/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.16866291]

Idealism vs Materialism vs Dualism vs Processism

Which one is right anons?

[Anonymous No.16866348]

>>16866291
Materialism, buenoist philosophical materialism

[Anonymous No.16866374]

>>16866291
Object-Oriented Ontology, obviously, is the only correct path

[Anonymous No.16866378]

All of them. All of them are right. Dualism is right twice, though.

[Anonymous No.16866429]

>>16866291
I'm irrationally upset at how sloppy this image is

[Anonymous No.16866525]

>>16866429
But I like it

[Anonymous No.16866549]

>>16866348
i got no idea who bueno is, but materialism is right.
it encompasses also the """immaterial""" by definition.

[Anonymous No.16867292]

bump

[Anonymous No.16867332]

>>16866291
That picture is a nice example of symbolism.

[Anonymous No.16867373]

>>16867332
how

[Anonymous No.16867386]

>>16867373
It symbolises me prancing on your fat mother's ass crack and meeting an old brown toad.

[Anonymous No.16867396]

>>16866291
They're all right.

[Anonymous No.16867409]

>>16867373
The waif, a feminine boy in my eyes, is treading along a narrow path and can only really go forward. There is no choice in the path but there is an element of danger and chance should he stumble. It could easily be seen as a metaphor for keeping to moral purity but there is no promise of an earthly reward in sight, just more mists and deeper crevasses.

[Anonymous No.16867434]

Pepe the wizard and boy jesus are the batman and robin of wisdom.

[Anonymous No.16867461]

Neutral monism

[Anonymous No.16867492]

>>16867409
>there's no reward in sight
>implying that the path continues to the right instead of arcing off towards the left, out of our view
This is life

[Anonymous No.16867510]

>>16866374
The funny part about OOO is that it tries to rid itself of the subject and proclaims itself to be non-anthropocentric but the whole idea is essentially the subject projecting its own judgements onto objects

[Anonymous No.16867528]

>>16867492
Is that really life in your eyes? Constantly living on the literal edge as you move forward over the slick wet grass of a mountain ridge?

No, I think it symbolizes the naivete of any great commitment to a dedicated path. It echoes spirituality more than life.

[Anonymous No.16867553]

>>16866348
literally cannot trust a man who smokes

[Anonymous No.16867571]

>>16867528
Exactly. But that is a dedicated path- to have a choice between the facile obvious (the path continues off into the meaningless right) or the intuited left.

Yes, life is insecure. You can make it to the end.

Naivete is a little word in the face of the spiritually inclined. Am I naive for trusting millions of years of humans who have had spiritual experiences and continue to do so, despite the growlingly shrill and scattered attempts by reductionists to attribute everything to some magical, convenient "psychosomatic cause" or "self-suggested hallucination?" Am I really so contemptible for holding a mere IDEA, that this world has a hidden path, and that it can be reached.

[Anonymous No.16867585]

>>16867510
You misread

[Anonymous No.16867608]

>>16867510
>projecting its own judgements
Show me an example of them doing this, any OOO author.
Flat Ontology, my main man. The difference is that we are not considering the Human as the only meaning-source.

[Anonymous No.16867623]

>>16867571
Your pic is exactly what OOO criticizes Physicalism and Smallism for as a matter of fact

[Anonymous No.16867652]

>>16867623
Give me the quick rundown on OOO, seeing as you're so hyped up about it.

[Anonymous No.16867657]

>>16866291
>>16867634

All humans have a purpose
Know thyself
What you feel is right is what's right

[Anonymous No.16867660]

>>16867652
The book Object-Oriented Ontology is on libgen, it is a quick rundown, go read it (or don't, fuck you)

[Anonymous No.16867667]

>>16867657
Fuck your gay thread

[Anonymous No.16867865]

>>16867571
"Axiom (1) also results in the persistent charm of the Easy Think Substance. Agrilogistic ontology, formalized by Aristotle about ten thousand years in, supposes a being to consist of a bland lump of whatever decorated with accidents. It’s the Easy Think Substance because it resembles what comes out of an Easy Bake Oven, a children’s toy. Some kind of brown featureless lump emerges, which one subsequently decorates with sprinkles."
(Morton, Dark Ecology)

[Morton is an OOO author]

[Anonymous No.16867970]

“The world is not merely physical, nor is it merely mental. Nor is it merely one with many subordinate phases.
Nor is it merely a complete fact, in its essence static with the illusion of change. Wherever a vicious dualism appears, it is by reason of mistaking an abstraction for a final concrete fact.”

