/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.19845755]

If the Greeks are the start point of philosophy (specifically Plato’s five dialogues). Then what/who is at the end? At least thus far?

[Anonymous No.19845771]

Me

[Anonymous No.19845776]

>>19845755
Your pic related

[Anonymous No.19845802]

>>19845771
This guy, but only because I'm not in the game yet.

[Anonymous No.19845823]

>>19845755
Wittgenstein

[Anonymous No.19845842]

Hegel is the boss you "defeat" right before the end, but will have to unlock the secret ending to fight his absolute form.

[Anonymous No.19845851]

>>19845755
The Greeks

[Anonymous No.19846092]

The Sophists

[Anonymous No.19846094]

>>19845755
The greeks are at the end as well

[Anonymous No.19846114]

>>19845755
lacan hegel

[Anonymous No.19846257]

>>19845755
Deleuzo-Hegelianism

[Anonymous No.19846265]

>>19845755
Jung.

[Anonymous No.19846275]

>>19845755

Carl Jung

[Anonymous No.19846546]

>>19845755
C.G Jung

[Anonymous No.19846574]

>>19845823
No, he took that back in Philosophical Investigations

>>19845755
I'd say it's a threeway tie between the Buddha, Zyzz and F Gardner.

[Anonymous No.19846579]

>>19845755
the presocratics

[Anonymous No.19846582]

This doughboy

[Anonymous No.19847364]

>>19845755
the starting point of philosophy are pre-socratic greeks the end is plato. aristotle is interesting and marcus aurelius/seneca are wise old guys. everything else is just western "european" nonsense

[Anonymous No.19847389]

>>19845755
carl jung

[Anonymous No.19847428]

>>19845755
Unironically Zizek

[Anonymous No.19847608]

>>19845755
My diary desu

[Anonymous No.19847651]

>>19845755
Post-continental realists

[Anonymous No.19847864]

>>19845755
You're going to have to learn logic induced autism

[Anonymous No.19847898]

>>19845755
Laruelle

[Anonymous No.19847921]

Plato, he is the final boss.

[Anonymous No.19847926]

>>19845755
Nick

[Anonymous No.19847944]

How has no one said Heidegger?

[Anonymous No.19847996]

>>19845755
The Germans.

[Anonymous No.19848061]

>>19845755
As Heidegger put it, Greece is the beginning, Germany is the end.

[Anonymous No.19848070]

>>19846574
But the Philosophical Investigations is the final boss

[Anonymous No.19848078]

>>19845755
The scientific method.
Philosophy is a closed book now.

[Anonymous No.19848089]

>>19848070
This, someone like Hegel might be the most difficult to get through but he isn’t the end. Witty is the true end

[Anonymous No.19848105]

Wittgenstein. He brought philosophy to an end.

This is the final answer.

[Anonymous No.19848146]

>>19845755
Nick Land

[Anonymous No.19848214]

>>19847944
Because he’s not, Husserl is more endgame than Heidi.
>>19845755
One of these five:
Hegel
Deleuze
Lacan
Wittgenstein
Plato

[Anonymous No.19848328]

>>19845755
> Then what/who is at the end?
Guenon

[Anonymous No.19848366]

>>19845755
It is Carl Jung op.

[Anonymous No.19848373]

Start with the Greeks and Heebs, end with Aquinas.

[Anonymous No.19848429]

>>19848328
>t. midwit

[Anonymous No.19848529]

>>19845842
This. It's the combination of his work being infamously difficult to read (his most famous work was rushed off after being written by hand, and the beautiful but also at times incoherent Preface was written in one go as the city was being attacked by Napoleon). Add is a bunch of use of special terminology and continual references to now esoteric philosophers, and it is a maelstrom of ideas before the work settles down in the chapter on sense certainty. It doesn't help that "Hegelians" of various stripes interpret in in wildly different ways because he was so central to political discourse for awhile, and so twisting Hegel became a means of winning arguments. Then add in his heavy influence from Boehme, who also is incredibly difficult to parse even by the standards of mystics.

Plus, he's arguably still dominant. Old GOO conservatism defines themselves in Hegel (Fukuyama). He's the Godfather of Marxism and Fascism. Critical theory is Hegelian. And in the world of metaphysics and philosophy of mind, "Post-Kantian" dialogues on the status of the noumenal are still the philosophical issue of our time. What does QM say about the role of an observer in being? The Hard Problem. These are were most hay is made, but Kant didn't want to go there. It's Hegel (with Schelling, Fichte, etc.) who took the next step and made Kant's Copernican Turn a question of ontology.

