/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.20734469]

I fell for the meme. Books to get out of this cul-de-sac of larping?

[Anonymous No.20734475]

Here's your previous thread that you made yesterday and got a lot of answers, use it. >>20724275

[Anonymous No.20734490]

>>20734475
99 percent of that thread was Guenon tards sperging out on each other. The only serious suggestions that were made were 1) the Bible 2) Schertel's Magic: History, Theory, Practice annotated by Adolf Hitler and 3) Process and Reality. All of which I have already read.

[Anonymous No.20734630]

>>20734469
God is Not Great, Hitchens
The Portable Nietzsche.

[Anonymous No.20734648]

>>20734630
Hitchens is silver-tongued, tabloid press, social climber garbage. Nietzsche is a gateway drug to wholesale rejecting modernity and ending up back at Guenon.

[Anonymous No.20734678]

>>20734648
>Hitchens is
All it takes to pull down the rotted edifice of theism
> Nietzsche is a gateway drug to wholesale rejecting modernity and ending up back at Guenon.
HA! In no way.

[Anonymous No.20734691]

>>20734678
You write like a nigger.

[Anonymous No.20734698]

>>20734469
The easiest way is to join a church and become a exclusivist extremist

[Anonymous No.20734723]

>>20734490
Then read the Bible, Schertel's Magic: History, Theory, Practice annotated by Adolf Hitler and Process and Reality.

[Anonymous No.20734736]

>>20734691
You write like an incel who loves nazi Germany with all his penis

[Anonymous No.20734745]

Whitehead.

[Anonymous No.20734752]

>>20734469
Get an English Quran, an Arabic Quran, and books to learn how to read said Arabic Quran. Leave the internet for one year and study those books.

[Anonymous No.20734756]

Nicolas Berdyaev

[Anonymous No.20734769]

>>20734736
The "n" should be capitalized and you also forgot punctuation. I wasn't trying to be hostile with my previous observation: I was merely stating what I hold to be fairly obvious and certainly what occurs to most other anons while reading over your post.

[Anonymous No.20734792]

>>20734469
Robert Bolton and Stratford Caldecott

[Anonymous No.20734798]

Sergius Bulgakov, Ramanuja, Abhinavagupta

[Anonymous No.20734913]

>>20734769
What you find “obvious” couldn’t be farther from the truth, kommandant anon

[Anonymous No.20734931]

>>20734913
>Das Talent gleicht dem Schützen, der ein Ziel trifft, welches die übrigen nicht erreichen können; das Genie dem, der eins trifft, bis zu welchem sie nicht einmal zu sehen vermögen".
Seems I'm the only one who traf it

[Anonymous No.20735014]

>>20734469
Nagarjuna, Guenon favorite author Shankara, sttole all of Nagarjuna's ideas and adapted them to a hindu paradigm

[Anonymous No.20735069]

>>20734469
Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations and existentialism I suppose, then you can comtinue your life unbothered

>t. escaped the LARP

[Anonymous No.20735073]

>>20734469
Guenon essentially refuted everyone. Reading is pointless now.

[Anonymous No.20735083]

>>20734469
>>20734490
Hegel's phenomenology of spirit, he refuted Guenon in the prologue

[Anonymous No.20735090]

>>20735083
Guenon refuted Hegel

[Anonymous No.20735112]

>>20735090
lol no,he couldn't even refute Kant

[Anonymous No.20735117]

>>20735112
He refuted both. Profane philosophy is of a lower order than sacred sciences and spirituality.

[Anonymous No.20735119]

>>20735073
that reminds me a time a Guenonfag said that Guenon rfefuted common sense, i think that's very telling of the type of people that read him

[Anonymous No.20735141]

>>20735119
Common sense is refutable.

Refute it.

[Anonymous No.20735153]

>>20734469
filtered.

[Anonymous No.20735176]

>>20734469
smelly, dumb, hylic scum

[Anonymous No.20735202]

>>20735117
>Profane philosophy is of a lower order than sacred sciences and spirituality.
indeed, that's exactly how Guenon "refuted" Kant, he pretty much just said "Kant doesn't believe in my magical wold of faeries and ghost, so he must be wrong"(his critic of Leibniz is just as bad btw)
that's the level of refutation you can expect from Guenon, straight out of a crystal witch from tiktok
this reminds me the time Guenon actually believed a group of satanist summoned an astral bear to attack him while he was sleeping, all because he had a nightmare, a true schizo

[Anonymous No.20735237]

>>20734475
It’s a bot.