[Anonymous No.16867992]

>>16867970
His relationalism and his necessity for God as the thing which acts, an action-medium, really fuck him up for me.
It's not that I'm an atheist, either, it's just a weird place to go.

[Anonymous No.16868009]

>>16867992
>relationalism
why do you have an issue with this?
>his necessity for God as the thing which acts, an action-medium
what do you mean by this?

[Anonymous No.16868088]

>>16867992
Also I am an atheist and love Whitehead. I see his God as the "atheist's God."

[Anonymous No.16868092]

>>16868009
Relationalism reduce the world to relations, that is to say, no real objects, only relational effects, which requires:

"It was Whitehead in the 1920s who dared to resume the classical occasionalist tradition, with his claim that the relation between any two entities passes through God as the site of the ‘eternal objects’ that any entity draws upon in order to objectify or translate any other entity into perceptible form."

This is really weird when we can simply have real objects that don't require this convolution

[Anonymous No.16868210]

>>16868092
I think we should follow William James and Deleuze in seeing a continual florescence of external relations, and of seeing these relations as in themselves perfectly real, as being just as real as the terms they connect are real. Of course terms are never entirely defined by their relations; and terms can disentangle themselves from some relations, and enter into others instead. But at the same time no term can ever disentangle itself from all relations. That is simply impossible. Deprive me of my relation to oxygen and I die; but my body persists as a thing, and interacts with bacteria that dissolve and eat it. Send my dead body into outer space so that it escapes the bacteria, and it will still be altered by cosmic radiation and other phenomena of interstellar space. Every change in relations turns the term into something different: at times, the change is minor enough (Whitehead would say it is “negligible”) that we speak of the continuity of the term but at other times, the change is greater, and we speak of either metamorphosis or breakdown (the caterpillar becomes a butterfly), my dead body is a thing, but a different sort of thing than I was when alive).

cont

[Anonymous No.16868216]

>>16868210
Whitehead asserts that the interiority of any entity is a matter of its “privacy,” in which it pursues its “subjective aim.” This is always more than, and other than, its existence for others, its publicity, as a datum once it has perished and thereby achieved what Whitehead calls “objective immortality.” On account of this privacy, an “actual entity” always exists in complete independence of all the other entities with which it is contemporaneous; this independence is for Whitehead the very definition of contemporaneity. (Relations, to the contrary, are always spread across time; they derive from the past and push into the future, on both sides exceeding the boundaries of the “specious present” of experiential duration). To my mind, Whitehead’s understanding of privacy and subjective aim is sufficient to meet the requirements of OOO’s critique of relationalism without the need to posit objects as somehow mysteriously and totally withdrawn. And this interiority or privacy is precisely what panpsychism identifies as the “mentality” exerted to a greater or lesser degree by all entities. A thing is perfectly publically accessible to other things; but at the same time it retains a certain privacy. It is very possible for other people to get a sense of what I am thinking by observing my interactions with them and with the rest of the world; at the same time, of course, my inner feelings are not experientially available to other people, and they might not even be experientially available to myself. (I think that both the indubitabilty or “incorrigeability” of a feeling of pain, and the hypothesis of an unconscious, are comprehended within the notion of privacy). I find this sort of understanding (things have both an inside and an outside, they couldn’t have one without the other) more plausible than the thesis that objects are entirely “withdrawn,” or that the “intentional object” is radically sundered from the “real object.” A membrane separates inside from outside, while selectively allowing things to cross between inside and outside; but this doesn’t mean that inside and outside are somehow definitively sundered.

