/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.18155818]

I don’t get it.

[Anonymous No.18155822]

yes you do

[Anonymous No.18155823]

[Anonymous No.18155856]

You first need to read the science of logic

[Anonymous No.18155883]

>>18155856
you're a dumb fucking retard.

[Anonymous No.18155885]

>>18155818
A rollercoaster of emotion. In this story you follow our protagonist, Geist, who has not yet been illuminated by the light of Reason. Midway upon his journey to light, Geist finds himself in a dark forest where he encounters a treacherous path, the pathway of doubt/way of despair that leads to a mountain of tremendous light. A riveting coming-of-age tale of death, annihilation, bondage, resignation, faith, God and self-actualisation. Very gripping and sure to capture your imagination
That part when consciousness realises that it needs the inverted world of the understanding to secure the stability of the inner world of appearances. Fuck bros, really had me at the edge of my seat. Didn't think he would make it

[Anonymous No.18155897]

>>18155818
Of course you can't. Hegel is pretty much illiterate.

[Anonymous No.18155903]

>>18155883
why so?

[Anonymous No.18155916]

>>18155883
You're the retard if you think he has suggested anything stupid here. Hegel was forced to finish the book in great haste because his friend Friedrich Immanuel Niethammer had promised to pay the publisher’s costs if he failed to supply the completed manuscript by 18 October 1806. As Hegel was rushing to meet this obligation, Napoleon moved to capture Jena, and Hegel entrusted part of the manuscript to a courier who rode through French lines to the publisher in Bamberg. Although he completed the manuscript (except the Preface) the night before the battle for the city, he did not dare to send the last instalment, and so missed his deadline. So it's questionable to what extent we can presume this is how Hegel intended to have his work published. The Science of Logic is still complex (insofar as you need to keep in mind a lot in order to not lose the general picture of the system), but it is perfectly readable and intelligible, and, more importantly, it is neatly subdivided in short paragraphs. Understanding the Science of Logic can make the PoS easier to understand in hindsight, even if the PoS was meant to raise you to the necessary mode of consciousness to understand the SoL.

[Anonymous No.18155923]

>>18155818
You have to become a mystic, it will give you a strong base

Kill your ego and become an empath will unironically help

[Anonymous No.18155928]

>>18155916
Retard

[Anonymous No.18155932]

>>18155923
>t: brainlet
there is nothing esoteric about Hegel

[Anonymous No.18155938]

>>18155818
Thesis
>I dont get it
Antithesis
>I get it
Synthesis
>Some get it and some dont

[Anonymous No.18155940]

>>18155938
wow you're big brain

[Anonymous No.18155946]

>>18155940
Seethe

[Anonymous No.18155949]

>>18155932
It will help conceptualize the ideas he displays?

[Anonymous No.18155962]

>>18155932
Yes, there is. The fact that you have to read his book multiple times over a span of years immediately classifies him as esoteric. And even then, most scholars still don't agree on "what he really meant."

[Anonymous No.18155963]

>>18155949
no, it will make you read him with a set of assumptions in your head and project things on some of his more obscure phrases that are either not there or completely miss the point. The Absolute should not at all be understood in the way many of those texts describe it as being. If that is how you understand it, you've missed the point. The Absolute [for Hegel] is not simply something for knowing to 'arrive at' - it IS the whole process by which knowing comes to arrive at it, precisely because [for Hegel] the Absolute is not just substance [an ineffable transcendent 'thing' or 'principle' out there somewhere] but subject [a universal "I"]. the absolute is not something 'out there' which you have to find. the absolute is with you, it is already present, as it were 'implicitly', insofar as you 'know' anything at all. for a human being to know the absolute IS nothing other than the absolute knowing itself. this is why [for hegel] absolute knowing isn't something like a privileged insight which certain people had in the past, or some primordial mystic knowledge - it is the 'absolute', universal, scientific point of view which has been arrived at in the course of human history, something which has been built collectively within human social practice and existence, in art, religion, and ultimately philosophical science. Consequently, to know the absolute is for the absolute to know itself, to recollect the path of historical development which made its own 'absolute knowing' possible at all. that is what the Phenomenology is.

[Anonymous No.18155985]

>>18155963
>the absolute is not something 'out there' which you have to find. the absolute is with you, it is already present, as it were 'implicitly', insofar as you 'know' anything at all. f
tl;dr
Woah dude we're like the universe experiencing itself.