[Anonymous No.20735537]

>>20734736
You write like an incel who loves penis

[Anonymous No.20735550]

>>20734469
>Larping
This nonword is just a pointer to fat people propagandized as doing this we like.
LOOK ANON I FOUND SOME FAT PEOPLE WHO LIKE WHAT YOU LIKE. DONT THEY LOOK DUMB?

[Anonymous No.20735575]

>>20735550
Guenon was literally a LARPer though. Deep down he was a Hindu (Buddhist in denial) LARPing as a Muslim.

Before he LARPed as a Muslim, he LARPed as a Catholic although never took communion just like he never went to Mecca when his Egyptian wife went.

It's a bunch of proto-boomers LARPing as ye olde trads.

[Anonymous No.20735881]

>>20734469
nigga read into Islam so hard he turned Indonesian.

[Anonymous No.20736080]

>>20735117
Guenon couldn't even refute the problem of causation argumented by Kant, how can you articulate a first principle that doesn't break the chain of causation? every first principle you pose, will inevitably be a different substance than the chain of causation itself, if not, the first principle fall into an infinite regression, but if this first prinicple is a different substance how can you link the two? a new susbtance is needed that function as a bridge, then that substance will need itself more link between every substance linked, making another infinite regress, this time of substances, each link will need more links to infinitumin order for A and B to be connected you need C, but C needs D to connect with A and E to connect with B, then D also needs a link and so on and so on

[Anonymous No.20736085]

>>20734469
Why don't you just accept that life is meaningless and just live? Go read books, take a walk in nature, have a family, go out with friends, write poetry.

[Anonymous No.20736228]

>>20736080
Prime substance is not a being or substance among others, it transcends all and yet permeates all, so wether we say creation ex nihilo or platonic emanationism doesn't matter, the Absolute isn't touched by an infinite regress

[Anonymous No.20736377]

>>20736228
>it transcends all and yet permeates all
that's a contradiction in terms, something can't be tracendental and immanent at the same time, something can't be above another thing and yet be part of that thing

[Anonymous No.20736391]

Im also trying to leave the larp, I’m thinking Wittgenstein will help me stop philosophizing and start trying to live life fully. And if I want to follow a philosophy for a guideline then I’ll just read stoics, and if I need a religion I’ll just follow a Kierkegaardian style Christianity

[Anonymous No.20736400]

>>20735069
Wittgenstein is exactly what led me to Guenon. Can't speak for other anons, but I don't see how this is really an answer.

[Anonymous No.20736421]

>>20736377
>something can't be tracendental and immanent at the same time, something can't be above another thing and yet be part of that thing
why not?

[Anonymous No.20736431]

>>20736400
Guenon is a prime example of a guy just using language games to reify reality and arive at contradictory conclusions

[Anonymous No.20736445]

>>20736431
> and arive at contradictory conclusions
like?

[Anonymous No.20736452]

>>20736228
the moment you define a "prime substance" as something that: "it transcends all and yet permeates all" you can then posit an even more fundamental substance that transcends and yet permeates this "prime substance" leading you to the infinite regress

[Anonymous No.20736456]

>>20736080
>how can you articulate a first principle that doesn't break the chain of causation?
By showing how the possibility of a link at all (ie causation itself) is basically the efficacy of the principle, and that in doing so the principle is neither "part of the chain" of causality nor entirely different from it. Hence the Chinese saying, "wei wu wei", to act without acting, of the Transcendental Man.
> will inevitably be a different substance than the chain of causation itself
No, for at least two reasons. One is it is not a substance in the sense you are thinking (for the principle necessarily has to transcend the duality of being and non-being to be a universal principle), two you are under the presumption that in order for something to be a principle it has to be ontologically separable. But the assertion is that the principle is only what is real at the highest level, and that the chain of causality does not even have substance itself when considered apart from the principle. This might seem slightly contradictory, but transcending these two categories does not make it "less real", it is just that these terms become frail.

And yes, Guenon absolutely refuted Kant's argument from causation. Kant was naive enough to only use the "cosmological" proof, ie the conception of causes in time. Guenon completely refuted him by showing how it is necessary that all causes in time regress indefinitely and are therefore conceptually infinite in the mathematical sense, and that Kant's antinomy is thereby refuted because there is absolutely no logical basis to assert that there is a first cause in time (which has been the original idea even since St Augustine formulated the argument, which Kant seems to have basically misunderstood). Kant also mistook the idea of substance for substratum, another grave mistake which was also easily refuted.

[Anonymous No.20736458]

>>20736431
Guenon states that language is not capable of "truth" in the modern philosophical sense, and that initiation, and the writings derived from these realizations, is required. In this sense Guenon completely anticipated and transcended Wittgenstein.

