repeat
What are these great harms of modern society that didn't exist for the medievals? Did they not fear, suffer and die? Did the slave and the serf have freedom over their life? Your epistemology is a dead. Long live skepticism. Long live the honest uncertainty.

[Anonymous No.11752199]

>>11750745
Please, ignore the other anon, he's needlessly dismissive. I'm the guy you're responding to in this post.

>I have no reason to disbelieve in the taste of chocolate
Sure, because you've had direct experience of it yourself.

>I have plenty of reason to disbelieve in a magical experience so fundamentally qualitatively different from regular human experiences that it singlehandedly transcends the problems of the veil of perception
And again, this is because you haven't experienced these for yourself. Now, the question becomes, how do you get them?

Well, the answer is simple. You have to *want* to experience them, just as you have to *want* to become a brain surgeon in order to perform brain surgery. If your metaphysical worldview already rejects the possibility of these experiences in the first place, then you're never going to get anywhere. You'll never give up the physical pleasures, engage in the ethical precepts and practice the psycho-spiritual disciplines necessary to create the conditions for them to arise.

What's being discussed here isn't religious belief or mystic feel-good woo-woo. It's a very real and very achievable course in the cultivation of one's consciousness by wilfully engaging in the practices that lead to this.

[Anonymous No.11753354]

bump

[Anonymous No.11753627]

>>11752199
1.Have you transcended? If no, do you know people personally that have?
2.How long did it take?
3a.Which are the fastest steps (esoteric practices?) to achieve this course?
3b.Which are the easiest?
4.What is the rate of completion for each path?
5.What are the possible side-effects, complications or contraindications of this practice, both during practice and at completion?

[Anonymous No.11753698]

>>11753627
Almost all of those are going to be highly variable based on a particular person. Everyone is going to have certain paths or doctrines that resonate with them more and every person is going to have a different capability for putting in the required effort and contemplation that's necessary. There are a whole host of secondary considerations as well, such as whether you have a teacher and how legitimate they are. The best thing to do is study texts from various traditions until you find something that really affects you. From there, you can extensively study all of the texts from that tradition, try to implement it into your life, do research to find a teacher etc.

[Anonymous No.11753703]

>>11753354
>switch IP/phonepost
>'bump' (see guys its not me)
>makes a post and replies to it with 'based'
>tries to keep the conversation with memes (fails miserably)
>writes up walls of text, yet only 1 or 2 people are actually engaging in it every few hours
when will geunon fag ever learn that nobody cares about this boring /x/-tier author and his pajeetism fetish

[Anonymous No.11753720]

>>11753627
I am by no means a master, in fact I am barely a novice, but I will try my best to answer your questions.

>1.Have you transcended? If no, do you know people personally that have?
I have had many deep experiences that have helped shift my perception of reality, but it's a far call to say I've "transcended."

2.How long did it take?
My own journey started roughly six years ago, but I know I still have a long way to go.

>3a.Which are the fastest steps (esoteric practices?) to achieve this course?
It depends for each individual. Some people are more inclined to rational investigation methods such as vipassana, others can use visualisation techniques to allow their ego to be dissolved into a deity's, others still can use strenuous bodily exercises to align the energies within the body and mind. Since our society isn't geared towards transcendence, finding practices that suit you could happen straight away or could take years.

3b.Which are the easiest?
See above. I personally have a hard time with straight-forward awareness meditation, and find it much easier to do deity visualisation. Others might be the opposite though, or you might find practices becoming easier or harder the more you progress, and so on. If you're looking for a good starting point, my personal suggestion would be to search around your area for any Buddhist / Yoga / Taoist etc. centres and seeing if they offer anything like this.

4.What is the rate of completion for each path?
It's hard to say. Remember, if you're taking this seriously, then the idea of future lives is something that usually comes into the equation. Some people complete the path in just a few years. Others it takes a couple of lifetimes. And so on.