Wittgenstein claimed to have ended philosophy too but the Tractus had loads of critics and its entire basis, ordinary language theory is DOA with the rise of information science. Wittgenstein himself was one of the hardest critics of his own claim.

By contrast, Hegel holds up surprisingly well. It's phenomenal the system can incorporate so much change, outliving the positivist reaction it inspired.

However, this should really make Hegelians question if this isn't evidence if the theory isn't so broad as to be vacuous. Sure, the dialectical can be used to describe iterations of thought and defeat or transformation of Hegel himself, and "the truth is the whole" seems increasingly appealing as we find more connections between disparate special sciences, but my fear for them is that the system wins so much because it's a gigantic, super complex tautology of sorts (which hell, Hegelians might say is actually the point, being knowing itself as being, a circle of circles). But it seems vacuous to me at times, similar to Quine's criticism of the analytic/relations of ideas in a way.

[Anonymous No.19848538]

>>19848078
The scientific method is retarded and philosophy is still struggling with how it ruined everything.

[Anonymous No.19848560]

>>19848328
>>19848429
I saved this thread I saw after seeing so many pseud threads of Evolanons and Gueanons exchanging endless one upsman obscurantist screeds about one another but never actually attempting an analysis. "No you don't get X, all objections to X are because you can't understand it because it's for aristocrats of the soul and esoteric." Also, both authors have plenty of lines about about actual metaphysicians and philosophers that are so heavy handed. "None of them got it, they had diseases minds and aren't even worth developing counter arguments to" is the gist.

But then you look at his attempts at metaphysics...

[Anonymous No.19848568]

>>19845755
I am

[Anonymous No.19848574]

>>19848538
Cope

[Anonymous No.19848590]

>>19848538
Philosophy always used observation heavily. The scientific method is a way to structure observation and vet observations. Scientific instruments like Maria, PET scans, microscopes, telescopes, particle accelerators, etc. let us make better observations. This is a massive boon to philosophy. There has been an explosion in interesting theories in philosophy of mind thanks to the revolution in neuroimaging and tests in psychology. They've also helped to clear up a lot of confusion.

Linguistics, semiotics, and information science saved philosophy from Wittgenstein's Tractus because they upend the premises for his theory of language.

Quantum mechanics told of particles don't subscribe to two value logic and then computer science let us develop workable fuzzy logic models and get past the law of the excluded middle.

Science has made philosophy way more bifrucated, because now you need to be knowledgeable in many special sciences to work in a given subfield, but it didn't kill it. I get people morning the days of great geniuses creating massive systems to encompass everything, there is a real elegance there, but what you get in return is something way more refined.

[Anonymous No.19848601]

>>19848590
The problem with science is that it a priori takes away the subject of philosophy, which is man himself. Science is the study of mechanism and movement, but philosophy is the study of human beings.

Science might tell us why a bridge falls and how it should be built to stop it from collapsing, but it will never tell you why you should build bridges in the first place.

[Anonymous No.19848603]

>>19845755
if you want a true answer :
Metaphysics as a science ended with Immanuel Kant and his Critique of pure reason... the problem of synthetic judgements a priori is not solved until today... our Zeitgeist is still Immanuel Kant... there was noone better after him !

[Anonymous No.19848653]

>>19848590
the concept of the scientific method is a lot newer than you probably think it is. the term itself didnt even become popular until the 20th century. the vast majority of discoveries were made not by a precise following of this method but by tinkering around with things and by accident.

[Anonymous No.19848668]

>>19848653
modern researchers also barely follow "the scientific method". It's mostly just taught to kids in grade school and then people think that everything researchers do is bound to the formula of: hypothesis, experiment, results, iterate.
In reality, a lot of the time researchers are just sitting on a lot of data and analyze to see what's in it. My first paper was doing that on data my advisor had and didn't know what to do with, there was no "hypothesis" at all.

[Anonymous No.19848674]

>>19847364
I agree with your post but Seneca is a giant fucking hack. Imagine a rich fat fuck born in a noble family lecturing you about self reliance and accepting poverty while he lounges on a fancy bed eating grapes and fucking the emperor's niece.

[Anonymous No.19848676]

Wittgenstein is the end.

[Anonymous No.19848684]

Heidegger

[Anonymous No.19848704]

>>19845755
Possibly you?