[Anonymous No.18155998]

>>18155962
That's an exaggeration. Disagreements only exists about minutiae. You should try reading some Hegel journals or commentaries. Nearly everyone agrees about what is going on. Not everyone agrees if he's successful and that's bc of many other factors, like Schelling's Hegelkritik, where some see it as being more devastating than others. Hegel doesn't not write esoteric texts that possess some secret knowledge. He says as much himself in the Preface. It is difficult, due to many other factors such as the fact that he wrote it in a hurry and it actually requires you to think. He also thinks, like Heraclitus, that the pathway to knowledge is one of despair and a difficult path, but ultimately accessible to anyone who tries

[Anonymous No.18156006]

>>18155985
this is why you will never understand the PoS. Not because it is difficult, but bc you're a complacent and lazy retard

[Anonymous No.18156007]

>>18155998
>He also thinks, like Heraclitus, that the pathway to knowledge is one of despair and a difficult path, but ultimately accessible to anyone who tries
You mean like every philosopher in existence, all of which arrived at entirely different conceptions of what knowledge and reality really is? Yeah, it's all bullshit.

[Anonymous No.18156014]

>>18156007
fuck you guys are so stupid

[Anonymous No.18156015]

>>18156006
Seethe. I just summarized Hegel's drivel for what it really is. Overly obfuscated, meaningless nonsense that potheads come up with in simpler terms.

[Anonymous No.18156025]

>>18156014
You expect me to treat Hegel seriously if the best argument he has for himself is, "it's hard bro, just keep pretending I have something to meaningful to say and maybe you'll get it eventually." This is the classical trademark of a swindler of any type, be it intellectual or mercantile.

[Anonymous No.18156032]

he wrote the entire book stone drunk

[Anonymous No.18156035]

>>18156007
It's not all bullshit, but Hegel specifically is. One of the greatest charlatans in the history of humankind. Unfortunately he will keep being praised forever as most "intellectuals" are just pretenders.

[Anonymous No.18156053]

>>18156015
>>18156025
this board is illiterate. It is difficult but definitely not insurmountable. I read it just fine over a couple of weeks as an undergrad and had many questions, but it doesn't take you a lifetime if you know how to fucking think and read, that task is trying to grasp the entire Hegelian system which is spread over multiple tomes. The biggest difficulties in the PoS come from trying to sift through his shit prose, which is particularly shit for no other reason other than that it was written in haste. If any of you had even picked up this book, you would know that the hardest chapters are just the first 4, everything else is pretty clear until the end, where he rushes it

[Anonymous No.18156060]

>>18156053
>I understood Hegel, he's quite clear
The refrain of the pseud for like 200 years now

[Anonymous No.18156064]

>>18156053

[Anonymous No.18156063]

>>18156060
>I understood the PoS
>I understood Hegel
t: illiterate retard

[Anonymous No.18156067]

>>18156060
Are you even interested in philosophy?

[Anonymous No.18156068]

>>18156053
You can't understand what makes no sense. You can only understand that it makes no sense.

[Anonymous No.18156073]

>>18156064
And? Don't even (you) me

[Anonymous No.18156075]

>>18156064
That's an interpretation of a bad translation.

[Anonymous No.18156078]

>>18156063
Obvious ego-defense backpedal
>>18156067
Obvious ego-defense deflection

[Anonymous No.18156079]

>>18155928
Please shut the fuck up (not him, fag)

[Anonymous No.18156088]

>>18156078
>I think understanding the PoS means understanding Hegel
>muh ego-backpedal
Doesn't surprise me that Hegel eludes you when you can't even do basic reading and thinking

[Anonymous No.18156091]

It doesn't surprise me how much Hegel makes certain anons on this board seethe given how everyone here seems to read philosophy expecting some sort of passive, definitive revelation of universal rule, which no philosophy can provide and is a goal for which the greatest philosophy is not useful.

[Anonymous No.18156093]

>>18156088
Your insecurities could not be any more clear to our audience; please, for your own sake, stop now and reflect on your need to be perceived as a "Hegel understander"

[Anonymous No.18156094]

>>18156073
>>18156075
>That's an interpretation of a bad translation.
Proving my point, retards.

[Anonymous No.18156101]

>>18156091
>expecting some sort of passive, definitive revelation of universal rule, which no philosophy can provide
why?