5.What are the possible side-effects, complications or contraindications of this practice, both during practice and at completion?
This is a very intimate inner journey, so expect to find yourself having your preconceptions about yourself, the world, society, etc. changed, sometimes drastically. You might find yourself giving up habits you once thought were normal, such as eating meat or drinking, as you find yourself unable to justify continuing to do these things. Sometimes, you can be made strongly aware of latent anxieties or sadnesses you've had with you your whole life but weren't consciously aware of. At first these might feel off-putting, but they are a natural part of the path, and if you can stick through them you were find yourself feeling freer on the other side.

If you'd like more advice, feel free to ask more questions.

[Anonymous No.11753744]

>>11753703
>69 different posters in this thread, almost all of whom have different ways of writing and different viewpoints
>because I don't like Guenon or eastern thought, that means nobody does and so almost all of this thread must just be one person samefagging

There needs to be an IQ-cutoff for posting on /lit/

[Anonymous No.11753768]

>>11753744
>got caught samefagging in previous threads
>still makes predictably similar posts
>'i-it w-wasn't me check the IP!'
and it is just a coincidence that a random 'lurker' bumped this dying thread in the nick of time

[Anonymous No.11753869]

>>11753768
cry more, your tears are delicious

[Anonymous No.11753887]

>>11751652
Plato and Plotinus condemned it

[Anonymous No.11753901]

>>11753869
>'haha cry more faggot xD'
>this is the same geunonfag who tells others to "let go of whatever anger or annoyance you have"

[Anonymous No.11753958]

>>11751870
absolutely epic! external material conditions are definitely more important than the internal condition of the soul... right??

[Anonymous No.11753979]

>>11753901
With your autistic attacks against this imagined 'guenon-poster' boogeyman of yours all you do is bump the thread and cause more people to see it and become more interested in the subject matter. If your intent is to reduce or stop traditionalist/eastern thought posting then it would seem to be having the opposite effect, it's just grown more common over the last few years and especially in the last 6 months.

[Anonymous No.11754323]

>>11751870
>What are these great harms of modern society that didn't exist for the medievals?

The threat of nuclear annihiliation and of biological weapons/terrorism, widespread pollution of air, soil, and food to the extent that it hampers intelligence and causes cancer as well as mood and developmental disorders, crippeling usury, governments that are actively hostile towards their population and who out of a greed for the financial benefits and for ideological reasons work hard to replace this same population with violent and maladjusted foreigners who terrorize them with crime, take or greatly devalue their livelihoods and destroy social cohesion, the near complete indoctrination of all young people in a nihilist mode of thinking that implicitly assumes biological reductionist materialism, the capture of the economy (and ensuing trade deals) by financial parasites to such a degree that the rising costs of living greatly exceed the rise in wages, making everyone poorer and less able to make ends meet, the dividing of a society against eachother by the government being democratic and by the widespread teaching by the powers that be that everyone is equal, this dividing society because when things inevitably don't turn out equal people feel cheated and resentful of eachother and then they are further divided when they are taught to regard their fellow countrymen as dire political opponents instead of everyone being united in their devotion to a king or emperor. The existence of a mass-media that dehumanizes and degrades life by denigrating religion, morality and the family, which promotes consumption of consumer products and reckless behavior as the highest goal, everything Debord wrote about, the dysgenic application of modern medicine which leads to the stupidest and those with the worst genes reproducing the most and the most intelligent dwindling out, the unsustainable population explosion fortelling future ecological disaster and genocide/starvation/civil war, a dominant cultural paradign that cheapens anything transcendental by insisting it's all psychological or neuroscience-related, etc etc

[Anonymous No.11754404]

>>11754323
Apparently modernism destroyed grammar and punctuation too.

[Anonymous No.11754421]

>>11754404
Nothing will be spared

[Anonymous No.11754464]

You can't close pandora's box. You can't convince people to believe in a noble lie when they all know it's a lie.

Traditionalism is for failed normies with cognitive dissonance.

[Anonymous No.11754499]

>>11754464
The last thing to come out of the box was hope.

[Anonymous No.11754511]

>>11751870
>You know what science has done? Limited wars and cured diseases!
An edifice built on sand. Many resources our technologies require are finite and so won't last forever. When they run out everything will come crashing down and war and disease will spread the world over.

[Anonymous No.11754523]

>>11754464
What part of it do you think is a lie?