[Anonymous No.19849280]

>>19848603
Depends on who you ask. Begining in the 20th century a lot of philosophers began to create compelling arguments that the distinction between analytic and synthetic is illusory. It either relies on tautology, which makes it meaningless in terms of description, or is indistinguishable from dogma. For example, "parallel lines" never meet was an example of analytic truth. And indeed it holds under the axioms of Euclidean geometry. Such axioms were once considered descriptions of inalienable fact, a feature of reality, as Euclidean geometry described the reality of physical space as it is. Then new geometries were discovered. Different axioms could be developed that also created systems of describing space. In some, parallel lines meet (although not in finite practical use cases). What was once an analytical truth, a relation of ideas, has turned out to be dogma. The law of the excluded middle is another under the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics and other interpretations. It is not true or false that a particle in super position exists with position X and spin A as opposed to positions Z, F, and Q and spin L, K, and T. The very mechanism of correspondence based empircism tells us it has a probabalistic presence across different states of affairs. Thus, it exhibits a sort of fuzzy logic. The excluded middle, another analytical fact, appears to have been a dogma.

Quine's paper the Two Dogmas of Empiricism is the landmark here, but his ideas have been criticized and refined much since.

[Anonymous No.19849297]

>>19845755
Richard Rorty

[Anonymous No.19849299]

>>19848653
>>19848668
I think the misapprehension is on your ends. Most people are taught about "the scientific method" in primary school in the ways you are describing. This is by no means a widely accepted or concrete definition. It's merely a method that requires falsifiable theories, incorporated empircism, and uses experimentation to vet theories. The term is far older than the recent era. Most historians of science I've read date the scientific method to the 1600s, long before academia had its modern form.

[Anonymous No.19849321]

>>19849280
that stuff is no real refutation of Kants epistemology... it is the pathetic try to refute it... nobody did it better than Kant until today... if there is one that really does it better everybody will know him immediately and it will chance our way of thinking in a big impactful way

[Anonymous No.19849333]

/lit/ is the final boss of philosophy

[Anonymous No.19849341]

>>19848078
Whats the justification for the scientific method

[Anonymous No.19849348]

>>19848146
unironically this

[Anonymous No.19849351]

Read pic rel. There is no end of philosophy

[Anonymous No.19849357]

>>19845755
Guenon (pbuh)

[Anonymous No.19849386]

>>19848560
> But then you look at his attempts at metaphysics...
Whoever wrote that doesn’t understand the metaphysics Guenon is referring to, like when he says “saying it is possibilities that are manifested is redundant, impossible things by definition aren’t actualized”, it’s not redundant since there are both manifest and unmanifested possibilities, the former emerge from a selection of the later and return to them in due course. “Non-being” in this context does not mean “non-existent” or “equivalent to nothingness” but its still a kind of very subtle and virtual existence. Guenon is mainly drawing from Advaita Vedanta, if people want to engage with his metaphysics they can just study the source material itself, and offer critiques of it if they can, instead of trying to piece together an indirect and incomplete understanding of it, filtered through English translations of Guenon’s French descriptions of Sanskrit metaphysics.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.19849407]

>>19845755
Orwell.

[Anonymous No.19849482]

>>19845842
>>19848529
>yes i have covertly finished a gnostic reading of hegel how could you tell?

[Anonymous No.19849503]

It starts and ends with the Greeks (and Romans).
>In fact, we came back. We were always coming back.
N0NNA

[Anonymous No.19849516]

>>19845755
>>19845776
>>19845823
>>19845842
>>19846257
>>19846275
>>19846574
>>19847926
>>19847944
>>19848328

All of you have good answers, but the best end of philosophy is unironically Heraclitus and Nagarjuna. Heidegger is nothing compared to Nagarjuna.

[Anonymous No.19849538]

>>19849516
>Nagarjuna.
He was debunked as hopelessly illogical by Burton in “Emptiness Appraised” and also by Avi Sion in “Buddhist Illogic”. And even setting that aside Buddhists themselves cannot even agree with each other regarding what he meant to actually argue.

[Anonymous No.19849542]

>>19845771
>>19845802
These two, but only because I'm retarded

[Anonymous No.19850386]

>>19849333
This

[Anonymous No.19850400]

>>19849538
Absolutely filtered. I can't say anything else. Beyond it, but it seems like you haven't even understood Heraclitus.

[Anonymous No.19850496]

hegel ended philosophy
virtually all subsequent "philosophers" did not even dare define themselves as such
deleuze once said to pretend to be one you must pretend that Hegel never existed

[Anonymous No.19850549]

>>19849386
What you described is still just creating a second order ontology. Plenty of philosphers hold that impossibilities like square circles exist (else how could statements about them have a truth value?). They are just impossible to actualize.

That doesn't get around the quote being dumb because it tries to merge the form of actualization and a definition of the totality of what is actualized into one term. They cannot be the same, and this has been identified as an error Aristotle.

It also is an example of a vicious circle.

What is being?