[Anonymous No.18156107]

>>18156091
>definitive revelation of universal rul
Which is exactly what Hegel's Absolute is. Why is Hegel OK, but Plato isn't?

[Anonymous No.18156109]

>>18156093
Are you actually stupid? Do you genuinely think saying the PoS is pretty clear after the initial 4 chapters is logically equivalent to saying I understand Hegel, i.e., the totality of his system. Are you fucking retarded. Holy fuck

[Anonymous No.18156115]

>>18156101
Because there is no such thing
>>18156107
Hegel's Absolute has no qualities, it is the summation of everything confronted and nullified by an antithesis. Some people find that to be useless because they want to end on a truth binary.

[Anonymous No.18156116]

>>18156109
You're getting exasperated because you've been called out. It's okay. Breathe. Don't you realize we're anonymous here? Take some time and reflect on your need to be perceived as intelligent. It makes you vulnerable to meltdowns like this.

[Anonymous No.18156120]

>>18155818
Neither did hegel

[Anonymous No.18156127]

>>18156116
Don't bother (you)ing me again. Your stupidity and lack of (self)-awareness is overwhelming

[Anonymous No.18156136]

>>18156115
>Hegel's Absolute has no qualities,
It clearly does, becuase Hegel possesses a teleological view of history which ends in a uniquely qualified state according to the progression towards the Absolute. Just because it's considered a sublation rather than a mere thesis or antithesis, does not mean it lacks quality. In this sense, Hegel is basically the same as Plato, just with more hoops and hurdles tucked into his method, which can't be verified by conventional reason (whereas Plato can be).

[Anonymous No.18156141]

>>18156127
You have this idea in your mind that you're the star of the show here and you're gonna tell everyone else how it is. But it's just not that way, partner.

[Anonymous No.18156153]

>>18155818
No one does.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2jtkakoWG4

[Anonymous No.18156154]

>>18156141
I mean, you evidently haven't even read the book

[Anonymous No.18156161]

>>18156154
Again, you've invested your ego in being the only one to read and understand Hegel, everyone can tell, it's all so painfully clear, just relax your sphincter my man, let go of this arrogant need you've developed.

[Anonymous No.18156164]

>>18156161
not even him btw

[Anonymous No.18156170]

>>18155818
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2jtkakoWG4

[Anonymous No.18156172]

>>18156136
The state of progression towards the absolute is only the size and complexity of subsumed phenomena. The absolute itself is a summation and nullification of everything. Knowing this is important for understanding Phenomenology of Spirit, as everything begins and ends in absolute, so he describes basic in-itself as something that lacks action. His conception of morality makes it explicit, where he claims that for morality and nature to coincide (the end goal, he states, of moral consciousness) would bring an end to morality. There would be no definition of ethics once that consummation took place, thus no qualities.

[Anonymous No.18156174]

>>18156164
Obvious ego-defense dissimulation

[Anonymous No.18156183]

>>18156174
whatever you say pal

[Anonymous No.18156194]

>>18156183
Now you're getting it.

[Anonymous No.18156198]

>>18156053
this guy is very based and communicates hegel well, every brainlet in this thread is seething. /lit/ is a disgrace.

[Anonymous No.18156204]

>>18156198
Good lord, now you're samefagging, Embarrassing stuff.

[Anonymous No.18156211]

>>18156172
>would bring an end to morality.
Morality doesn't even exist to begin with. Where does Hegel establish morality?

[Anonymous No.18156226]

>>18156211
>where does Hegel establish morality
In the section immediately prior to "morality", where the individual gains understanding that it is a distinct individual entity in relation to a universal that is an interpenetrating part of itself. What is morality but action molded in consideration of the individual's effect on others?

[Anonymous No.18156229]

>>18156198
SAMEFAG KYS

[Anonymous No.18156233]

>>18156198
the people in this thread just want you to do the thinking for them and put zero effort in trying to understand. It is what it is

[Anonymous No.18156256]

>>18156226
That does not constitute morality at all though, only in certain people where they are fooled into believing that there is some sort of objective moral behaviour. The fact that I am aware of other beings does not at all necessitate moral action towards them. Morality is at best just a biological construct formed by millions of years of evolution. Even animals display moral behavior according to their genetic dispositions. In conclusion, there is nothing real about morality, it is just a genetic tendency of organisms to varying degrees, which some of us falsely construe as having universal character. My morals, for instance, view slavery and war as both justified and good in themselves. If Hegel can't even get past this basic stumbling block, then that is really weak.