[Anonymous No.11754544]

>>11737207
I legit never heard of this guy but he sounds like a complete pseud, why is he relevant at all?

[Anonymous No.11754549]

>>11754511
>When they run out everything
This is basically a meme. This doomsaying have been going since Malthus, but If we look in how mining is actually done, we have only barely scratched a limited amount Earth’s surface for resources.

[Anonymous No.11754557]

>>11754523
>we wuz aryan godmen
Ya. Sorry. Godmen aren't real. Vedas were written by ordinary humans. So was the Bible. Transcendence is a lie. Magic and miracles never existed and only exist in all religions because all religions begin not with truth but untruth.

[Anonymous No.11754579]

>>11754544
>he sounds like a complete pseud
Probably because he is. He's an easternboo mystic after all.

[Anonymous No.11754603]

>>11754557
B-b-but you see there is an underlying truth that you can only experience by sitting in a cave all day mumbling some brown man hymns, hehe a novice like you wouldn't understand superior brown man wisdom, silly rationalist

[Anonymous No.11754604]

>>11754544
>was a talented STEM student, taught college philosophy, published 23 books and could read Greek, Latin, English, Italian, German, Spanish, Sanskrit, Hebrew, Arabic and classical Chinese
>pseud

He was more patrician than 99.999% of posters on /lit/

[Anonymous No.11754641]

>>11754603
go back to /pol/ kiddo

[Anonymous No.11754657]

>>11754557
>Transcendence is a lie

Wrong, I've had glimpses of it so I can personally call bullshit as have many other posters, not to mention there are many thousands of texts describing it from every angle which would have been impossible to compose and would not be as consistent as they are if it was all just baseless speculation.

[Anonymous No.11754658]

>>11754464
Neither can you escape Nature and Reality, the two things the industrial-military complex loathes the most. If real men, not mere bug-automata, won't have the last laugh, certainly God will.

[Anonymous No.11754667]

>>11754604
Am I suppose to be impressed by a multilingual academic? What actual imprint did he have in history? Im looking him up in wikipedia and apparently he's an esoteric author of some sort?

[Anonymous No.11754669]

>>11754549
For certain things that's true but there are still many rare minerals with many critical applications that are being quickly depleted with no solution in sight

[Anonymous No.11754674]

>>11754657
>I've had glimpses of it
So did Sam Harris, whats your point?

[Anonymous No.11754685]

>>11754604
You forgot 'he's a brilliant mathematician', guenonfag

[Anonymous No.11754687]

>>11754657
>if it was all just baseless speculation.
It's more likely a psychological quirk than anything else

[Anonymous No.11754692]

>>11754641
Go back to /x/ pseudo

[Anonymous No.11754798]

>>11754674
That glimpsing something validates that it has some basis to it. It's something anyone is inherently capable of, even fools like Harris.

[Anonymous No.11754829]

>>11754603
You've been brainwashed by the Jews to reject the highest Indo-European wisdom and instead remained hampered by Semitic modes of thought like dualism. The decline of the west can be traced to it losing Indo-European wisdom with the supplanting of it by Christianity and all the baggage of Jewish thought that came with it.

>yes good goy, make fun of those silly Indians and ignore their teachings, no they don't have any ancient connection to primordial Aryan wisdom *rubs hands*

[Anonymous No.11754833]

>>11754669
>are being quickly depleted with no solution in sight
Actually, there is underwater mining that looks promising, but even total exhaustion of those will not cause the death to surpass those of 1900(seriously, what the actual fuck) like what >>11754511 says.

[Anonymous No.11754848]

>>11754798
Except Harris has a rational explanation behind it and can point to neurological literature to make his point. Is he just wrong and you right? Could it be possible that what you're describing is a placebo effect of something that is natural and not a transcended spook?

[Anonymous No.11754857]

>>11754829
>primordial Aryan wisdom
do you mean like the Zodiac shit

[Anonymous No.11754873]

>>11754829
>its the jews!
>this is the same guy that tells others to 'go back to /pol/'

[Anonymous No.11755024]

>>11754857
The Vedas are some of the oldest texts in any Indo-European language

[Anonymous No.11755066]

>>11755024
Isn't the Epic of Gilgamesh the oldest known text? Or are they not Indo-European?