All things that are actualized.

And how do you know if something is, belongs to being?

Because it is actualized.

So even if the second order ontology thing isn't an issue (and it isn't necissarily, plenty of systems have this distinction, it is the nature of modality), it's a classic example of a universal being built up as a viscous circle. Now this is fine for nominalists who reject universals, reject that possibilities have a place in being, and want to see exemplification as brute fact, but it doesn't work here.

[Anonymous No.19850683]

>>19845755
> Then what/who is at the end?

the Indians

[Anonymous No.19851050]

>>19850549
> What you described is still just creating a second order ontology.
How so?

>That doesn't get around the quote being dumb because it tries to merge the form of actualization and a definition of the totality of what is actualized into one term.
Advaita isnt Aristotelianism or Platonism, there is no “theory of forms” in Advaita. It’s not nominalist either however because Brahman is an accepted abstract object (not spatio-temporily locatable) whereas nominalists deny abstract objects. You are being fooled by Guenon’s use of Scholastic- or Aristotelian-like terms to think he is describing something conceived in Greek and Scholastic terms which he isn’t, he is more so speaking analogically using terms that western readers are more familiar with to help point them towards something instead of systematically delineating it. Being for Guenon is not “the form of actualization”. There isn’t a vicious circle or contradiction if you don’t interpret his words as referencing a platonic form, he is just saying that everything manifested is contingent upon the general category of being, while also as instantiations being granted a kind of derived being in themselves through that participation or contingent subsistence in the general category of being.

>What is being?
>All things that are actualized.
>And how do you know if something is, belongs to being?
>Because it is actualized.
And here you demonstrate how errors arise when you try to view Advaita through a Scholastic or Aristotelian lenses with the same assumptions,
You are taking “actual” as synonymous with the “manifested” or “manifestation” that Guenon speaks of which is incorrect since in Advaita that which is beyond manifestation and the source of manifestation (Brahman) is actual, has actual existence, is never potential. This is an example of how it just doesn’t work and isn’t philosophically serious to uncritically assume an Aristotelian frame and to try to read and criticize Guenon’s writings through that lenses. If you want to engage with his metaphysics in a serious manner then study Advaita and see the published literature dealing with both Advaita and Aristotle/Thomism from the latter’s perspective. Under some interpretations Thomism and Advaita actually agree on most points.

[Anonymous No.19851507]

>>19851050
I don't see how this solves the problem. You can swap around "actualized" with "instantiated " or "manifested." The synonym is not what is at issue.

>Being for Guenon is not “the form of actualization
Right, it's "the principle of manifestation."

>He is just saying that everything manifested is contingent upon the general category of being,

>[or] derived being in themselves through that participation or contingent subsistence in the general category of being.

This is a definition of a universal. Plato didn't invent universals, not should they necissarily be understood as Plato understood them, indeed almost no metaphysicians in recent memory took them so. "X being granted Xness," is what a universal is, none of Plato's other philosophy has to come with it, it's just a term. And "instantiations [are] granted a kind of derived being in themselves through- participation," is describing a universal.

So the circularity stands. Logic doesn't change because your metaphysics calls on Eastern philosophy.

The rest I'm not going to quibble on. Plenty of philosophers have made their hay on bringing in ideas from the East. Intro metaphysics textbooks cover the ideas, although denuded of their religious elements.

[Anonymous No.19851522]

>blocks your path
Heh nothing personal, kid
*unzips cock*

[Anonymous No.19851691]

>>19850496
Hegel was the final boss and Wittgenstein was the final boss of the true ending

[Anonymous No.19851806]

>>19851507
>[or]
The relative being that the particular things share isn't identical with what sustains them, they are two different categories, despite Guenon seeming to imply otherwise in that passage (when isolated from its context it can seem that way, he seems to be trying to say "being can be taken in this sense, but can also be viewed under another aspect). You can't offer a meaningful critique of the metaphysics that Guenon is trying to communicate without knowing the Vedantic metaphysics itself he is referencing, you are coming at it with a boatload of assumptions where you see Guenon's usage of terms and try to imagine a metaphysics based on that through refencing what the terms mean in western thought, instead of knowing the foreign concept that it is approximating and subtly different from.

There is no "being principle" in Advaita which particular things are contingent upon while also sharing that category, that term isn't used in Advaita, that's just Guenon trying to formulate it in terms that a western mind finds more accessible. In Advaita there isn't any "form of actualization and a definition of the totality of what is actualized (conflated) or into one term". The contradiction you are identifying can be summed as "X is the principle or form of Y while at the same time forming the totality of Y in all instantiations". If we start at Brahman and head downwards, Brahman is the source or basis of maya but Itself doesn't comprise maya. The unmanifested possibilities are not the form of the manifested ones but all are equally parts of maya, i.e. non-different from maya. At nowhere in the metaphysics is there a problem of "X is the form of Y but also the substance of Y".

