/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.18879547]

Have you read your daily dose of neoplatonism today?

[Anonymous No.18879565]

Anime twitter tranny spamming the same thread every day

[Anonymous No.18879573]

>>18879547
Why would I read philosophy that is obviously objectively incorrect?

[Anonymous No.18879584]

>>18879573
>obviously objectively incorrect?
elaborate hylic scum

[Anonymous No.18879597]

>>18879584
No

[Anonymous No.18879607]

>>18879597
enjoy being reborn as a cow faggot

[Anonymous No.18879625]

>>18879607
It was a pleasure talking to you

[Anonymous No.18879754]

>>18879547
I don't read fiction

[Anonymous No.18879759]

god i wish i was an anime girl

[Anonymous No.18879824]

Thanks for reminding me

[Anonymous No.18879917]

>>18879547
I want to but I can't draw myself away from the Indians at the moment, the /lit/ is too engrossing.

[Anonymous No.18879942]

>>18879917
Have you read your daily dose of Mimamsa today?

[Anonymous No.18880140]

>>18879547
I'm still reading Plato. Also what books of Aristotle should I read if any? As far as I can tell his natural philosophy is obsolete and his logical philosophy is rather dated compared to modern logic books. But the books still worth reading are:
>Metaphysics
>Nicomachean Ethics
>Politics

[Anonymous No.18880446]

>>18879942
I respect Mimamsa and appreciate their refutations of Buddhism and their contribution to methods of Vedic exegesis, some of which were taken up by other schools like Vedanta etc, but I just don't find their analysis of the nature of consciousness as compelling as some of the schools which flourished later. And for that reason I don't take a 'daily dose' of them.

>Prabhākara holds that the self as cognizor is never cognized apart from the cognized object, nor is the object ever cognized without the cognizor entering into the cognition as a necessary factor. Both the self and the object shine forth in the self-luminous knowledge in what we have already described as triputī-pratyakṣa (perception as three-together).
In my view, the Mimamsaka Prabhākara mistakenly attributes the self-revealing (svaprakāśa) nature of awareness to unaware objects when he says that the association of self and object itself as a unit shines forth in self-luminosity; the truth is that awareness alone is svaprakāśa and objects are revealed by it. If we can't find any instances of objects ever revealing awareness or ourselves, it doesn't make sense to include those object in a supposedly self-revealing unit with the self. We never find ourselves to be objects revealing a separate awareness, nor do we feel ourselves propelled into existence as awareness at every moment anew from changes happening in our sight etc; but upon analysis, the revealing of both itself and other things is found to belong to awareness alone.
>Kumārila however thinks that the soul which is distinct from the body is perceived by a mental perception (mūncisci-pratyakṣa) as the substratum of the notion of “I,” or in other words the self perceives itself by mental perception, and the perception of its own nature shines forth in consciousness as the “I.”
I think that the Mimamsaka Kumārila is wrong when he says that the self is not the knower of the knowledge of objects and that instead the mind perceives object and also through a separate process intuits as an object the self It doesn't make sense to regard something that is perceived or known as an object as one's self, since it implies that someone else besides us is actually conscious and is knowing us, it renders ourselves unconscious which isn't how we seem to experience things. The self is proposed by him unconscious and is a sort of placeholder ego which is known by the mind, then it just makes more sense to say in his system that the mind is itself the self, but then saying the mind and it sequences of changing thoughts know themselves and eachother in succession without being known *by* the self ends up setting up a sort kind of psychological-atomism that is illogical and it doesn't even resemble how we experience things.

[Anonymous No.18880471]

>>18879547
I'm reading the essential plotnius right now, tempted to buy the enneads

[Anonymous No.18880477]

>>18879547
My, but I read my daily dose of the Bible, heathen

[Anonymous No.18880509]

>>18880140
>metaphysics
at least read the physics first. Also the categories, on poetry, rhetoric, and really anything else that strikes your fancy.

[Anonymous No.18880559]

>>18879547
Ordered the Enneads but since I live in West Bumfuck it will take a month. Holy fuck.

[Anonymous No.18880770]

Augustine is getting me into Neoplatonism and the very brief amounts of Plotinus I've read have really intrigued me.

What are the essential Plato works I should read/reread to get the most out of actually diving into Plotinus?

[Anonymous No.18880804]

>>18880770
alcibiades I
phaedo
symposium
phaedrus
philebus
timaeus
parmenides
seventh letter

these are the ones most important for the main themes of plotinus, mainly concerning the soul, the good, purificatory virtue, and the highest metaphysical and cosmological doctrines.

attached is the fuller late neoplatonist plato curicculum. ofc plato has more dialogues so read them too if you take an interest

[Anonymous No.18881031]

>>18880559
Enneads is also part of the Great Books of the Western World volume. I was lucky to find a copy locally instead of waiting for international shipping.