[Anonymous No.18156271]

>>18156256
Since fags like you always love Occam's Razor, how about morality does exist and you're just defective?

[Anonymous No.18156273]

>>18156256
Stop replying to these guys. They're not serious nor are they here for actual discussion

[Anonymous No.18156279]

>>18156226
Stop replying to these guys. They're not serious nor are they here for actual discussion

[Anonymous No.18156280]

>>18156271
>>18156273
What? How can you prove there is some objective set of morals? Please don't tell me Hegel really stumbled on this. I thought he was better than that. Your replies, basically calling me defective, are mere ad hominems to deflect the weakness of his philosophy.

[Anonymous No.18156285]

>>18155818
i dont get it either. i get kant and schope but this guy is like schizo

[Anonymous No.18156291]

>>18156256
Hegel can get past that stumbling block, your definition of morality is not different than the activity that he labels "moral." The activity of animals toward others is similarly a recognition of other as important for self. Slavery and war are systematized phenomena extending universal rule to other individuals, attempting to affect them. It fits the definition of "moral:" the individual attempting to shape the universal. You are assuming "moral" to be "morally good." That is not how Hegel uses the term.

[Anonymous No.18156293]

>>18156271
Occam's razor, also, is not a valid tool for any objective assertion. I am not an atheist. I am honestly curious how you, or Hegel, can justify their idea that morality is real without simply resorting to insults.

[Anonymous No.18156307]

>>18155818
You need to work forward from Fichte and backwards from Marx.
Such as this.
For me it seems Fichte was in error when we wrote of ego to not who to higher ego (the God head). The spirit of truth is with him, but rather it seems inverted. Ego dissolves in a social body, and reveal s the God head. This is where the Marxist seem to fail. Right in there rejection of Christianity. As Nietzsche points out it is a resentful life denying ideology. Yet however still a peace of the dialectical puzzle is missing. The spirit. For me Marx's blunder is in the rejection of spirit all together, rather than replacing Christianity with a more inline and dialectic spiritual thought of Taoism. He a man of his time and place can not be blamed for this however. For in that age of the world and the geography, he may never even heard of a distant Chinese alchemy. Though that is not the Taoism I speak of either. Marx is right as a left Hegelian, and his theory of Historical Materialism. Such as when he says "The ruling ideas of the day are those of the ruling class." We can see Plato's canonization (although there are other justifications for his canonization as well) and defense of slavery and horror at the concept of land distribution and tax erasure. It is no accident that Plato is rediscovered in the early days of Romanticism. Where the bourgeois class begins it's accent to power.

[Anonymous No.18156312]

>>18156291
How can morals ever be neutralized, per what the anon said before, if morality is merely the individual attempting to shape the universal? There will always be individual against the universal, ergo morality will never be "nothing" because there will always be the individual and universal dichotomy. That, and the individual will always be unique and strive for distinction against the universal, so there is no will to even unite itself with the universal. If anything there is the will for distinction against it, further separating the two and making the gulf between "morality" and universal even wider.

[Anonymous No.18156328]

>>18156312
Morals can't be neutralized, Hegel describes the process as something with an end "in infinity" or some such. But the moral consciousness of the individual attempts to modify reality to fit the ends of the consciousness, that is why he attempts to influence the universal. Hegel simply points out that, were he to succeed, the morals would fall away because they would become the rule of Nature.

[Anonymous No.18156343]

>>18155818
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hegel-dialectics/

[Anonymous No.18156349]

>>18156328
>Morals can't be neutralized,
Well ok, but that's the exact opposite of what the anon I was originally arguing with claimed. This is kind of what I mean about Hegel being ridiculously vague depending on who you speak with about him.
> Hegel simply points out that, were he to succeed, the morals would fall away because they would become the rule of Nature.
But this assumes that all human beings have the exact same idea of "the ends of consciousness." Morals would not fall away, because there would be distinct individuals still with different wills and ideas of how reality *should* be. Morals might temporarily become irrelevant for one class of person, but they become amplified for the other (however many) classes of people with opposite ideas who are now oppressed by the "moral rule" of nature which was established. In either case, I fail to see how morality, in general, would be negated, or brought to infinity in a way that makes them meaningless (again in general).