[Anonymous No.11755161]

>>11755066
Sumerian was not an indo-european language. There are a few Egyptian texts which pre-date it too but out of the entire wider Indo-European/Indo-Iranian family of ethnic groups stretching from northern India to Spain I think it's either the very oldest text or in the top 2 or 3. It's definitely the oldest IE text of that size.

[Anonymous No.11755258]

>>11754848
a non-argument, does the fact buddhist realization being empirically reproducible through a particular mental and physical regimen mean it's "just a spook"?

you fundamentally don't know what you're talking about and neither does harris. "where" it happens is immaterial, that it does - to the first-person observer, which is all you are and all you will ever be - is all that matters.

[Anonymous No.11755282]

Christian philosophy>Western Philosophy>Eastern Philosophy

[Anonymous No.11755292]

>>11755161
Egyptian and Sumerian is way interesting and relevant if traditionalism truly seeks to uncover something universal rather than indo-european fairytales.

[Anonymous No.11755303]

>>11755258
>mental and physical regimen
>empirically reproducible
I agree about the ability of meditation to produce unusual mental and even subjectively superior states but see no point to place entire epistemological foundations on such shaky grounds.
>"just a spook"
The minute you attach transcendence it becomes exactly that.

[Anonymous No.11755318]

>>11755303
I'm almost positive you're operating under a fairy dust woo woo idea of transcendence where you're transported to the pure land and shake the buddha's hand instead of transcendence's coincidence with immanence

[Anonymous No.11755325]

>>11755282
Christian philosophy is boring and uninspiring aside from where it's crypto-Neoplatonism. Christian mystics like Bohme and Eckhart are way more interesting and worthwhile than most Christian philosophers, and these people generally agree with the ideas of eastern philosophy anyways.

[Anonymous No.11755334]

>>11755318
>pure land
>buddha
Fairy tales. Just like the idea of enlightenment.
>transcendence's coincidence with immanence
Then what's the point? You're too scared to live the immanent without attempting to transcendentalize it?

[Anonymous No.11755366]

>>11755334
>Then what's the point? You're too scared to live the immanent without attempting to transcendentalize it?

No, not every tradition that finds the default human condition fundamentally unsatisfactory is a fear-reaction. Understanding something to its roots =/= running away.

[Anonymous No.11755398]

>>11755292
>Egyptian and Sumerian is way interesting and relevant

While they may have had something that was lost to time or only filtered down through other cultures (e.g. Plato studying in Egypt), there isn't anything in the Sumerian or Egyptian canon that we know of that is even remotely as profound as the metaphysics and philosophy that developed from the Vedas

>traditionalism truly seeks to uncover something universal rather than indo-european fairytales.

I agree, and none of the Traditionalists except Evola present it in this way but it remains true that for people of an Indo-European ethnic group who speak an IE language there is a connection which means they might find it particularly interesting to study them, which is not to say they can't also enjoy studying other things

[Anonymous No.11755403]

>>11755366
traditionalism is the reason the default human condition is fundamentally unsatisfactory

[Anonymous No.11755405]

>>11755398
>there isn't anything in the Sumerian or Egyptian canon that we know of that is even remotely as profound as the metaphysics and philosophy that developed from the Vedas

Read Uzdavinys' Philosophy as a Rite of Rebirth

[Anonymous No.11755410]

>>11755403
couldn't even begin to tell you how dumb this statement is. as if a sacralized social structure is somehow prior to being an inhabitant of a thermodynamic universe that runs on death. what are you even talking about dude

[Anonymous No.11755413]

>>11755405
>reconstruction instead of actual texts

you just proved my point (good book though)

[Anonymous No.11755419]

>>11755413
well true and even though I consider platonism only a little bit inferior to the east it's still an absolutely formidable intellectual and mystical tradition

[Anonymous No.11755421]

>>11755258
>>11755334
>>11755366
So, if they develop a drug that can produce this transcendent/immanent experience, we are good? Everyone can just take their meds as needed?
Some days you need oblivion of the self in non-existence, other days you'll take the union with the god-head pill, maybe sometimes the kids will sneek your speaking in tongues drug just to get off?