[Anonymous No.19851868]

>>19845755
Death Sentences - Dr. Matthew C. Harris

[Anonymous No.19851960]

>>19851806
In Advaita Vedānta the distinction between Brahman and plurality is illusory. That is decidedly not what he is saying in the cap >>19848560.

[Anonymous No.19852017]

>>19851806
>>19851050
Have you actually read The Multiple States of Being? It isn't a description of Adavaita to which the context of philosphers cannot be applied. He states that he is trying to do metaphysics and references Western ideas and westerns by name as much as Indians. He just is doing it poorly.

[Anonymous No.19852053]

>>19845755
Karl Marx

[Anonymous No.19852187]

>>19845755
Wittgenstein marked the beginning of the end. Foucault marked the final death.

[Anonymous No.19852254]

>>19851960
>In Advaita Vedānta the distinction between Brahman and plurality is illusory
Correct, but in the sense that, despite appearances, the 'is'-ness of objects had actually all along been the unmodified and unconditioned 'is'-ness of Brahman alone without any relation or connection to plurality, and *not* in the sense that both Brahman and plurality both remain as indistinct and blurring into each other when the distinction is removed.

>The philosophical upshot of Śaṅkara’s metaphysic is that no form or object constitutes the fundamental ground of existence. This explains why one cannot isolate existence itself through hierarchical descension or ascension in the realm of causation and objects. If this very effort is misguided, then the non-finding of existence in an object does not entail an absolute absence of existence, nor the object’s emergence from non-existence. He rejects the presupposition that objects possess a property of existence, or that the object delimits existence in spatial-temporal ways. Existence is formless and nondual in reality.

>Therefore, in light of Śaṅkara’s theory of causation, one cannot attribute independent reality to an object. Objects are divisible, derivative, dependent, and transient. They are merely names, nominalist wholes that lack any independent being. By negating the reality of their name and form one discovers that objects are in fact numerically identical to formless existence. If this existence is not bound by space or time, which are also forms, it must be nondual. (See Śaṅkara on BrSū 2.1.15, ChU 6.2.2, and BhG 2.16 for further discussion of these points)
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/shankara/#ExisRealCaus

>>19852017
>It isn't a description of Adavaita
It's not, but he typically tries to stay within the bounds of it and not contradict it. The issue starts when people find some approximation he uses and treat that as a metaphysical term in its own right in the "system of Rene Guenon" instead of approximating an eastern idea. With that said, if you think that Rene Guenon was trying to come up with a novel theory of a "being principle" that is above particulars while also forming them, *despite that not being taught by Advaita*, then I'm inclined to believe it's an error of interpretation, or translation. I don't have the time now to review my copy of the book and to find out exactly where he might clarify what he meant but I don't think he was trying to posit extra principles over and in addition to what Advaita teaches.

[Anonymous No.19852663]

>>19851960
It is.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/shankara/
>Still, the empirical universe presents an ontological difficulty for Śaṅkara because he is an epistemic realist. He accepts that external objects are not individual subjective illusions because we perceive these effects with intersubjective agreement. The world is thus independent of mind and not wholly unreal. One may therefore argue that he contradicts himself or falls into an excluded middle (see Fost 1998). The universe either exists or does not exist, is real or unreal, and cannot be both simultaneously. His solution is to argue for a third ontological space—that the universe is an objective but less-than-real appearance. This appearance, akin to a magic trick, is māyā. All objects are unreal in that they are transient and dependent; yet are not non-existent like the horn of a hare or self-contradictory like a square circle. His understanding of what is unreal as a less-than-real appearance does not contradict what is real. The universe of names and forms holds a unique ontological position as indeterminable (anirvacanīya) as brahman or something else other than brahman (BrSūBh 2.1.14, 2.1.17; GK 2.34; see Comans 2000: 239–246 on indeterminability). It is not identical to brahman (even though reducible to brahman), but is not different either—it does not constitute a second reality. One may thus view māyā as a postulate by elimination to account for the world’s ontological inexplicability, intended to direct one toward the unity of reality. In Śaṅkara’s final philosophical position, there is only brahman without parts, attributes, or causation.

Yes, the world is illusion, but it's a semi-illusion that is more real than things that aren't in the world, but also no gradation or ontological hierarchy exists.