[Anonymous No.16868221]

>>16866291
Transcendental Idealism.

[Anonymous No.16868238]

>>16866374
OOO is still mental masturbation by careerist intelelctuals in cadamia.
to the trash it goes

[Anonymous No.16868240]

>>16868216
You're missing that it's consciousness that is causing this withdrawal.
We can't ever directly know anything in completeness because that's not how consciousness works, consciousness works by making inaccurate, simplified models from already limited sense data.

[Anonymous No.16868244]

>>16868221
>mahayana by westerners

still not buddhism

[Anonymous No.16868246]

>>16868238
>intelelctuals in cadamia
lol

[doubtposting !!0CYbMy7gCdH No.16868251]

Cock&ball nonduality is the real redpill

[Anonymous No.16868258]

>>16868092
Also Harman says that Whitehead is also an occasionalist, and not a secular one, because Whitehead requires eternal objects mediated by God in order for things to affect one another. This seems to me to be wrong. In his doctrine of causal efficacy, Whitehead presents entities as affecting one another directly, without mediation, all the time.

This is the whole point of Whitehead’s critique of Hume. Whitehead says that, if Hume were correct in claiming that no connections among events or entities can be detected in the world, then it would be impossible for such connections to be detected in the mind either — there could be no habit or stability of mental associations. Hume in fact assumes, in the case of the mind, the very causal links that he denies to the world outside the mind. But this is unacceptable, once we reject the Cartesian dualistic notion that the mind is somehow separate from the world. Whitehead says in effect that it is impossible to actually disavow causal efficacy. If we accept Whitehead’s argument against Humean scepticism, then this is an argument against occasionalism as well. For Whitehead, an entity cannot ever exist apart from its connections, even though the entity itself is not reducible to these connections.

As for eternal objects and God in Whitehead’s cosmology, it seems to me that they are not deployed in order to answer the question of how things can influence other things. Rather, they are there in order to answer a quite different question: that of how novelty is possible, of how creativity takes place, of how things can be something other than just repetitions of previous things. The problem for Whitehead is not the occasionalist one of how to bring unconnected things together, but rather the one of how to produce gaps, discontinuities, and changes in a world in which everything (every actual entity) has a reason, which reason is always another actual entity (or a number of them).

[Anonymous No.16868268]

>>16868258
>once we reject the Cartesian dualistic notion that the mind is somehow separate from the world
Harman agrees with this

[Anonymous No.16868271]

Why does everybody hate cartesian dualism? Even most dualists seem to hate cartesian dualism.

[Anonymous No.16868285]

>>16866291
Which one of these is it if you believe we are each just omniscience incarnate larping because he is bored of the void?

[Anonymous No.16868286]

>>16868271
Mainly because it's not only incredibly naive, it's actively harmful

[Anonymous No.16868288]

>>16868258
cont

Harman rejects Aristotle’s belief that there are no gaps between things, while he seeks to revive an Aristotelian notion of substance. Whitehead, as is well known, utterly rejects Aristotelian substance, but like Aristotle he doesn’t have a problem with things touching and affecting one another. Actually, it is a bit more complicated: for Whitehead contra Bergson there is a becoming of continuity, but no continuity of becoming. Both the continuity and the gaps in continuity have to be produced, and have to be accounted for. Reality, for Whitehead, is atomistic — but this does not mean nonrelational.

[Anonymous No.16868289]

>>16868285
Sounds like Advaita, which isn't listed unless you have a really wide definition of either Process or Idealism

[Anonymous No.16868295]

>>16868286
>Harmful
Care to elaborate?