[Anonymous No.20736461]

>>20736445
>>20736228
>it transcends all and yet permeates all
this is a good example
>>20736421
because transcendental and immament are two opposite terms, both implie opposite things, if something is both then it breaks the law of non-contradiction

[Anonymous No.20736466]

>>20734490
>>20734723
>Schertel's Magic: History, Theory, Practice annotated by Adolf Hitler
topkek im dead

[Anonymous No.20736480]

>>20736452
>you can then posit an even more fundamental substance that transcends and yet permeates this "prime substance"
You can't if it is a prime substance and metaphysically Infinite.

[Anonymous No.20736485]

>>20736458
>Guenon states that language is not capable of "truth" in the modern philosophical sense, and that initiation, and the writings derived from these realizations, is required
that's a language game bro, all of that is a semiotical articulation

[Anonymous No.20736487]

>>20736461
>because transcendental and immament are two opposite terms
proof?

[Anonymous No.20736492]

>>20736485
You're playing language games, right now, friend, that is semiotical articulation. Please make an argument that is not a language game.

[Anonymous No.20736497]

>>20736480
>You can't
why not? if all that it takes for a prime substance is to transcends and permeates everything, then another thing that transcends and permeates this substance is possible
>and metaphysically Infinite.
it can be even more infinite, there's all kinds of level of infinitude, the idea of an inifnite containing other inifnites is not new

[Anonymous No.20736506]

>>20736487
it's in the terms, somethign is transcendental because is not immanent, and something is immanent because is not transcendental, if something is both transcendental and immanent, then the terms lose all meaning, one is the negation of hte other

[Anonymous No.20736535]

>>20736497
>why not?
Because it is already Infinite and therefore beyond an infinite regression which is numerical.
>it can be even more infinite,
No, because there is only one real infinity. Read Guenon's book on Calculus in order to see why the idea of relative infinities is logically absurd. This is why there is actually no such thing as a mathematical infinity, and only limiting concepts, infinity is essentially metaphysical and cannot be "more infinite" by necessity of its "nature."
>>20736506
It's not in the terms. It's possible for things to possess two states which are only apparently contrary. For example, the light from the Sun is both inside of my room and outside, which are opposites, but which is perfectly logical to predicate of the Sun's light. But in the case of the principle, it is because transcendence and immanence are only relative and illusory terms. Analogically the light's innerness or outerness are also illusory.

[Anonymous No.20736614]

>>20735202
It isn't up to Guénon or anyone else to prove to you the reality of supra-mundane states of being.

[Anonymous No.20736681]

>>20735119
>a Guenonfag said that Guenon refuted common sense
He (pbuh) did refute "common sense" with his typical clarity and marksman-like precision

>We have said that pragmatism represents the final outcome of all the modern philosophy and marks the lowest stage in its decline; but outside the philosophical field there also exists, and has already existed for a long time, a diffused and unsystematized pragmatism which is to philosophical pragmatism what practical materialism is to philosophical materialism, and which merges into what people generally call “common sense.” This almost instinctive utilitarianism is inseparable, moreover, from the materialistic tendency: common sense consists in not venturing beyond the terrestrial horizon, as well as in not paying attention to anything devoid of an immediate practical interest; it is “common sense,” above all, that regards the world of the senses as alone being real and admits of no knowledge beyond what proceeds from the senses; and even this limited degree of knowledge is of value in its eyes only in so far as it allows of satisfying material needs and also sometimes because it feeds a certain kind of sentimentalism, since sentiment, as must be frankly admitted at the risk of shocking contemporary “moralism,” really is very closely related to matter. No room is left in all this for intelligence, except in so far as it may consent to be put to the service of practical ends, acting as a mere instrument subordinated to the requirements of the lowest or corporeal portion of the human individual, “a tool for making tools,” to quote a significant expression of Bergson’s: “pragmatism” in all its forms amounts to a complete indifference to truth.

[Anonymous No.20736760]

>>20736681
Libcucks BTFO

[Anonymous No.20736841]

>>20736681
Guenon wins again

[Anonymous No.20736868]

>>20736085
because some of us know that we cant accept that, and if i dont tell myself i have some overarching purpose i will literally blow my brains out.

