Kant BTFO!

[Anonymous No.18341487]

>Before passing on to consider time, however, it may be pointed out that the inexistence of an 'empty space' is enough to expose the absurdity of one of Kant's too famous cosmological antinomies: to ask 'whether the world is infinite or whether it is limited within space' is a question that has absolutely no meaning. Space cannot possibly extend beyond the world in order to contain it, because an empty space would then be in question, and emptiness cannot contain anything: on the contrary, it is space that is in the world, that is to say, in manifestation, and if consideration be confined to the domain of corporeal manifestation alone, it can be said that space is coextensive with this world, because it is one of its conditions; but this world is no more infinite than is space itself, for, like space, it does not contain every possibility, but only represents a certain particular order of possibilities, and it is limited by the determinations that constitute its very nature.

- ريني غينون

[Anonymous No.18341502]

>>18341487
>"X" BTFO
Stop being dishonest

[Anonymous No.18341584]

>Stop being dishonest

[Anonymous No.18341601]

The root ontology of Traditionalism is a hodgepodge of late 19th century esotericism and hermetic syncretism, post-Kantian Religionswissenschaft and Protestant theology, the Religionsgeschichtliche Schule and its early 20th century offshoots, which also had a post-Kantian epistemology, and a healthy dose of Romantic theory on religion and myth, which has been described by Beiser and other scholars as "neo-Platonist," or as the "archetypal" strand of Kant interpretation. Read any myth-related text of Schelling and you will see Traditionalism. Actually, read Paul Bishop's book _The Archaic_ for a decent discussion of the core concept(s) from which Traditionalism sprang. Its ontology is part of a general response to Kantian rationalism that involved a re-introduction of archetypal (i.e., Platonic) metaphysics with a vaguely emanationist structure -- that is, bootleg neo-Platonism.

This movement was (and remains) deliberately syncretic because when you identify the primary forms or archetypes with a symbolic and mythic structure (as ALL of the traditions I just outlined did), you get a philosophy and history of religion that makes all traditions into particular instantiations of underlying immutable principles (as all of the traditions I just outlined concluded). Just read _The Oriental Renaissance_ by Schwab, which was praised highly by Mircea Eliade, about whom both Guenon and Evola complained in correspondence that he was a Guenonian Traditionalist who wouldn't cop to the fact and that he was getting credit for Guenon's ideas especially. Eliade agreed; so Guenon, Evola, and Eliade agree that Eliade is a reasonably faithful transposition of Guenonian philosophy, and Eliade embraces Schwab's diagnosis of syncretic, Fruhromantik neo-Platonism as the basis of the Traditionalist worldview, e.g., as its syncretic neo-Platonist framework effortlessly reduces and re-appropriates Hinduism, Islam, Platonism, and everything else to be simply an emanation of its own "central, really real" myths and archetypes. That is why "Hinduism looks like neo-Platonism," a favourite line of Traditionalists -- real similarities between the two systems, perhaps owing to some real underlying Indo-European metaphysics, are in fact bowled over and destroyed by Traditionalism's extremely lazy neo-Platonist framework, which has been called "all-reducing." Traditionalists did not save or invent the method of comparative religions -- they killed it, and laminated its corpse.

tldr: Traditionalism is an esoterically-oriented synthesis of scholarly paradigms that go back to Kant, under which paradigms traditional neo-Platonism, and Christian and especially German mysticism were reinterpreted by the early Romantics. And it's a late-comer to the game at that.

[Anonymous No.18341610]

>>18341487
>on the contrary, it is space that is in the world, that is to say, in manifestation, and if consideration be confined to the domain of corporeal manifestation alone, it can be said that space is coextensive with this world, because it is one of its conditions;
Didn't realize Guenon was a Leibniz appreciator.

[Anonymous No.18341623]

>>18341610
He actually is

[Anonymous No.18341625]

>still less must this complacency which abjures Science claim that such rapturous haziness is superior to Science. This prophetic talk supposes that it is staying in the centre and in the depths, looks disdainfully at determinateness, and deliberately holds aloof from Notion and Necessity as products of that reflection which is at home only in the finite. But just as there is an empty breadth, so too there is an empty depth; and just as there is an extension of substance that pours forth as a finite multiplicity without the force to hold the multiplicity together, so there is an intensity without content, one that holds itself in as a sheer force without spread, and this is in now way distinguishable from superficiality... Such minds when they give themselves up to the uncontrolled ferment of substance, imagine that, by drawing a veil over self-consciousness and surrendering understanding they become beloved of God to whom He gives wisdom in sleep; and hence what they in fact receive, and bring to birth in their sleep, is nothing but dreams.
Ouch, how in God's name did the Goon ever recover from this ABSOLUTE demolition?

[Anonymous No.18341628]

>>18341623
Now if only he understood him...