[Anonymous No.11755436]

>>11755421
no, because the drug will never be able to reproduce the experience of actually struggling for it, or: the person who walks the path will always be just that much more fulfilled by actually walking it vs. picking up a buddha pill at the checkout line

[Anonymous No.11755442]

>>11754829
>ancient connection to primordial Aryan wisdom
we foolish westerners have much to learn from these noble sages

[Anonymous No.11755446]

>>11755419
I agree completely

[Anonymous No.11755497]

>>11755442
>look mom I posted it again!

Do I really need to pull up pictures of gay pride parades, Susan Sontag, fat people in wheelchairs at walmart, Christians seeing Christ in a peice of toast, tv evangelists, or all the examples of Euros being uber-cucks etc?

[Anonymous No.11755507]

>>11755497
It's not a good tactic, but don't pretend it doesn't raise valid points. For all its claims to the highest order of spiritual knowledge, hinduism never produced a society that could be called anything near harmonious. It produced a shithole of castes at each others throats with the lowest cleaning out sewers by hand for a living. Maybe that's an indiction of philosophy and metaphysics as a whole.

[Anonymous No.11755509]

>>11755497
no, just tell me about the profound aryan truths these fine young men are expressing

[Anonymous No.11755512]

>>11755398
>While they may have had something that was lost to time or only filtered down through other cultures (e.g. Plato studying in Egypt), there isn't anything in the Sumerian or Egyptian canon that we know of that is even remotely as profound as the metaphysics and philosophy that developed from the Vedas
I disagree but such is life. Coffin Texts, Pyramid Texts, Gilgamesh, etc. Chaldean Oracles from Zoroastrianism. Iamblichus has no parallel in the East, from what I've read.
>I agree, and none of the Traditionalists except Evola present it in this way but it remains true that for people of an Indo-European ethnic group who speak an IE language there is a connection which means they might find it particularly interesting to study them, which is not to say they can't also enjoy studying other things
There's definitely a lot more info on Indo-European stuff. And it is more relevant to our cultural heritage. Uzdavinys has interesting speculation on the Egyptian traditions... I wish there was like an audiobook so I could see how the words are pronounced... Schwaller de Lubicz as well. And Assmann. For more pure Egypt. The Greek-Egypt thing is a cool thing to revive. For the simply Greek side, Kingsley is cool though he writes like a prick and Hadot is absolute brilliant though seemingly less esoteric. Greek-Egypt, you got Stephen Skinner and Aaron Cheak (and Jake Stratton-Kent [if you accept Skinner's Egyptian to Greek to European Goetic transmission]). Interestingly enough, Meditations on the Tarot: A Journey Into Christian Hermeticism is apparently approved by the Church despite flirting with gnosticism. Kinda has some poor attacks on naive orientalism if you are in deep to Eastern philosophy you might be offended. I want to read pic related soon... Traditionalism is interesting. I see the appeal. I have thought about becoming a traditionalist and finding a conservative gf but my relationship with its theology is complex. For me, it seems like cognitive dissonance and an attempt to hide the true roots of humanity which are too gnarled and crazy for even the messy metaphysics of neoplatonism let alone the cleaner vedantic.
>traditionalism
traditionalism, as a new movement, is counter-intiatic
traditionalism, as a return to an older movement, is intiatic
>colonialism
traditionalism, as a new movement, is colonialist
traditionalism, as a return to an older movement, is anti-colonial
Overall, it seems like a marriage of post-modernism and traditionalism could prove fruitful...
>>11755410
>thermodynamic universe that runs on death
colonialist and cucked

[Anonymous No.11755514]

>>11755507
maybe judging individual metaphysical attainment by a society isn't the best route, especially since its supposedly golden age has passed

[Anonymous No.11755520]

>>11755512
>pic related
forgot to attach, here

[Anonymous No.11755540]

>>11753698
>>11753720
3. It is only very recently that we have all these traditions available to choose amongst. Was Buddha's or Jesus's message only going to work for some? If some traditions do work better for certain people, is it impossible to develop a method to help people to determine which practice they would have the most success in doing?