If this sounds contradictory, it's because it is. The beauty of religion is that you can state that contradiction is part of the mystery. The flaw in it is that, if you reject that the world is rational, you end up with no grounds for arguing anything. All you're left with by any logical basis is radical skepticism and attraction based in revelation or feels.

Why would anyone embrace this? Basically the driving problem here is the same as the Eleatic Paradoxes. Infinite divisibility leads to the conclusion that motion is impossible for Zeno, but it also makes any ground for the apparent world impossible as well.

>For example, the existence of a shirt depends on its causal cloth substance; however, cloth existence depends on threads, thread existence depends on fibers, and fibers are composed of further subtle causes, ad infinitum. Similarly, we may view the pot beyond the boundaries of an illustration—clay is the material cause of the pot, but has further causes, like minerals and water, which themselves depend on a descending chain of subtler causes.

Now why is such a view popular today, in light of solutions to Zeno? Mystique.

[Anonymous No.19852678]

>>19845755
I fall for the Spinoza meme. What kind of joke is his "Ethics"?

[Anonymous No.19852730]

>>19852663
>Yes, the world is illusion, but it's a semi-illusion that is more real than things that aren't in the world, but also no gradation or ontological hierarchy exists.
Completely incorrect, an ontological gradation or hierarchy is recognized between 1) real existence (Brahman) 2) falsity/maya/relative world (maya) and 3) nothingness/void/complete negation. And within the 2nd category of maya you have manifested possibilities that are gross (visible) or subtle (invisible) as well as non-manifested possibilities not presently taking place within manifested time or space but still possessing the same falsity/relative being as the rest of maya.
>If this sounds contradictory, it's because it is.
It's not contradictory in the slightest, you just have a superficial understanding of it, as C. Sharma writes: Real means ‘absolutely real’, eternal and unchanging, always and everywhere, and Brahman alone is real in this sense; unreal means ‘absolutely unreal’ in all the three tenses like a ‘skyflower’ or a ‘barren woman’s son’ which no worldly object is. And in this sense, these two terms are neither contradictories nor exhaustive. Hence the Law of Contradiction and the Law of Excluded Middle are not overthrown. The Law of Contradiction is maintained since all that can be contradicted is declared to be false. The Law of Excluded Middle is not violated because, 'absolutely real' and 'absolutely unreal' are not exhaustive and admit of the third alternative, the ‘relatively real’ to which belong all world-objects.
>The flaw in it is that, if you reject that the world is rational, you end up with no grounds for arguing anything.
Advaita accepts logic as valid and says that it can aid in interpreting scripture and help us reject false world views and teachings of others by demonstrating the contradiction of them, everything in Advaita can be logically defended as free from contradiction, however Advaita also accepts the Hindu scriptures on faith and says that any worldview that tries to reach absolute truth purely and entirely from human reasoning independent of any source of divine revelation is inherently flawed.

[Anonymous No.19852764]

>>19852730
BTW, I often wonder what these guys would think if they had access to today's knowledge. Would they still carry on with their old cause, or would the relationship between space time and velocity convince them that, yes, despite his ordinary language works, you can pass the hare. Would the spaceless nature of quarks and leptons, and Planck time/space solve concerns over infinite divisibility? Would revelations about information science, how codes work, and how language is a code, paired with some from cognitive science on how universals as schemas actually shape reality as accessed get Plato to drop the forms and accept a sort of circular model?

[Anonymous No.19852771]

Nick land got the last word in, there’s nothing more to say after him

[Anonymous No.19852836]

>>19845755
Richad Dawkins

[Anonymous No.19852945]

>>19845755
Philosophy isn't a novel or video game. There is no 'end' to it you brain dead retards.

However, Heidegger was right that the Germans re-birthed philosophy. Germanophobic fags will say otherwise but it's pure cope.

[Anonymous No.19852955]

>>19852945

My philosophy is that there is and ought to be an end to philosophy.

[Anonymous No.19852968]

>>19852955
>My philosophy

[Anonymous No.19853005]

>>19852764
>BTW, I often wonder what these guys would think if they had access to today's knowledge.
They would act sort of like the great Rene Guenon I imagine, who exposed the shallow pretensions of the modern world and 'scientists'
>Would they still carry on with their old cause, or would the relationship between space time and velocity convince them that, yes, despite his ordinary language works, you can pass the hare. Would the spaceless nature of quarks and leptons, and Planck time/space solve concerns over infinite divisibility?
The Planck units of space from what I understand are still vulnerable to the same criticisms of atomism made in the Hindu Brahma Sutras and also by Yogachara Buddhists, there is no logical way they can remain the smallest unit that constitutes space while also being partless and indivisible, because then they would have no way of expanding out from one unit to form space but would all coalesce into a single Planck unit

[Anonymous No.19853026]

Matthew Harris

[Anonymous No.19853496]

>>19846094
But this time they're fat and hairy so their words mean less.

