[ 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: 13 KB, 215x270, guenon.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19939061 No.19939061 [Reply] [Original]

Is there anyone like Guenon and Evola but are atheists? I've tried reading them and I like it but I could never believe in anything supernatural so I can't take their work seriously

>> No.19939085

>>19939061
this is bait

>> No.19939093

>>19939085
It's not bait. It's not that outrageous that someone might not believe in God but still want to read these popular writers

>> No.19939098

>>19939061
I can never take atheists seriously

>> No.19939102

>>19939098
Why? It's opposite for me I can't take theists seriously.

>> No.19939109

>>19939098
>A meta-analysis of 63 studies showed a significant negative association between intelligence and religiosity.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23921675/

>Confirming previous conclusions, the new analysis showed that the correlation between intelligence and religious beliefs in college and noncollege samples ranged from -.20 to -.23.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31610740/

>The negative association between cognitive intelligence (CI) and religiosity has been widely studied and is now well documented.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31748923/

>Recent research has indicated a negative relation between the propensity for analytic reasoning and religious beliefs and practices.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23784742/

>Participants more willing to engage in analytic reasoning were less likely to endorse supernatural beliefs. Further, an association between analytic cognitive style and religious engagement was mediated by religious beliefs, suggesting that an analytic cognitive style negatively affects religious engagement via lower acceptance of conventional religious beliefs.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22481051/

>Our results indicate that the association between analytic thinking and religious disbelief is not caused by a simple order effect. There is good evidence that atheists and agnostics are more reflective than religious believers.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27054566/

>> No.19939110

>>19939109
>posting studies
Reddit

>> No.19939117
File: 1.10 MB, 2479x3026, Christian_Scientists_and_Inventors_Mosaic.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19939117

>>19939109
>posting studies instead of the actual scientists who changed the world
Lol

>> No.19939119

>>19939061
Bataille for cool esoterism whatever.

Maybe even Bergson

>> No.19939125
File: 819 KB, 3558x3364, NA9gvTB.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19939125

>>19939109
Nice pasta, I can make "studies" too but I can't change the biographies of actual scientists, see pic

>> No.19939136

>>19939109
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis

>> No.19939144

>>19939109
A seriously retarded post anon. Of course religion appeals to the low IQ majority because it provides moral structure and provides some light in a world they do not understand. This being the case doesn't preclude the engagement with religion on a more intelligent level. Atheism attracts midwits who can see the hypocrisy of the church but are not intelligent enough to understand its psychological, societal and personal importance. The fact that most of the great scientists you worship believed in God and it was this that gave meaning to their work.

>> No.19939173

>>19939098
>>19939102
I don't like theism because I don't believe in a transcendental first mover but I also dislike physicalists. Are there any good middle ground authors aside from the Buddhists?

>> No.19939184

>>19939102
because yer mom

>> No.19939188

>>19939173
What's wrong with Buddhism

>> No.19939194

>>19939188
Nothing, I'd just like to explore other options if there are any. It's difficult to find that middle ground between theism and physicalism.

>> No.19939213

Reminder that if you are a Christian and have gay family member/neighborhood it's your job to stone them to death. It's written in the Bible. If you haven't fulfilled this obligation, you aren't a true believer and are destined to hell like all the atheists.

>> No.19939215
File: 759 KB, 1920x1280, 1640895305172.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19939215

>Reminder that if you are a Christian and have gay family member/neighborhood it's your job to stone them to death. It's written in the Bible. If you haven't fulfilled this obligation, you aren't a true believer and are destined to hell

>> No.19939229

>>19939215
>the larpcave

>> No.19939238

>>19939119
Weak

>> No.19939242

>>19939213
>mental retard has never read the bible
Take your tard meds

>> No.19939276

>>19939144
>Atheism attracts midwits who can see the hypocrisy of the church but are not intelligent enough to understand its psychological, societal and personal importance.
"Psychological, social and personal importance" != religiosity. You are not attracted to religion because you believe it is true (the only criterion religion accepts) but because you, you, you want an identity. Religion doesn't want you! It spits you out! It hates cultural Christians, and rightly!

>> No.19939285
File: 142 KB, 1079x999, 1644144323319.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19939285

>>19939110
>>19939117
>>19939125
>>19939136
c o p e
>look at these studies that say niggers are dumb
>NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

>> No.19939289

>>19939144
>understand its psychological, societal and personal importance.
I readily acknowledge this and it's why I support Christianity publicly. However I still believe abrahamism is not true, even though it provides social cohesion.