[Anonymous No.18156356]

Ah well you see, Hegelian moralphysics describe the for-itself of the universal becoming for-other, and thus, therefore, as you can see, it becomes clear that

[Anonymous No.18156393]

>>18156349
I'm probably the same anon. Morals being neutralized is the end of morality, it can't actually take place through action, is the distinction.
>This assumes that all human beings have the exact same idea of "the ends of consciousness"
It doesn't, and that's the beauty of it. Because the universal is larger than the individual, each individual can express his moral consciousness in action and not fall outside of the universal absolute, which discards none of them. Though each individual may have different ideas of how reality should be, and though each generation contains innumerable people in conflict on such a premise, each is an expression of nature such that, were the conflict resolved, you would have absolute. It is true that you would not have a distinct political state (for instance) that holds the sum total of nullified moral code. But take all nature and its antinomies together, and you find a nullity where everything expressed is merely a division through the expression of force, here in individual will.

[Anonymous No.18156481]

>>18156393
>each is an expression of nature such that, were the conflict resolved, you would have absolute.
This seems like it's assuming the premise of the Absolute before it's even been established. Ignoring the fact that you are using the subjunctive to assume even the possibility of the resolution (a mere theoretical possibility is totally meaningless), there is no reason why the varied expressions of nature would necessarily resolve into a perfect self-negation. This, as I said, seems to assume the premise of perfect balance/counter-balance, of the hypothetical basis of nature, before they have even been established.

It also doesn't explain the point I made just before about morals falling away. If the two hypothetical "sides" of nature, exemplified in human moral thought, are equally counter-balanced and in conflict, this does not lead to a perfect negation and lack of quality, it merely leads to an even clash where both sides are equally justified in themselves as resisting the opposite force of nature for what they see as right. If one side triumphs over the other and asserts itself as a law of nature, the other side may still exist underneath that new law, although still with the same underlying moral sentiments they had when that clash was equal, thereby, as I said, amplifying their moral sense whilst the victors lose almost all moral sense as that moral sense becomes nature. This would, in practice, lead to a pendulum effect where the losers inevitably are able to overwhelm the victors at some point in the future, tending towards a stable center with fluctuations in either direction.

[Anonymous No.18156516]

>>18156481
>a mere theoretical possibility is totally meaningless
The absolute is a category, it is the sum total of all phenomena. You keep pushing a thought experiment where absolute morality cannot be held in concrete as a system of power, but this is not a refutation. Absolute morality is not going to be held in the world of expressed quality, this is both admitted and necessary for Hegel's philosophy. The quantities do not even have to be equal, it's not a state of stasis or equilibrium that we are pursuing. The whole of material reality stands over against the individual or the society, and whatever form that moral consciousness takes does not fall outside of it.
This is why I posted this >>18156091, because it appears, to me at least, that you are looking in Hegel for a prescription of moral stasis that may be achieved by civilization. Hegel is not useful for that end, nor does he limit himself to that order since he is dealing in metaphysics. The premise of the absolute is a given because it is the summation of all conflict and expression, and that conflict in moral consciousness includes that of society against nature, or the attempt to interdict laws of the jungle. As such it has no possible character.

[Anonymous No.18156528]

>>18156516
Small correction, I do not mean category in the Hegelian sense, only that it exists linguistically rather than derived from experience

[Anonymous No.18156593]

>>18156516
>it is the sum total of all phenomena.
If that is his definition, then so be it, but I fail to see how that makes it meaningful in the least. We have no idea what the sum total of all phenomena is, meaning we have no idea what the Absolute is (nor will we ever).
>You keep pushing a thought experiment where absolute morality cannot be held in concrete as a system of power, but this is not a refutation.
That's not quite my point. My point is both that, and that a total eradication of moral thought (in the sense we discussed of subject willing itself on object) is impossible. Thus, both absolute morality and a complete negation of morality is impossible. That was my point. And if this is not a refutation of the absolute negation of morality, then a refutation is simply not needed because the Absolute is simply not real. As you mentioned by calling it a category, it is at best a mere linguistic convention, and thus is not even relevant to reality.
>The whole of material reality stands over against the individual or the society, and whatever form that moral consciousness takes does not fall outside of it.
What does this really mean, though? How is this a meaningful statement in light of what we've just established?
>that you are looking in Hegel for a prescription of moral stasis that may be achieved by civilization.
I'm not looking for it, It's just what I've figured of Hegel based on preliminary reading. It seems to be common knowledge, in academic articles at least, that Hegel proposed a teleological view of history and future which culminates in the Ethical or Absolute State (which future/ex-Hegelians like Marx ended up rejecting).