[Anonymous No.16868296]

>>16868288
That statement makes no sense, atomism is a substance ontology.
They are prehensions and feelings instead

[Anonymous No.16868299]

>>16868295
it sees the body as secondary

[Anonymous No.16868300]

>>16868295
Look around you, pretty much all the stuff going on that is really violently wrong is a direct result of Cartesianism

[Anonymous No.16868303]

>>16866291
Idealism is subjective for all I know. You can be an idealist and a dualist at the same time. The rest are objective

[Anonymous No.16868307]

>>16867553
faggot

[Anonymous No.16868339]

>>16868296
This differentiation between concrescence and transition allows Whitehead’s metaphysical scheme, despite its generally processual orientation, to remain nonetheless explicitly atomic. This comes through clearly enough in Process and Reality, where Whitehead writes: “the ultimate metaphysical truth is atomism." He is lead to this conclusion largely as a result of the discoveries of quantum and relativity theories concerning the nature of time. 20th century science was forced to reject two ideas that had long provided its metaphysical first principles: 1) the idea of nature at an instant, and 2) the idea that the universe had a single continuous time flow.

He writes:
“There is a becoming of continuity, but no continuity of becoming. The actual occasions are the creatures which become, and they constitute a continuously extensive world. In other words, extensiveness becomes, but ‘becoming’ is not itself extensive.”

He concludes, as I quoted above, that atomic discontinuity is an ultimate metaphysical truth. The continuously extensive world with its universal relationality he considers an accident, not a metaphysical necessity: “continuity is a special condition arising from the society of creatures which constitute our immediate epoch." The advance of nature involves an inheritance of rhythmic pattern from one concrescent occasion to the next. Between occasional beats, intervals are opened up, leaving room for improvisation.

[Anonymous No.16868342]

>>16868299
Yeah but why or how that's harmful, though. I might just be a bit of a brainlet but I don't see the connection between the two.

[Anonymous No.16868356]

>>16868342
the body doesn't matter because mind is primary. i can torture someone, have slaves, slaughter all the animals i want, destroy the environment because matter is meaningless.

[Anonymous No.16868370]

>>16868339
This falls into smallism of course.

[Anonymous No.16868438]

>>16868370
Whitehead posits two levels of actuality: the individual, atomistic occasions of experience, and the societies in which they are sometimes associated, in relations that persist across both space and time. "Societies" roughly corresponds to what Deleuze called assemblages. The point of the difference between occasions and societies is that occasions are needed to explain the development and persistence of societies (or actual things), but societies or things cannot be reduced to the occasions that make them up in the way that physicalist analytic philosophers claim that things can be reduced to the subatomic particles or fields.of which they are composed.

Need to sleep now.

[Anonymous No.16868441]

>>16868438
Compare to Hyperobjects (Morton)

[Anonymous No.16868573]

>>16866291

Idealism as in Dialectical Monism.

[Anonymous No.16868731]

>>16866348
cum

[Anonymous No.16869354]

>>16866291
Materialism of course, Capitalism won where Communism fell on its own

Pragmatic system will always win over idealist ones

[Anonymous No.16869462]

>>16868092
>This is really weird when we can simply have real objects that don't require this convolution

Because it’s way more practical to state it the other way. The way you said it is oversimplified for low iq people or at least people that are ok with presumption. “Real objects” is more accurately stated “reoccurring sets of processes.” The sets consist of various functions. The particular functions define the object. We can address the object if we presume the underlying sets, that’s dogma. What can we know beyond dogma? That all of life is just a set of processes. This too is a process. In my brain being transferred to a server and into your brain and then into the ether, God.

[Anonymous No.16870544]

Bump

[Anonymous No.16870555]

>>16866291
None.

>>16866374
Cringe Husserlian.

[Anonymous No.16871087]

Bump

[Anonymous No.16871147]

>>16870555
Heidegger was an idealist he was just a wanker about it

[Anonymous No.16871215]

What is Processism?

[Anonymous No.16871255]

>>16871215
a failed philosophical endeavor which was retroactively refuted by Parmenides (pbuh) and Guenon (pbuh)

[Anonymous No.16871276]

>>16866291
The only valid materialism is an aleatory materialism

[Anonymous No.16871354]

>>16871215
He might be talking about Process Philosophy, which just ditches the subject-object duality entirely and instead focuses on Processes. The biggest proponent of this is Whitehead, who actually draws Process Philosophy out of Plato (his schema of Actual Objects and Eternal Objects is just the Platonic Forms, except the Forms are less real than the things that feel them). The problem with anything involving Whitehead is that Whitehead was an awful writer so his ideas are hidden behind twenty layers of obscure bullshit and bad terminology.