[Anonymous No.20736887]

>>20736391
>Wittgenstein
another generic product of the atheist ''''''''''''''''''enlightenement''''''''''

put it in the trash

[Anonymous No.20736917]

>>20736456
>By showing how the possibility of a link at all (ie causation itself) is basically the efficacy of the principle
causation as a principle is just an abstraction of causation itself, it doesn't have inherent existence,and is not prior to it, you can try to prove that it is, but you can't take for granted that it is, since is not self evident, the efficacy of causation happens because each cause has an effect and each effect is on istelf a cause, no first cause is needed ad a logical necessity

the rest of your point rest on this faulty notion of principle, so is not worth addressing it, at leats until you can prove that such a notion has logical validty and is not just an unproven axiom

>>20736456
>for the principle necessarily has to transcend the duality of being and non-being to be a universal principle
this is a contradiction, it's like saying somethign can be a chair and not be a chair at the same time, it makes no logical sense
Parmenides already show us that somehting can't have being and non-being
>>20736456
>. But the assertion is that the principle is only what is real at the highest level,
again you need to prove that such a higher level actually exist, you can't just take for granted such a thing, since is not self-evident and a lot of philosophical systems work without the need of a "higher level"
>nd that Kant's antinomy is thereby refuted because there is absolutely no logical basis to assert that there is a first cause in time
Kant said that it can't never be a first cause in time, that's the wole point of the antinomie

[Anonymous No.20736919]

>>20736614
it is if he wants to use it as a logical proof of his system

[Anonymous No.20736937]

>>20736917
>causation as a principle is just an abstraction of causation itself
Incorrect, because otherwise causation would not exist as a universal phenomenon, however the reverse is the case. Causation would not be a universally valid principle of all reciprocal (dual) associations if it were not prior to the things it applies to.
>the rest of your point rest on this faulty notion of principle
I will assume that you are admitting that you've been refuted.
>this is a contradiction, it's like saying somethign can be a chair and not be a chair at the same time
Not at all, I just demonstrated how it is not a contradiction, because it is neither one of these two things. This is like saying the idea of substratum is a contradiction because it contains all potentialities, which are themselves contraries (in which case you would be claiming Aristotle was refuted for asserting that contraries rely on a substratum in order to be contrary to each other). Reading Aristotle at the most basic level would show you how this is possible (namely the relation of principle, Aristotle's "substratum", to contingent, Aristotle's "contrary").
>Parmenides already show us that somehting can't have being and non-being
Parmenides did not show how being could not be contingent upon non-being, and therefore both upon a higher principle.
>Kant said that it can't never be a first cause in time
He also said that it can be, the antinomy is two parts. Kant's only valid argument is that causation is infinite, which Guenon showed is exclusively correct, and therefore the antinomy is refuted because only one side of the argument is correct, which means it is not an antinomy.

[Anonymous No.20736938]

>>20736535
>. For example, the light from the Sun is both inside of my room and outside, which are opposites, but which is perfectly logical to predicate of the Sun's light
that's a bad metaphor, first of all, the rays of light that are inside of your room are not the same that the ones that are outside
but that's besides the point, because we're not talking about a third thing, but of your roombeing the same as the thing outside your room, if what's oustide your room is also what's inside your room, then the lmitationof the notion of "your room" doesn't make any sense, you can give your faulty example of light being "outside" and "inside" beacuse those two words are negations of one and the other


>Because it is already Infinite and therefore beyond an infinite regression which is numerical.
not really, if this infinite is beyond a numerical rgegression, i can pose aninifnite that is beyond the infinite that is beyond numerical regressions, the infinite regressionis not numerical, is conceptual, each conceptual system of superation can be replicated

[Anonymous No.20736945]

>>20736937
>, because otherwise causation would not exist as a universal phenomenon,
not at all, all i need for an effect to have substance or existence is for a cause, a direct cause that explains it, there's no first cause needed
>>20736937
>This is like saying the idea of substratum is a contradiction because it contains all potentialities
not really, because a substratum dosen't negate the things that exist, one thing can be the substratumof another, a caprenter can be the reaosn for a chair, but a non-chair cannot be a chair, which is what you're saying
>>20736937
>Kant's only valid argument is that causation is infinite, which Guenon showed is exclusively correct
again Guenon didn't show it to be correct, he just presupouse a contradictory substartum and didn't address any of the point Kant made with his critic, he, just like you, never proved how this contradictory first principle could exist, just taked for granted that it does, which means he didn't rfute anythign, just amde a petitio principii fallacy and an appeal t o authority(inthis case, a revelated true)

[Anonymous No.20736956]

>>20736937
>Causation would not be a universally valid principle
causation is not a universally valid principle, is a subjective principle, read Hume on the treatise of human nature

[Anonymous No.20737099]