>> No.19939976

>>19939194
In the Hindu metaphysics that Guenon takes as his basis like Advaita Vedanta, Brahman or God is the ultimate metaphysical ground of everything, but Brahman isn’t personified and it doesn’t have thoughts or make decisions.

>> No.19939984

>>19939061
If you would like, OP, I may be able to provide you with a path toward understanding that God is real, and that reality is supernatural, that also links up with current science.

>> No.19939989

>>19939109
Religiosity is not the same as wisdom.

>> No.19940004

>>19939976
That's something I can accept more easily, yes. The concept of a personal God, or just God as a being in the broadest sense, doesn't make sense to me, but "God" as the ground of being is fine. The concept of Sunyata in Buddhism for example. Advaita seems very similar to Buddhism in that regard.

>> No.19940009

>>19939144
>not intelligent enough to understand its psychological, societal and personal importance
Ah so you are also an atheist but simply believe God is a useful idea because you have a bit more social intelligence

>> No.19940010

>>19939061
Unfortunately not. That's all I can say. You'll have to get comfortable with the idea of a Divine, or perish. Better yet, why does such a minuscule detail bother you?

>> No.19940011

>>19940004
But, what is "being?"

>> No.19940013

>>19939215
This is true

>> No.19940020

>>19940011
To be truly accurate, nondualism would have you abandon the duality of being and non-being. See Tathata.

>> No.19940028

>>19939061
evola is an atheist

>> No.19940033

>>19939061
Try Schopenhauer and then Jung.

>> No.19940040

>>19940020
Well, there is no abandoning anything if you truly understand the wisdom of the East. Abandoning things has no purpose, one can only understand and accept. Everything is everything, that's the central premise, but within that are shades and layers of interpretation. One can say that one's path is better or worse than another, but what difference would it make? Is a man's perspective any less a part of the whole truth, however riddled with falsehood it may be?

Dualism and non-dualism aren't mutually exclusive when one can choose which glasses he uses to see the world; even more so when one can wear different glasses at different times. The purpose of the East is never to resign oneself to ones understanding of the truth, but simply to acknowledge the truth whatever he goes on to do. Such is the difference between men who use glasses while knowing they possess eyes underneath them, and men who have never taken the glasses off once, and cannot distinguish them from their eyes.

>> No.19940160

>>19940004
If you are interested in exploring that kind of metaphysics in depth alongside your reading of the Traditionalists, I would recommend reading Adi Shankara’s works, starting with his Upanishad commentaries after you’ve already read Guenon’s “Man and His Becoming According to the Vedanta”.

>> No.19940167
File: 114 KB, 1086x652, 1639007549125.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19940167

so what the fuck was his actual problem with Plato?

>> No.19940363

>>19940040
Nondualism is the without glasses option?

>> No.19940887

>>19940167
he didn't have any problem with Plato, not considering someone the greatest doesn't mean that you have something against him

>> No.19941396

>>19939984
Please continue

>> No.19941412

>>19940033
Isn't Jung like a mega Christian

>> No.19941506

>>19940363
No, the point is that all -isms are just an interpretation of what "is." Reality just "is." There's no such thing as dualism or non dualism. But we can choose to view it one of those two ways, aka, we can put the glasses on, and that makes them real. It changes how we see things and we will act accordingly. But, if one can use -isms like tools, while being aware of the Truth beneath, it can be productive. Using -isms as if they were the Truth, which is what most people do, leads to insanity. Most of the world is insane. But perspectives can't be true or false, they are what they are like anything else. Better to understand them than evaluate them.

>>19941396
Quantum mechanics belies the truth. Matter isn't actually solid and is reducible to energy which presents itself as either particles, aka units of condensed light, or waves, spectrums of uncondensed light. It only becomes a particle once acted upon or observed by a being, which means reality is totally fluid until perceived. Literally.
What's more, reality mimicks the structure of a video game. It's all mathematical relationships between holographic projections to simulate things like physics, objects etc. That's exactly what video games are.
So it's a simulation, in a way. What designs a simulation?


"Nothing?"

>> No.19941519

>>19941412
He is a heterodox Christian but that doesn't matter, he should be palatable for an atheist.

>> No.19941529

>>19941412
>>19941519
If you're already open to Eastern ideas then you'll be open to Jung. He is Christian in a nominal sense, a bit more than that too he does believe in the divinity of Jesus, but it's very removed from his philosophy, which is more like an analysis of mind and being from an almost Eastern spiritualist point of view. I actually like him a lot. Very eclectic thinker.

Imagine a Buddhist sage with a psychology degree who believes in Jesus Christ and you have Carl Jung.

>> No.19941538

>>19939102
Who hurt you?

