[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 133 KB, 1400x1050, brain.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17867759 No.17867759 [Reply] [Original]

>tfw finally seen the thing-in-of-itself
>it's the monad
oh fuck.

>> No.17867768
File: 211 KB, 226x280, tenor (12).gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17867768

>>17867759
>The Monad

>> No.17867784

what?

>> No.17867810

>>17867784
Basically, the thing-in-of-itself is a complex term from Kant, german philosopher guy. Simply put, you recreate sensory objects in your mind, right? You experience a perception of the object, but don't hold in your mind the actual object itself. This mass which makes up the object is only interpreted and recreated in your mind. You see a perception of it, not the actual thing. The actual thing is unknowable mysterious mass. This unknowable mass is the thing-in-of-itself.

Now turn to the Monad. From an earlier philosopher, Liebniz. French guy. Basically it's vacant pure space, like outer space without any floating particles, a chunk of that but with a soul

>> No.17867921
File: 27 KB, 500x500, 1607713982881.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17867921

>>17867810

>> No.17867932

The thing-in-itself is not the monad, at all

It’s the mynad, banging against your mom’s chin as I throatfuck her

>> No.17867934
File: 220 KB, 500x374, wack.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17867934

>>17867810

>> No.17867978

>>17867810
Leibniz was German, nigga.

>> No.17868001

>>17867759
No. All is void, nigger.

>> No.17868004

>>17867978
oops i fucked up. you right sorry anon. i just closely associate him with Descartes in my mind and got it mixed up.

>> No.17868013

>>17868001
no, the existence of consciousness is undeniable and its the opposite of a void

>> No.17868017

>>17868013
well wait what if the consciousness can be defined as a void

>> No.17868037

>>17868017
that only works if you stretch the definition of void into something that doesn’t mean what void actually means anymore, and at that point you might as well just be honest with yourself and admit consciousness is a luminous presence that is not a void

>> No.17868071

>>17868037
well i mean it is kind a like a lack of stuff considering it can be filled with anything, ain't it? it's like a hole or a chunk of outer space

>> No.17868101
File: 74 KB, 680x778, 0d0.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17868101

>>17867759
>tfw finally seen the thing-in-of-itself
>it's a spook

>> No.17868113

>>17868101
>His hand was trembling as he slowly placed his spectacles onto the table. "At long last...I truly see. I, too, was a spook the whole time." and the reader vanished into thin air. His copy of The Ego And It's Own fell to the floor.

>> No.17868122

>>17868071
>well i mean it is kind a like a lack of stuff considering it can be filled with anything,
It’s a mistake to define X by the absence or presence of things that are not X. The essential nature of X (luminous self-revealing presence) remains the same regardless of the absence or presence of not-X

>> No.17868130

>>17868101
>tfw dick is a spook
>can't get it up anymore
thanks stirner

>> No.17868153
File: 44 KB, 480x360, mind.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17868153

>>17868122
well i mean i dunno dude. I don't disagree with you to be honest, I'm just saying the definition of the mind is pretty flexible. I could understand someone trying to explain it as a void and see what they meant. Though I do agree, a kind of luminous presence is perhaps a better way to describe it.

>> No.17868241

>>17868153
>I'm just saying the definition of the mind is pretty flexible.
From the perspective on consciousness which regards it as a luminous self-revealing presence that I am speaking from (Advaita Vedanta), the mind is considered to be something separate from consciousness, the mind and its thoughts etc are illuminated by or appear within consciousness. I also agree with the point that when considered in relation to the phenomena that appear within it, consciousness can be considered as space- or void-like, but as I see it this description doesn’t do justice to the nature of consciousness as it is in itself

>>/lit/thread/S14967012

>> No.17868304

>>17867759
It is the Will that you feel within yourself. Consciousness. It is the "inside" of reality.

>> No.17868318

H-has it always been the monad?

>> No.17868378
File: 677 KB, 821x682, 1616688848098.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17868378

>>17868318
always has been

>> No.17868730

>>17867810
>Leibniz
>French

>> No.17868739

>>17867759
>not higgs-boson
>mfw
:(

>> No.17868757

>>17867810
>Now turn to the Monad. From an earlier philosopher, Liebniz. French guy. Basically it's vacant pure space, like outer space without any floating particles, a chunk of that but with a soul
But, that's like basically, Schopenhauer.

>> No.17868770

>>17868101
The thing in itself is my property

>> No.17868943

>>17868113
The true spooks were the friends we made along the way

>> No.17868966

why do niggas believe consciousness is a fundamental building block of existence? what are the real arguments that can't be explained away by other means? no semantics allowed

>> No.17868984

>>17868966
>why do niggas believe consciousness is a fundamental building block of existence?
Because it is THE fundamental building block of existence.

>> No.17869005

>>17867810
This has to be a copypasta. The style and the embarrassing amateurish errors are too much. Tying mass to things in themselves is not right, as mass is a property that Kant would squarely make phenomenal, things in themselves are so bare you almost can't call them anything except say what they aren't and that they're the basis for our appearances. Meanwhile monads are clearly positively characterized by Leibniz, so things in themselves wouldn't be monads. More importantly, the monad isn't vacant pure space with a soul. Monads ARE the physical particles. But with souls.

>> No.17869016

>>17868984
yeah nice now explain how that is the case you nigger retard

>> No.17869109

>>17867759
>>17867810
Based.
>>17868013
>>17868017
>>17868037
Take the Madhyamakapill. Void is luminescence, luminescence is void.
>>17869005
That's if you take Leibniz's definition. Was Leibniz the first guy to use "monad" though?
>>17868966
Consciousness can take on many shapes like sight, thought, etc. but consciousness when naked is formless potential. Objects as we know them are actually just pragmatic concepts applied to an ineffable "giveness" of reality, so starting with external objects is a mistake. Start with what you have, which is consciousness.

>> No.17869171

>>17869109
>Void is luminescence, luminescence is void.
Luminescent self-revealing presence is the opposite of a void.

>> No.17869216

>>17869109
>Consciousness can take on many shapes like sight, thought, etc. but consciousness when naked is formless potential. Objects as we know them are actually just pragmatic concepts applied to an ineffable "giveness" of reality, so starting with external objects is a mistake. Start with what you have, which is consciousness.
but why

>> No.17869233

How does it feel to know eachother causally but not be conscious of it?

Anyway, what's the difference between a monad existing somewhere in my body, and the monad that contains my consciousness?

>> No.17869242

>>17867759
what about the gonad

>> No.17869244

>>17868943
You're not wrong

>> No.17869319

reminder that solipsism is correct

>> No.17869385

>>17869216
Why what? You quoted multiple statements.

>> No.17869799

>>17868966
>can't be explained away by other means
you mean explained through constructs of consciousness? i don't agree/understand them, but simply put that's all we've got to work with.