[Anonymous No.18156666]

>>18156593
>Hegel proposed a teleological view of history and future which culminates in the Ethical or Absolute State (which future/ex-Hegelians like Marx ended up rejecting).
Did you really just write those two sentences without realizing the obvious falsehood about them?

[Anonymous No.18156669]

>>18156593
>I fail to see how that makes it meaningful in the least
Therein lies the problem that I expect people to have with Hegel. As the consummation of the moral with nature is something achieved in infinity, so is the realization of the absolute that is beyond expression of its species. The absolute not being "real" in the sense that it is not something you experience directly is correct, though if it were able to be experienced as a particular then it wouldn't be metaphysical.

[Anonymous No.18156721]

>>18156666
It's fairly basic knowledge of him, I didn't think anyone would speak out against it. Here's a relatively simple explanation: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/history/#HegHis
Hegel was (notoriously depending on your viewpoint) responsible for the rise of historicism, and treating history as some sort of goal-oriented or inevitable process (ignoring religious eschatology, which can't really be considered historicism).
>>18156669
What should I take from that idea in practical terms, or even in philosophical terms?

[Anonymous No.18156808]

>>18156721
>What should I take
In my opinion, and I don't pretend to be an authority on the subject, the most compelling consequence of this conception of the real is that there is no "outside." Nothing has inherently antithetical essence or exists in a state of finite plurality or distinction.

[Anonymous No.18156877]

>>18155885
Unironically true.
He often speaks of the tragic destiny of consciousness and it really feels tragic when it tries to reach knowledge, fails and tries another tactic which also leads to failure and so on.

[Anonymous No.18156905]

>>18156053
Shit prose? Yeah, his overly complicated terms are a pain in the ass, but shit prose? I love his grandiose way of writing. Phenomenology is as alive as the philosophy it describes.

[Anonymous No.18156927]

>>18156116
>t.

[Anonymous No.18156992]

There is nothing to get, anon. Mindless rambling of a midwit at best.

[Anonymous No.18157089]

>>18155885
What's the difference between the 'regular, real' world (one with which we start before trying out the supersensible world) and the world as given to our consciousness (the interplay of forces between the real and inverted world)?

[Anonymous No.18157098]

>>18155923
>The Bible
>HOLY Qur'an
Muzzie or libshit detected, opinion discarded.

[Anonymous No.18157405]

>>18155923
>McKenna
lol

[Anonymous No.18157856]

>>18155963
Really sounds like hermetic philosophy. I'll put this POS closer to the top in my list of books to read.

[Anonymous No.18158056]

>>18156116
>>18156141
>>18156161
What happened here?

[Anonymous No.18158179]

>>18155916
Dude did you copypaste lines from a post I have made on another PhG thread a few days ago?

[Anonymous No.18159447]

bump

[Anonymous No.18159675]

>>18158056
I think you got wrecked

[Anonymous No.18159757]

god I loathe Hegelians. I wish Kant would have lived long enough to take a big steaming shit on that pseud in person (he already did it retroactively in the CopR). He singlehandedly ruined philosophy

[Anonymous No.18160703]

>>18159757
t. cringe ahistorical “vitalist”

[Anonymous No.18161336]

>>18155932
>Nothing esoteric about a 17th century hermetic alchemist whos philosophy is an allegory for creating the philosophers stone

[Anonymous No.18161579]

>>18157089
>Where did we go from Hume? And we can answer: to Kant. We can ask: Where did we go from Kant? And we can answer: to Fichte and Hegel. But if we ask, as Steiner himself does: Where do we go from Hegel? then, just because we have already reached the summit, the only possible answer is: across the Threshold to clairvoyant perception, that is, to immediate, trans-conceptual awareness of the spiritual world. When you are already standing tiptoe on the cairn, you must either go down again, or stop where you are, or take wings. There is no fourth option.
- Owen Barfield

Read this https://wn.rsarchive.org/Lectures/GA199/English/AP1986/19200827p01.html

[Anonymous No.18161603]

>>18159757
>He singlehandedly ruined philosophy
How?

[Anonymous No.18161607]

>>18156035
filtered

[Anonymous No.18161632]

>>18156025
it's pretty intelligible tb h idk why you're seething