>>20736938
>that's a bad metaphor, first of all, the rays of light that are inside of your room are not the same that the ones that are outside
I think you simply do not understand it. The real point of the issue is that a single thing is at the root of both opposites, and is thus in a sense both of the opposites, but also neither. This is how Brahman is both transcendent and immanent.
> i can pose aninifnite that is beyond the infinite that is beyond numerical regressions
You can't, because that would be assuming it is a numerical infinite, which we just established it is in fact not.
>>20736945
>all I need for a substance is for a cause
Correct, so you require a cause for anything to be temporally or physically related to anything else, which is confirming my point.
>not really, because a substratum dosen't negate the things that exist
So you understand then why is it not contradictory.
>again Guenon didn't show it to be correct
He showed indisputably that given every effect follows from a cause, there cannot be any first cause in the chain of cause and effect, and that Kant's argument that there must be a first cause is fundamentally flawed (there is simply no logical basis for his assertion, so there is little to refute), which proves that Kant's antinomy is mere sophistry. Schopenhauer proved the exact same thing by coincidence.
>and didn't address any of the point Kant made with his critic
Kant didn't make any valid points, because they are all refuted by basic reasoning. It's a shame that so few people who read him pick up on his basic logical errors, especially in the antinomies.
>>20736956
It absolutely is, Hume's entire argument hinges on the fact that he cannot directly see something, therefore it is not real, which is a non-argument. Causality is not absolutely universal (for it is an illusion with respect to the highest reality which transcends duality), but is absolutely universal to anything which is dual and reciprocal in time. It is also logically universal, but in this case it takes a different name, rather than "causality."

[Anonymous No.20737126]

Guenonbros, if initiation causes the person to merge with the absolute causing total obliteration of the self. Then what is the point?

[Anonymous No.20737153]

>>20736937
>This is like saying the idea of substratum is a contradiction because it contains all potentialities, which are themselves contraries
that's why Aristotle created 4 different types of substratums: hyle, eidos, kinoun and telos, because a lot of them contradict each other if they're the same thing

[Anonymous No.20737164]

>>20737126
There's no point to being Guenonian. The whole thing was made up by him and his freemason handlers in a haze of opium smoke.

[Anonymous No.20737167]

>>20734630
>"Why bad thing happen?
>"If god real why I no see him?
>"Universe too big therefore god not real
- Hitchens

[Anonymous No.20737172]

was egypt really all that cool and great?

[Anonymous No.20737173]

>>20736228
>Prime substance is not a being or substance among others,
this is metaphysically impossible, because in order for a "prime" substance to exist, the "other" substances should have something in common between them that put them in a second order ontologically to that "prime" substance, but that's a contradictionin terms, since all substances must be completly differet fromone another, if not they wouldn't be substances, they can't be related, even on their difference to a prime substance, that is, no substance is a substance "among others", all substance in that sense are a "prime" substance, makng the whole conept useless

[Anonymous No.20737186]

>>20737167
me get ouchie boo boo so God not real ;(

[Anonymous No.20737200]

>>20734469
Those who are attracted by such beliefs usually cannot resist equating the non-dual state with some preconceived idea of what they think it must be like. The mere fact of its verbal expression must give rise to a mental formation which is radically adverse to common sense.

The privation or ‘reality deficit’ must itself be made absolute along with the consciousness itself. Consequently, one has no alternative but to identify with this negation, since a personal God is excluded along with any other reality outside one’s consciousness. The positive function of consciousness cannot balance this because all it can do is focus one’s mind on the negation.

To believe oneself to be committed to a void like this is a more than adequate cause for depressive mental illness, which is most likely to affect those whose minds are healthy and logically seriously enough to react against irrationalities imposed on them. Those who can stabilize this condition and seem to live healthily on it do so because they are able to avoid mental contact with the ‘absolute void’ which their doctrine logically implies in the midst of their supposedly absolute consciousness.

[Anonymous No.20737205]

>>20737164
I just want to know whats the difference between being initated and not being initated

[Anonymous No.20737211]

>>20737205
Initiation speeds up your annihilation process. Guenon thinks its really important but also admits the possibility of auto-initiation, although rare.

So yeah, there's no point.

[Anonymous No.20737285]

>>20735575
Also larped as a freemason and probably a lot of other stuff. Guenon is a larper philosopher with larper followers.

[Anonymous No.20737312]

>>20735202
>It's one of those try to shit on an author and end up making them sound very based posts

[Anonymous No.20737617]

>>20737099
>but also neither
again, that's a bad metaphor, even if we think about how space itself can contain both the room and the place outside the room, both aspect are still a egation of the other, the fact that a space can contain both doesn't mean that the inside of your room can turn into the outside, in the same way that a transcendental aspcet can't become an immanent aspect, the outisde needs to be the outisde in order for the room to be a room, space is just the convination of both and both need to be coherent in space in order for space to be "the space"

>which is confirming my point.
not at all, becaus eyou're posing a cause on itself outside of any particular cuase, that's the opposite of how a cause function, every cause is the particular cuase of a particular effect,no first uncaused cause is needed

>there cannot be any first cause in the chain of cause and effect
that's part of the antinomy, if Guenon "proved" that that doesn't make the antinomie any less true, since Kant also proved that

[Anonymous No.20737620]

>>20737312
you think a schizo that deluded himself into thinking faeries and ghost exist is based?