Outside of Whitehead, there aren't any grand theories of Process Philosophy in the modern era. If you go to the Orient, you can find stuff there, and the pre-Socratics have this going for them. Heraclitus and Parmenides being the two notable examples of ancient Process Philosophers.

[Anonymous No.16871572]

>>16871354
>>16871354
Actual occasions you mean (which are defined as being drops of experience).
And neither AOs or EOs are Platonic. For Whitehead, concrete particular fact cannot simply be built up out of universals; it is more the other way around. Universals, or things which are eternal, can and must be abstracted from things which are temporal. But they cannot be conceived by themselves, in the absence of the empirical, temporal entities that they inform. Eternal objects, therefore, are neither a priori logical structures, nor Platonic essences, nor constitutive rational ideas. They are adverbial, rather than substantive; they determine and express how actual entities relate to one another, take one another up, and enter into each others’ constitutions. Like Kantian and Deleuzian ideas, eternal objects work regulatively, or problematically. Eternal objects are ideal abstractions that nevertheless (unlike Platonic forms) can only be encountered within experience, when they are selected and felt by particular actual occasions. For this reason, they are well described as empirico-ideal notions.

[Anonymous No.16871578]

>>16866291
Im tired of all the -isms

[Anonymous No.16871742]

>>16871354
Aztec Philosophy: Understanding A World In Motion by Maffie exists.
It's a Process Monism though.

[Anonymous No.16871806]

>>16871354
>Heraclitus and Parmenides
Not Process Philosophers

[Anonymous No.16871820]

>>16871354
Whitehead is a good writer and often poetic. What makes Process and Reality hard is the terminology that he makes up but once you master his terminology it is not that bad. His other books are pretty accessible.

[Anonymous No.16872057]

Bump

[Anonymous No.16872084]

>>16866291
>Idealism vs Materialism vs Dualism vs Processism
>Which one is right anons?

all in one

[Anonymous No.16872766]

Bump

[Anonymous No.16872808]

>>16866291
I'm a materialist, but only when I'm not high.

[Anonymous No.16872821]

>>16872808
What do you get high on

[Anonymous No.16873438]

bump

[Anonymous No.16873463]

>>16866291
Materialism, specifically monism. All observable phenomena in our universe is one thing dividing into two aspects, not that reality is composed of two aspects.

[Anonymous No.16873469]

>>16866291
BUZZZZzzZzzzZz WORD! VS BUZzZzZzZ WORD! WHo wIn?

[Anonymous No.16874086]

bump

[Anonymous No.16874168]

>>16866291

The épochè + phenomenological reduction.

[Anonymous No.16874222]

>>16868238
The is the biggest non argument I've seen posted all week, good job

[Anonymous No.16874230]

>>16868244
It's not Buddhism? Obviously, astute observation poindexter

[Anonymous No.16874333]

>>16870555
>Husserlian
>Cringe
You might just be retarded. Not surprising considering the pic you posted.

[Anonymous No.16875456]

Bump

[Anonymous No.16875751]

>>16868307
oh yes a pathetic loser that can't even get over his various addictions, and somehow managed to get jewed to begin with because he's a fucking retard who doesn't pay attention, is so manly. fuck off and keep being a disgusting loser, cunt.

[Anonymous No.16875771]

>>16866291
Predicational monism in metaphysical realism.

[Anonymous No.16875794]

>>16868092
>when the discord tranny finds out that the Whitehead they were promoting to undergird their nebulous process-materialistic-nihilism and to wield as cudgel in atheism vs religion debates actually held to an occasionalist model wherein everything is made possible by God

[Anonymous No.16875885]

>>16875794
Whitehead isn't an occasionalist. see >>16868258