4. Perhaps it does take lifetimes, but to say that is also to say 'it can wait until the next life, you'll get a bunch.'

5. Still, these things could be surveyed and reported. Some people I've known, I recommended they should not take LSD, because I didn't think they would have a good trip. Of course, maybe I was wrong. It would help to have some method or at least probabilities of what changes people like yourself have experienced. If some people have greater risks, they could be recommended to a particular tradition or an especially experienced teacher.

6. Do you know of anywhere/any group, that is trying to sort out those potential paths or problems?

[Anonymous No.11755627]

>>11755507
Hindu society was actually always pretty harmonious, the castes have never been 'at each others throats' anymore than you are at the throat of the cab-driver, shopkeeper and police officer that you see every day.

>with the lowest cleaning out sewers by hand for a living
Some group equivalent to this will always be doing something like this in every society, you might as well have them integrated into a larger religious-cultural framework that allows them for feel as though they are just following their dharma and if virtuous will be reborn in a better life. To argue otherwise is crypto-progressivism. Plus anyone at any time could always just abandon everything and seek transcendence as a sannyasa, if you just traveled to where people didn't know you then you would be just another mendicant.


>>11755509
They are getting in touch with their chariot-riding Aryan ancestors who certainly didn't use toilets. If you weren't a brainlet you'd know that's actually the healthiest position to poop in.

[Anonymous No.11755644]

>>11755627
>allows them for feel as though they are just following their dharma and if virtuous will be reborn in a better life. To argue otherwise is crypto-progressivism
What's wrong with progressivism? Why would one even need to be cryptic about desiring a better life for all of humanity? I understand why fascists are cryptic because their ideas are disgusting. What about automation?

Also funny how you say "feel as if", do you not believe? You know it's a scam and you admit you have not transcended and your teacher's probably not transcended and just claiming otherwise to take your shekels. Ah! The life of a guenonfag...

[Anonymous No.11755748]

I find Uzdavinys the most honest traditionalists as he admits he has found some insight through his studies of wisdom traditions but it might be nothing more than madness. Transcendence and immanence are two-sides of the same coin. One person's ceiling is another person's floor. Turtles, up, down, all around. The transcendence that is not a transcendence. The transcendence that never arrives. Or arrives only to point the way forward to the next transcendence. Plato's Socrates openly admits the mystery of the impossibility of achieving the sage state. Ironic, then, that he was made out to be one after death. Only schizophrenics and scammers claim to be sages. It is most unbecoming to claim being sage. True humility is the mark of becoming sage even if that becoming never completes itself.

[Anonymous No.11755801]

>>11755627
>They are getting in touch with their chariot-riding Aryan ancestors who certainly didn't use toilets. If you weren't a brainlet you'd know that's actually the healthiest position to poop in.
Lmao. Hindus aren't Scythians.

[Anonymous No.11755967]

>>11755512
> Coffin Texts, Pyramid Texts, Gilgamesh, etc. Chaldean Oracles from Zoroastrianism. Iamblichus has no parallel in the East, from what I've read.

Are you not very well read in eastern stuff? The Vedas contain all sorts of rituals and spells including for death-related stuff and as an addition are way more metaphysical than the Egyptian stuff, the Tibetian book of the dead among other texts deals with the same subjects as the Egyptian texts you mentioned, the Hindu epics like Mahabharata deal with all of the same existential topics as Gilgamesh, The Chaldean Oracles as basically just like a few of the Upanishads, Neoplatonism is fascinating but in certain aspects is like a more limited and confused Vedanta (which has been active for much longer and has way more texts and thought behind it). For example the subject of returning to or ceasing to be something other than the One in Neoplatonism and what this entails and feels like is dealt with somewhat haphazardly and without a very consistent understanding while in Vedanta you have many thousands of pages of texts dealing with this subject alone.

If you ever read Guenon he makes it clear that he was not trying to start any movement but just wanted to explain eastern ideas so people could get into them if they wanted, he explictily advocates people joining already existing traditions without changing them. He is very anti-colonialist in his writings. The farthest he goes in ever coming near to talking about a movement is just to observe that it would be beneficial for the west if the west's intellectual elite (or those of them with good hearts and honest intentions) started to seriously study eastern thought, which is hardly objectionable.