[Anonymous No.20737639]

>>20737099
>Hume's entire argument hinges on the fact that he cannot directly see something, therefore it is not real, which is a non-argument
it is an argument, an empirical argument, Hume proved without a doubt that the very notion of causation leads to rational speculation,t hings like a first principle that works as a center for existence cannot be considered a logical necessity sine cause and effect don't lead to an infinite regress since they don't exist as a substance, just as a tool of cognition
so things like this argument:
>>20736456
>By showing how the possibility of a link at all (ie causation itself) is basically the efficacy of the principle, and that in doing so the principle is neither "part of the chain" of causality nor entirely different from it. Hence the Chinese saying, "wei wu wei", to act without acting, of the Transcendental Man.

makes no sense, since there's no need of a first principle outside of the chain of causation to make the chain effective

[Anonymous No.20737660]

>>20737200
>The positive function of consciousness cannot balance this because all it can do is focus one’s mind on the negation.
This is silly nonsense because consciousness invariably has knowledge of itself (a positive function) regardless of what it's doing. Also they are not talking about an idea which has to be mentally sustained at each moment but rather the elimination of the wrong idea of the belief in the reality of multiplicity; once a misconception has been pointed out it requires no further efforts or actions to actualize this but one just is naturally and effortlessly cognizant of not falling into that error again; like how it takes no effort to remain comfortable in the fact that a mirage is a mirage once it has been pointed out to you. Robert Bolton is clueless about the eastern topics he tries to engage with

[Anonymous No.20737787]

>>20736681
This is Chesterton-tier "boo hoo I don't like what x thinks because it's dumb." Are all tardlarper writers like this?

[Anonymous No.20737826]

>>20737660
No, what he said was correct and what you're saying is just fluffed up annihilationist propaganda.

[Anonymous No.20737861]

>>20736456
>how the possibility of a link at all (ie causation itself) is basically the efficacy of the principle
the possibility of each link get's his efficacy from the relationship between the aforementioned cause and effect, how is a first principle "outside of the chain" necessary?

>in order for something to be a principle it has to be ontologically separable
it's separable in virtue that it's a cuase without an effect, which is substantialty different from every other aspect of reality, that is a cause and an effect t the same time, thus a different susbtance, not because " for something to be a principle it has to be ontologically separable" it's separable because it doesn't act like something that has substance,
>and that the chain of causality does not even have substance itself when considered apart from the principle.
every chain is made of links, those links must share a substance in order to inetract(be linked) to each other, if somethign is a cause but not an effect, then is not part of the link of the chains(since is not part of the cause-effect substance), thus the chain and this principle are different and the principle can't explain the chain,so it can't function as a principle at all, it just an empty presuposition

>it is just that these terms become frail.
if your terms can't explain anything, then they're not useful terms and carry no functionality, thus they don't need to be taken as logically necessary
you end up developing a form of circular reasoning:
how do we know that a first principle is needed in the chain of causation?
beause a first principle is always needed to justify causation
how do we know that we need a first principle to justify causation?
because the chain of causation needs a first principle

[Anonymous No.20737915]

>>20737660
>He doesn't think Advaita is perfect? That's so silly and clueless.

[Anonymous No.20738013]

>>20737660
> consciousness has knowledge of itself
Prove it

[Anonymous No.20738021]

>>20737205
For Guenon, initiation is literally the way by which divine knowledge or divinity itself is apprehended, and the only way at that. It’s similar for religious folk like Christians except that they’re careful to say that it’s not the only way and also does not endorse just any rite, while Guenon does. Many in the Orthodox Church believe certain Hindu rites are literally demonic, but Guenon affirms them. He affirms all rites in his so-called “Traditional” religions, which conveniently are every religion except Christianity.

[Anonymous No.20738026]

>>20737172
The allure of Egypt lies mainly in the allure of hermeticism, which has captivated the minds of occultists for centuries now.

[Anonymous No.20738030]

>>20737126
There is no point. Guenon is a crypto-Buddhist. He is in the same vein of disdain for the world and even reality as Gnostics, Cathars, Rosicrucians, etc. Hence, the Advaita, which satiates a nihilistic impulse.

