/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.13775376]

Are notions of enlightenment and transcendence all hubris?

[Anonymous No.13775401]

Yup. Take the Speculative Philosophy pill.

[Anonymous No.13775423]

True enlightenment is anti-enlightenment, the knowledge that knowledge is limited, that there are an infinity of unknowns, that, like Socrates, the one thing you know is that you know nothing,

" I seem, then, in just this little thing to be wiser than this man at any rate, that what I do not know I do not think I know either."

[Anonymous No.13775433]

>>13775376
Generally yes, if you take these terms to imply the possibility of a perfect or complete state, or fundamental transition from your current state.

Enlightement could be viewed as improvement along a spectrum, however; an iterative process of integrating knowledge and practice towards achieving an excellent -- if not 'transcendant' -- state of mind.

[Anonymous No.13775455]

>>13775423
This is anti-intellectual garbage. A certain degree of skepticism is wise, but the wise also know that empiricism is our only conduit to knowledge. Expectations of perfect knowledge are absurd in the first place, and if you do not act in accordance with what is most likely to be true, you are not wise.

[Anonymous No.13776398]

>>13775376
Yes, like all philosophy. Human perception is incredibly warped.

[Anonymous No.13776410]

>>13775455
Empiricism is inherently skeptical, and is motivated by the understanding that current knowledge is deficient. Otherwise you have dogma. Empiricism without skepticism is naive realism.
We are not talking about practical knowledge, we are talking about the esoteric.

[Anonymous No.13778150]

>>13775376
No, thats a cope position, they are as real as can be

[Anonymous No.13778578]

>>13776410
This.

I never got how people who actually read the classics could get into eastern mysticism/philosphy shit with the concept of enlightenment.