[Anonymous No.19853560]

>>19845755
SAINT THOMAS of AQVIN

[Anonymous No.19853660]

>>19845755
Heidegger. Everything post-Heidegger is memeshit or transparent ideology.

[Anonymous No.19855091]

boooomp

[Anonymous No.19855097]

>>19845755
Zoroastrianism is the start of philosophy
Heidegger is the end

[Anonymous No.19855108]

>>19848146
came here to say this

[Anonymous No.19855183]

>>19845755
wittgenstein

[Anonymous No.19855201]

>>19845755
Nietzsche is the end thus far. Orgy of the Will by icycalm will be the true end of philosophy, once it is completed.

http://orgyofthewill.net/

[Anonymous No.19855734]

>>19849482
Please tell me more.

[Anonymous No.19855751]

>>19847898
Based laruelleCHAD

[Anonymous No.19856193]

>>19853005
This is just a misunderstanding based on using intuition that comes from basic human faculties and applying it to scales at which humans can only observe things via specialized tools.

A good analogy might be a video game. In GTA is space infinitely divisible or time for that matter? No, because the laws of the engine there have finite caps on these.

This is what Planck's equations tell us about our world, and experimentation has so far supported this.

The infinitely divisible issue should hold for simulated enviornments as well but we're aware of how those are built, so we know the exact reason why it isn't. We don't have the same knowledge for the physical world but we have a lot of knowledge and that all suggests a finite meaningful interval.

If you take the model of physics as information that has grown quite popular, this is more intuitive. Information can violate the law of the excluded middle in super position, but elementary particles also store a finite and observable amount of information. The holographic principal tells us that it is only the surface area of any given volume of space that transmits information outside that object. So you're talking about collections of bits, and how information can be transfered, not an infinite receptacle/container model of space time. Whitehead's idea of space/time as a description nod relationships rather than a container helps here.

Information isn't infinitely divisible based on observation. Nor can it be infinitely dense. There is a hard limit on information per volume in our universe, as additional energy above the cap results in a black hole.

Quarks and leptons don't take up space so they can't be infinitely divisible because you can't divide zero. That's what makes physicists more confident of reaching a bottom as respects that small area of the field. But there are always surprises.

[Anonymous No.19856213]

>>19845755

> If the Greeks are the start point of philosophy (specifically Plato’s five dialogues).

The Upanishads come first, then come the Presocratics, then comes Plato.

[Anonymous No.19856292]

>>19856193
The more familiar example of there not being infinite divisibility is the photon. Mass should be infinitely divisible, never reaching a bottom based on intuition, but observation and deduction show us we do have massless entities. They can exist in the universe, they just need to have velocity.

You can think of movement as a line
graphed between an x axis of space and y axis of time. Photons would be a vertical line, experiencing no time, only movement through space time. So time is isn't infinitely divisible for a photon, it has in effect stopped. This is the way that the speed of light if able to remain constant for all observers. But if speed, a measure of distance (space) over time has an absolute cap, it shouldn't surprise us that the two (one) thing that it is measured by isn't infinite.

[Anonymous No.19856599]

>>19845755
>Plato’s five dialogues
?????

[Anonymous No.19857594]

>>19856599
Retard

[Anonymous No.19858024]

>>19856193
>This is what Planck's equations tell us about our world, and experimentation has so far supported this.
It hasn't confirmed it though
>Quarks and leptons don't take up space,
that they have no size is the current theory, it hasn't been confirmed though, moreover, if they ostensibly have no size, then that's just begging the question of "how can something that has no extension produce extension by the multiplication of itself?" It's like proposing that you can add 0 to 0 a really high number of times and that then number 1 will eventually magically arise as an """emergent property""" of all that addition, it's not rational.

>So what do we know of the size of quarks? Earlier I said that they have no size, and that’s certainly how the current theory treats them. However, as an experimenter, I’m more concerned with measurements. You the reader must be curious as to what measurements have revealed the size of a quark to be. And now the answer . . . a drum roll please . . . they haven’t. This doesn’t mean we know nothing about their size. We’ve studied this question rather thoroughly, and we know precisely how good our equipment is. If quarks (and electrons) were larger than about ten thousand times smaller than a proton, we’d have seen that they have a size. In all of our experiments, we’ve never seen even the slightest believable hint of a size. We therefore conclude that, while we can’t say what the size of a quark or electron actually is, we can safely say that if quarks have size at all, they are smaller than one ten-thousandth the size of a proton.
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/smaller-than-small/

>Physicists at Fermilab's Tevatron and CERN's LEP and LHC colliders have set a limit on the size of quarks and leptons, which is that they must be smaller than about 0.001 times the size of a proton.
https://www.fnal.gov/pub/today/archive/archive_2012/today12-03-09_NutshellReadMore.html#:~:text=There%20is%20precisely%20zero%20evidence,the%20size%20of%20a%20proton.