[Anonymous No.20738753]

>>20738013
>Prove it
We know that consciousness being self-evident is the logical position instead of the contrary answer being logical as this latter answer leads to an infinite regress that makes it an impossibility for one to having knowledge of anything

> The main argument in favor of the admission of the category of independent self-revealing consciousness is that, unless an independent self-revealing consciousness is admitted, there would be a vicious series (i.e. an unending regress) in the process preceding the rise of any cognition ; for, if the pure experience of self-revealing consciousness has to be further subjected to another process before it can be understood, then that also might require another process, and that another, and so there would be an unending series. Moreover, that the pure experience is self-revealing is proved by the very fact of the experience itself; for no one doubts his own experience or stands in need of any further corroboration or confirmation as to whether he experienced or not.

[Anonymous No.20738812]

>>20737660
>Also they are not talking about an idea which has to be mentally sustained at each moment but rather the elimination of the wrong idea of the belief in the reality of multiplicity

That's saying the same thing though.

Bolton is saying that those who take Advaita seriously will end up mentally ill, while those who don't simply haven't taken it it to heart but rather knowingly or unknowingly are hypocritical and inconsistent. Makes sense seeing as how Advaita was created as a defensive cope in response to the rise of Buddhism. It's cope and hypocritical self-denial all the way down, both in terms of its internal metaphysics and the sociological reasons for its emergence.

[Anonymous No.20738833]

>>20737285
>everything is le LARP
Redditcuck go back

[Anonymous No.20738843]

>>20736919
It's not his system, and he has little interest in logical proof, a profane notion.

[Anonymous No.20739132]

Might is Right, Redbeard

[Anonymous No.20739180]

>>20738753
I understand the argument but I’m asking you to prove how you know that. Starting anything with “We know” is begging the question.

[Anonymous No.20739862]

>>20738833
But Guenon agrees that it is a LARP, since it's not a conversion. Guenon thinks you just go from LARP to LARP if you understand no-self Buddhism as taught by Shankara. You don't need sincerity because that's human and the human is annihilated in no-self Buddhism as taught by Shankara.

[Anonymous No.20740651]

>>20738030
>Guenon is a crypto-Buddhist
the Guenonfag on this post actually proved that, all his arguments are madhyamaka arguments

[Anonymous No.20740658]

>>20739180

>Starting anything with “We know” is begging the question

this

[Anonymous No.20741168]

>>20735202
>Leibniz
The quotes of Leibniz himself that are presented in Orient et Occident show that you shouldn’t take the guy seriously

[Anonymous No.20742154]

>>20738812
>That's saying the same thing though.
Incorrect; because one requires sustained effort and the other doesn't but is effortless thus there is a difference

[Anonymous No.20742168]

>>20739180
>how you know that.
I don't care about proving it and I have no inclination to or reason why I should, the point is that the argument demonstrates what the most reasonable position is and demonstrates that that contrary position is illogical and philosophically unserious which is enough for me to reject it and to consider myself justified in doing so

[Anonymous No.20742173]

Do I have to be a Muslim to be initiated?

[Anonymous No.20742179]

>>20742173
I mean as a westerner in the modern age

[Anonymous No.20742220]

>>20736919
He doesn't

[Anonymous No.20742284]

My experience in exploring Catholicism convinced me that essentially none of its adherents (at least among the younger cohort) REALLY acted as if they believed it. There are different types of offenders here, you have the Trads with ecchi anime avatars (at least they are not gay), the actual practicing gays, the seminarians and priests who are mostly gay, the Communists who think that Christianity is the USSR with a ban on abortion, etc.

[Anonymous No.20742435]

>>20734469
Read what Olavo de Carvalho wrote about him.

[Anonymous No.20742457]

>>20738021
Christianity has no initiation

[Anonymous No.20743031]

>>20742220
>>20738843

then he can't refute Kant or any other logician

[Anonymous No.20743035]

>>20742168
>the argument demonstrates what the most reasonable position
no it doesn't because is a petitio principii falllacy, an argument that begs the question is the less reasonable argument possible, and certainly doesn't prove any point whatsoever

[Anonymous No.20743043]

>>20742457
Priesthood and monks, guenon wanted initiation but didn't want to be a priest or monk, he wanted a regular home life

[Anonymous No.20743098]