>> No.19941577

>>19941506
Your interpretation of quantum mechanics is somewhat flawed. You're reading far too much into the fact that interference patterns seen in a particle that goes through a left or a right slit, |psi> = |psi_L>+|psi_R>, are washed out by the addition of photons, |Psi> = |psi_L>|gamma_L>+|psi_R>|gamma_R>, where gamma is the photon(s) wavefunction. I'm just using the language of non-relativistic quantum mechanics, because I am a bit confused by quantum field theory, so I'm sure people can run circles around me here, but I think this is an intuitive picture - interactions with the environment destroy interference patterns by killing cross-terms when calculating probability densities.

>> No.19941621

>>19941577
No, you're actually just restating literally exactly what I said, but using the language of hard material science to make it seem less "mystical" than it is.

Photons are units of condensed light, exactly what I said. But here's the real endgame deal: why does ANY of that shit exist? Did you make it? Did you create vibrational waves of probability that comprise everything in material reality including you and I, and remain purely theoretical/probable until the introduction
of units of light?

>> No.19941656

>>19939976
If a God doesn't have will then it's not God. It's not even anything, really.

>> No.19941686

>>19941656
Gods will is the accumulation of all of our wills.

>> No.19941692

>>19939173
Daoism?

>> No.19941697

>>19941506
Books on this? Unironically. I'm tired of isms.

>> No.19941717

>>19941686
Sounds like Hegelian nonsense. Men are not God.

>> No.19941756

>>19941717
No one man is God, and all men are creations of God, but God is being itself, and we are beings. Were an extension of God, collectively we are God's will.

>> No.19941767

>>19941697
Not many good books because most thinkers are retards. Eastern ancient stuff is littered with allegory so it's not what you're looking for probably.
Honestly, check out Nietzsche, and when you read him, read him with the concepts I just laid out in mind. A lot of my ideas on the universal validity and falsehood of all perspectives come from his ideas.

Beyond Good and Evil is right there with the Bible for me.

>> No.19941781

>>19939093
Marx. Engels. Lenin. Stalin. Atheist versions of Ebola and Quenon.

>> No.19941810

>>19941767
Thanks.
Isn't it contradictory to say everything is relative from an epistemological standpoint for obvious reasons though, how do you answer the usual
>"there is no truth" is a truth
rebuttal?

>> No.19941831

>>19939061
>Is there anyone like Guenon and Evola but are atheists?
For sure. Just like Guenon and Evola, Ernest Cline, the author of Ready Player One, is also totally fucking gay and cringe, and an atheist on top of that.

>> No.19941834

>>19941810
For that I'd also check out Hermeticism and what it has to say about the nature of "opposites."
Truth and untruth together is still the Truth. The Truth is all things taken together, accepted. If someone says there is no truth, and they believe that, then for them there isn't any truth. And they will live according to that point of view, which means that in some little corner of the world, there really isn't any such thing as truth. Acknowledging that is part of the Truth, dizzying as that may be.
In general: it's less important what is true and more important what people believe, because that creates reality, which means it alters the truth. At the same time, there are things which never change, there is an essence to material reality that isn't man made. And so while humans alter the truth by believing certain things, they haven't really altered anything. It's more like they've seen another side of it.

>> No.19941840

>>19941831
kek

>> No.19941842

>>19941412
Jung is the opposite

>> No.19941857

>>19941810
>>19941834
Same guy, I just thought of this too: it's a hard frame of mind to get into because your brain is logically programmed against understanding it for a variety of reasons, but the idea is to break out of asking whether things are true or false, and to ask instead what the consequences of believing them are. Nothing is really true or false, there are causes and effects, and even that is sort of saying too much.
>Man believes there is God in the sky who loves and blesses him
Who cares if it's true or not? What are the effects on him and on his world?
>Man believes there is no God and reality is cold hard material
Who cares if it's true or false? What are the effects on him and his world?

Primitive man created the world a certain way, and so too has modern man. Both their illusions created a new world of truths, because it guided what they did to the world through their actions.

>> No.19941942

>>19939093
What content is there if not the "supernatural" content? It would be like reading the autobiography of a cowboy but you don't want to hear about cowboys

>> No.19941967

>>19941656
> If a God doesn't have will then it's not God.
Why? Can you substantiate that with any sort of argument?
>It's not even anything, really.
Why?

>> No.19942228

>>19941781
>materialist plebs
Nice bait

>> No.19942304

>>19939215
True and godpilled

>> No.19942420

>>19941781
Lmao imagine wasting your time on these

>> No.19942643

>>19939061
you can believe in "supernatural" beings without believing that the universe was created by god with a purpose

>> No.19943573

>>19939061
marx and engels

but you should just take LSD instead