>>11755748
Maybe that was his personal experience but most of the eastern traditions describe a final transcendence where after it happens you just remain in a blissfully peaceful state until the death of the body, after which you don't return. I hesitate to think he reached the final limit while he was living in a house in the modern west as a scholar and publishing books. That's not to say being well-read and writing is mutually incompatible with reaching final transcendence but generally it's the people who have renounced everything and live possesionless or in extremely austere settings (for the remainder of their life) who seem to reach it.

[Anonymous No.11756001]

>>11755801
Genetic studies have shown that almost all Indians have steppe ancestry from southern Russia/Caspian sea regions and that the amount of this rises the higher you go up in the caste system and the more northwest in India you go. I'm surprised that you didn't already know about this it's been posted on 4chan a lot.

[Anonymous No.11756082]

>>11755967
Never read the Vedas honestly. Little bit of Sankara, Guenon, Patanjali, Mahayana Sutras, Tibetan Book of the Dead. Went through an orientalist phase in my philosophical beginnings and have since been exploring the West with an expanded consciousness. The truths of the past are not aways the truths of the future or the present. I think we need less people joining monastaries and more people trying to effect ecological and economical paradigm shifts.

[Anonymous No.11756148]

>>11756082
>The truths of the past are not aways the truths of the future or the present

Certainly I'm not saying the only acceptable option is for people to become a Hindu etc, although these can be very important sources of knoweldge. If you are just starting out with vague synthesis rather than being primarily rooted in one thing though that's when you leave the door open for all kinds of unsavory cultists and """gurus"""" to step in if they happen to be charismatic enough (Osho, to a lesser extent Schuon etc). Also, these are not necessarily things of the past. I'm not too familiar with how Daoists have done under the PRC but Sufism and various Vedantic and Tantric orders are still very much alive traditions with unbroken links that go back very far, the fact that the modern world has 'progressed' does not mean that these groups are in the past, they've never stopped being part of the eternal now (mind=blown!)

>I think we need less people joining monastaries and more people trying to effect ecological and economical paradigm shifts.

This path is not for everyone but people who feel drawn to it should not be dissuaded, this was one area (among many) where Plotinus agreed with the Buddhists and Hindus, the ascetic group he formed in his life was basically a Greek Sangha. There are beneficial teachings and practices for laypeople and renunciants alike, to each their own. I wouldn't worry about it drawing away too many people, in both Hindu and Buddhist countries it doesn't cause problems and integrates well into the larger society. It's always only going to be a small group out of the larger whole that pursues it.

[Anonymous No.11756272]

>>11755507
>For all its claims to the highest order of spiritual knowledge, hinduism never produced a society that could be called anything near harmonious
It actually quite literally has.

I want you to imagine that tomorrow, the population of America suddenly triples in size, is placed onto a landmass a third of its current size, and everyone is told they'd be living off an income 1/30th of their current ones. What do you think would happen? It would be Armageddon; people would quickly devolve into killing their neighbours for speaking too loud, or choking their grocery for taking too long to scan their items. Race wars that would make Selma look like a playground would erupt, killing millions. Entire sections of the country would break off, and either remain isolationist or be usurped by warlords and attempt to carve out as much land as possible. All of those nutty preppers would finally have an excuse to shoot every they see near their land on sight. A great darkness would descend upon this new America.

And yet, these are the exact social conditions that exist in India today, and it remains a harmonious and functioning society. It's not a curse that India has as many people as it does with such low levels of material development, it's a MIRACLE. I have no idea how the fuck this idea that technology = social stability developed, because, over the course of human history, there's almost no correlation between the two. In fact, but becoming as dependent on technology as we have, we've actually shortchanged our psyches and been able to get away with being greedy and anti-social for too long. You average American or Brit is, even if unconsciously, way more entitled and narcissistic than in previous aeons.