[Anonymous No.18341646]

>>18341601
>real similarities between the two systems, perhaps owing to some real underlying Indo-European metaphysics, are in fact bowled over and destroyed by Traditionalism's extremely lazy neo-Platonist framework, which has been called "all-reducing.
This is entirely wrong, and the entire quote reads like someone who has only investigated Traditionalism at surface level. By the exact same logic, Herodotus would be considered a German frühromantik because he was also a syncretist, if not for the fact that he lived almost 2000 years prior to the movement (not to mention Plato, Socrates, who were all part of pan-Mediterranean mystical societies).
> Its ontology is part of a general response to Kantian rationalism
Just because something appeared after Kant, it does not mean it is a response to him. Scholastic metaphysics have been running strong since before Kant, we could just as easily say it is a continuance of the same with some minor modifications.
>>18341625
This is just Hegel admitting he lacks higher intellect, it's not really an argument.
>>18341628
Leibniz is probably understood better by Guenon than most people. They both operate on roughly the same intellectual level.

[Anonymous No.18341679]

>>18341487
Just take a space and imagine removing everything from it. Simple really

[Anonymous No.18341867]

>>18341610
>Now if only he understood him...
He understood him only too well, and respectfully conceded that he got some things partially right, but even Leibniz in the end was not free from the sting of the infamous 'retroactive refutation' (λόγος ὀπίσω) which Guénon had a talent for deploying with a lethal efficiency.

[Anonymous No.18341881]

>>18341487
How is that BTFO?

[Anonymous No.18342504]

>>18341601
Guenonfags once again BTFO

[Anonymous No.18342538]

>>18341487
this only shows how much of a schyzo guenon was
he's regressing to leibniz ignoring all the advances kant did on metaphysics
what guenon don't realize is that seeing space as a "manifestation" is what ends up driving our world into nihilism, when everything is manifetsation you only can rely on a "higher world" that can articulate such manifetstaions, thus you end up back at primitive religious state, this state only works on primitive societies without newtonian science, so trying to mantan such order end up on nihilism cos you can actually articulate meaning without that "higher world form which the manifestations of reality arise"
guenon is actually helping nihilism grow with this mythical bullshit

[Anonymous No.18342543]

>>18341625
>an intensity without content
this describes guenon so well

[Anonymous No.18342547]

>>18341646
>This is just Hegel admitting he lacks higher intellect, it's not really an argument.
it's a great argument, you just don't get it

[Anonymous No.18342653]

>>18341487

What does the universe expand into ? If space is a condition for the sensible world, then does that mean that at the very "edge" of the universe, space is continously created out of nothing ? Doesn't sound plausible, space is probably greater than what Kant envisioned. It isn't just a condition for the sensible world, it transcends the sensible world and exists as the invisible fundamental for everything and doesn't exist within the "borders" of the universe, but even outside of it. It is literally everywhere, infinitely. Just imagine the theory of relativity. Every object warps space. Space is like an invisible "net". I wonder what Kant would have said if he had lived to see Einstein's theory.

[Anonymous No.18342735]

>>18342653
>it transcends the sensible world
kant never denied that, he only said that an existence of that kind can be grasped by our perceptions, thus space as we know it is dependent on our senses

[Anonymous No.18342787]

>>18342735

Space and Times cannot be perceived according to Kant (which is right). Which means that

>space as we know it is dependent on our senses

is wrong. Space is not dependent on our senses (that would mean that for space doesn't exist without the faculty of sensibility). Space and Time are both a priori conditions of sensibility which give the possibility for us to perceive objects in the sensible world.

But I don't remember if Kant agreed that space can exist outside the sensible world as well.

[Anonymous No.18343630]

>>18342538
>acknowledging the existence of the transcendent is nihilism

[Anonymous No.18343632]

>>18341625
Holy mother of based

[Anonymous No.18343634]

I, for one, admire the never possible.

[Anonymous No.18343717]

>>18343630
YES.

[Anonymous No.18344728]

>>18341625
>empty breadth
nice to post the exact same idea OP's quote refuted.
>intensity without content
To help your pathetic mind (pathetic from pathos, as you are caught-up in a not intellectual "philosophy") I would say that if there is an intensity, by definition there is a content, as their is no fire without wood. And in the same way there can be contemplation/knowledge without object/phenomenons, that is to say, without limitation.

Still interesting, Hegel attacked mystics here, passive feminine ones (that Guénon distinguish from initiates).

[Anonymous No.18344751]

>>18343717
Yes, it says your is nothing (nihil) in comparison to the real Good.
But, at the same time, since your limited good is indeed nothing in comparison to the infinite, you are the one that attach himself to the nihil.

[Anonymous No.18344781]

>>18344751
From the other perspective the one that acknoledge the infinity acknowledge the fact the existence is infinite in essence.
While the one that reject it, refuse to see it as unlimited (as it would be the transcendent). So he condemns his existence to the stain of the nothingness.
In the same way

[Anonymous No.18344872]

>>18343630
The antithesis of nihilism isn’t transcendence, but immanence.

[Anonymous No.18345128]

>>18344872
transcendence imply immanence

[Anonymous No.18345136]

>>18341487
I noticed the clown who wrote this cant into math.

[Anonymous No.18345218]

For me, it’s Rama

[Anonymous No.18347162]

>>18341487
based!