There doesn't seem to be any evidence confirming that time isn't indefinitely divisible either.

[Anonymous No.19858966]

>>19849516
>Heidegger is nothing compared to Nagarjuna.
could yo elaborate on that? the concept seems attractive to me

[Anonymous No.19858985]

>>19849538
>He was debunked as hopelessly illogical by Burton in “Emptiness Appraised” and also by Avi Sion in “Buddhist Illogic”
care to elaborte on this?

[Anonymous No.19859071]

>>19851050
>How so?
because you're dodging the problem of "what's real"! by creating a second form of reality, a forced virtual reality
which bring a lot or metaphysical problems, first of all, if we need a second order reality that conects being (acausality) with nonbeing(pure becoming without being) to develop a world that can have movement(becoming) and being(that which is conected with acauality brahman) then you're recognizing that you need a new substance that works as a bridge between the wto mains substances(causality and non causality) thus this brings a new question, if i need a third substance to conect two substances together, what conects this two substances with the bridge itself? the only answer of this metaphysicla system is, another bridge, so teh bridge needs bridges, and those bridges more bridges, thus creating an infinite set of conectios between substances
and just like that you lose reality itself, you have no substance/reality anymore, just forced conections that conect other conections

[Anonymous No.19859098]

>>19852254
>>The philosophical upshot of Śaṅkara’s metaphysic is that no form or object constitutes the fundamental ground of existence
>Existence is formless and nondual in reality.
shankara confirmed as a crypto buddhist

[Anonymous No.19859110]

Dr. Matthew C. Harris.

[Anonymous No.19859122]

>>19856193
thanks for this post bro, i always wanted to know a littlem ore about planck's theory applied to the philosophical problem of space

[Anonymous No.19859338]

>>19849341
it give results, unlike philosophy, simple as

[Anonymous No.19859574]

>>19859338
doesn't give results on the field of philosophy tho

[Anonymous No.19859602]

>>19845755
Husserl. Although he relegates all previous philosophy to the status of a long Prolegomena.

[Anonymous No.19859918]

>>19848560
being as the principle of manifestation still is infnite even if you don't count things that can't manifest, since manifestation itself never stop ocurring, existence has an infinite number of manifestations

[Anonymous No.19860139]

>>19849538
>Burton in “Emptiness Appraised” and also by Avi Sion in “Buddhist Illogic”
Two retards with 0 reading comprehension. You post them in every thread and everytime you are told to fuck off

[Anonymous No.19860670]

>>19860139
Nobody here has even shown them and their arguments to be wrong, they just cope and whine if you mention the books, but that’s it

[Anonymous No.19860707]

>>19859071
> because you're dodging the problem of "what's real"! by creating a second form of reality, a forced virtual reality
Incorrect, because it’s not reality or a second reality, it’s just the expression of a power inherent in Brahman.
>which bring a lot or metaphysical problems, first of all, if we need a second order reality that conects being (acausality) with nonbeing(pure becoming without being) to develop a world that can have
Wrong, because there is no second order reality but just one reality with an inherent power being expressed
>then you're recognizing that you need a new substance that works as a bridge between the wto mains substances(causality and non causality)
Wrong because neither are substances, Brahman is spirit and not substance. There is no bridge needed because there is no connection between one thing and another, multiplicity doesnt exist and has no reality which obviates the need to connect two things, there is just Brahman with its inherent power being expressed which directly projects maya without any intermediary. There is only seeming multiplicity within maya and not outside it, at the level where there is just Brahman there cannot even be bridges or intermediaries because these presuppose multiplicity, at the level where there is just Brahman alone maya is directly projected from there without any bridge, and these bridges can only exist once multiplicity is already existing in a relative and false sense, which is after the fact of maya being projecting. You are making the common error of trying to apply things which are only relatively valid within maya as being valid above maya, it’s a very materialist-like way of thinking that relies on all sorts of unjustified assumptions and axioms taken on faith.

>>19859098
> shankara confirmed as a crypto buddhist
Except that Buddhists are mostly anti-foundationalists who don’t admit any form of pure non-dual existence like Shankara does, that idea is directly opposed to Buddhist teachings.