[Anonymous No.11756331]

>>11755644
>Why would one even need to be cryptic about desiring a better life for all of humanity?
Because, I hate to be harsh, but your conception of "a better of life for all of humanity" is largely horseshit.
What does this "progress" look like to you? Better homes, better medicine, better nutrition? Sure, I don't think anyone would disagree with that. But we can do all that WITHOUT also psychologically enslaving ourselves to the media, to distraction, to processed foods, to inhumane jobs, to cities devoid of nature (yes, this is extremely important for a healthy psyche), and so on.
Look around you - people are utterly miserable (even if they won't admit it to themselves.) Suicide has become an epidemic in the West. Loneliness has never been higher. We're dependent on cheap, carcinogenic foods to feed us, and then a boatload of antibiotics to stop us from getting sick when our immune systems inevitably fail. Internet addiction has turned a massive chunk of our young population into effective loners. We effectively live in a cyberpunk dystopia, and this one's on a global scale.
True "progress" is simply a re-ordering of the mind and body (both individual and collective) towards the same archetypal truths that have permeated all societies, because they're archetypal. People from different classes, backgrounds DO act and think differently from one another. Men and women DO, for the most part, have different psychological needs. Young men ARE most fulfilled with a right of initiation, and young women DO love becoming new mothers. Now, we of course can use technology to reduce the physical insecurity in our lives, but that should never been the goal in itself. The capacity of the human mind and heart far outweighs the need to enslave itself to petty material concerns.

[Anonymous No.11756461]

>>11755748
I love what Michelstaedter says about Socrates: longing to rise to the sun and escape the earth's gravity, he neither rose nor sank, and "beyond this nothing more can be said of him"

[Anonymous No.11756652]

>>11756331
based

[Anonymous No.11756674]

>>11755627
And what is the perennial Traditional reason for doing it in the street? Please, save me from my profane, degenerate toilet before it’s too late

[Anonymous No.11756687]

>>11756331
Funny. These are the same points brought up the Marxist Mark Fisher in Capitalist Realism.

[Anonymous No.11756691]

>>11756674
>brainlet can only think in /pol/ memes

yawn

[Anonymous No.11756693]

>>11756687
Is that supposed to be a critique or affirmation of my post?

[Anonymous No.11756697]

>>11756691
you’re sounding awfully modern there bud

[Anonymous No.11756747]

>>11756693
Idk. I'm like a non-religious religious-philosopher. I think traditionalism is important as it points toward the wisdom of traditional knowledge structures wherein true iniatic hierarchy is maintained but I also see the need for a new global system that is not achieved simply by a mass religious revival. Things must be done on a truly post-modern level. Have we ever truly been modern? The post-modern has yet to arrive. I am a Occult Deleuzean Lacanian Freudo-Marxist Heidegerrian Wittgensteinian Nietzschean Hegelian Kantian Humean Eckhartian Spinozan Plotinian Platonist Orphic Pythagorean Hermeticist Catholix.

[Anonymous No.11756856]

>>11756747
Nah, you're just a human being

[Anonymous No.11756885]

>>11756856
True that. And so are you. Despite any glimpses of transcendence you may claim. I have had some immanent ascents and descents. A fluctuating phase state. I attempt to raise the frequency. And give off the right vibes. I believe all knowledge is initiatic. Not simply religious. It is not a coincidence that freemasonry was both guild and mystery cult. I think the return to ancient philosophy is reactionary to modern philosophy in the same way as post-modernism and the two groups should get together. Form a new global tribe. Perhaps the blue haired dykes could be shamans. And the virgin incels could be married off to them.

[Anonymous No.11756893]

>>11756856
t. bucket crab

[Anonymous No.11756905]

>>11756885
I think you're overcomplicating things. Just stay the course, let go of your own illusions, and enjoy life for what it is.

[Anonymous No.11756922]

>>11756674
you literal retard, they are brushing their teeth.

[Anonymous No.11756954]

>>11756272
underrated post

[Anonymous No.11756986]

>>11756905
I think the progressive urge for greater personal responsibility in ethics is good. Yes, most police officers are good. But let not police officers shield their comrades from crimes. Same with priests. A more horizontal perspective would allow us to deal with these criminals better via the justice system.

[Anonymous No.11758081]

>>11737207
>Is Rene Guenon right a-
"No!"

[Anonymous No.11758238]

>>11739635
>plotinus
>on the same sentence as heraclitus

keking realhard outhere