>>20738753
this take for granted that conciousness presents to us as an analitical a priori, that is, consciousness is somethign that is ever present in each experience, thus is prior to any experience, but consciousnees as a thing on itself, present to us as a synthetical a priori, that is, an a priori concep that is created or rpesented to us by abstracting different moments of particular consciousness, which this argument wants to do is mix the idea of a pure abstract consciousness that only exist in our minds as an idea, to the functional consciousness that's always consciouss of sometihng, even the mental idea of consciousness, from which we fool ourself thinking "we're aware of awareness" when in reality we're aware of our idea of awareness, consciouisness as a category is ever present, but that deosn't make it more present that anything else in this world, it doesn't make it more fundamental, that's the difference between tarscendental and trascendent, somethign being trascendental, that is, that exist in every aspect of our reality, doesn't prove that such a thing can exist oustide of our reality, as a trascendent thing, that's a non sequitour
so the ida of an independent self-revealing consciousness is not only not self evident but takes for granted an a-priori analitical aspect that is not proven

[Anonymous No.20743243]

>>20737617
>>20737617
>and both need to be coherent in space in order for space to be "the space"

this is actually a good refutation of the Guenonina system, cos it proves that space itself and thethings that are contained on it, are both interdependent, and a "prime substance" is not only possible but logically inadecuate

[Anonymous No.20743260]

>>20743243
English, motherfucker, do you speak it?

[Anonymous No.20743264]

>>20743035
Acknowledging that something is true is not begging the question. That's what a brute fact is, it is true without further question.

[Anonymous No.20743266]

>>20734469
Every other path is a cul-de-sac too, and this one has the benefit of being true. Is there a value in life? Yes. But the value of my life and those of my friends and family and community is greater than the value of those that I do not know and actively act against me.

[Anonymous No.20743273]

>>20743098
Try refuting his actual argument instead of going on tangential rants about things which aren't relevant. If consciousness is not directly self-revealing, then there would be an infinite regress and we would not be conscious. Your entire argument rests on this point. It's either true or false.

[Anonymous No.20743673]

>>20742154
>Incorrect; because one requires sustained effort and the other doesn't but is effortless thus there is a difference

No, they're the same. The other "effortless" one is simply advaitins being hypocritical and not actually taking their philosophy seriously all the time. Bolton is correct.

[Anonymous No.20743773]

>>20736681
Guenon is actually correct on this one.
"Common sense" really is the vague presentiment the systematization of which gives you the likes of Locke or Mill. Nothing great has ever come out of common sense. Christianity, modal logic, probability theory, impressionist painting or gothic architecture all rape "common sense".

[Anonymous No.20743837]

>>20743673
>No, they're the same.
What is the basis of this claim? You have not even given any reason why one would accept that as potentially true.
>No, theThe other "effortless" one is simply advaitins being hypocritical and not actually taking their philosophy seriously all the time. Bolton is correct.
Wrong, because it's the permanent correction of a wrong cognitive attitude and not a thought that one has to revisit continually, and we find confirmation of this in how our experience works. We find in our experience that that once a false idea is accepted or realized by ourselves to be false then our minds will automatically label that claim as false and not giving it any credence or attention in the future and that this occurs without any effort being required on our behalf; because when you know it's wrong you don't even have any reason to consider it right in the first place again that you would then have to revisit again and correct for a 2nd claim because the error is permanently sublated. Like if you always assumed that a certain cocktail had a bitter taste; and then you tried it and found out that the cocktail actually had a sweet flavor, then the incorrect judgment that it was a bitter cocktail is permanently sublated and the new correct conclusion (which replaced the wrong conclusion) that it's a sweet cocktail in truth becomes something that is just always naturally evident and available to you; you don't have to continually remember that knowledge or remind yourself but when you correct a wrong view in this way the correction stays with you effortlessly. Similarly when one sublates the false knowledge that multiplicity is real that sublation effortlessly stays with you. If you can't provide a concrete argument for why why this sublation wouldn't function similarly to the sublation of other errors in practical matters (which doesn't require us to revisit them but which just sticks with us naturally) then there isn't any reason to take what you say seriously

[Anonymous No.20744029]

>>20743837
>Wrong, because it's the permanent correction of a wrong cognitive attitude and not a thought that one has to revisit continually, and we find confirmation of this in how our experience works. We find in our experience that that once a false idea is accepted or realized by ourselves to be false then our minds will automatically label that claim as false and not giving it any credence or attention in the future and that this occurs without any effort being required on our behalf; because when you know it's wrong you don't even have any reason to consider it right in the first place again that you would then have to revisit again and correct for a 2nd claim because the error is permanently sublated. Like if you always assumed that a certain cocktail had a bitter taste; and then you tried it and found out that the cocktail actually had a sweet flavor, then the incorrect judgment that it was a bitter cocktail is permanently sublated and the new correct conclusion (which replaced the wrong conclusion) that it's a sweet cocktail in truth becomes something that is just always naturally evident and available to you; you don't have to continually remember that knowledge or remind yourself but when you correct a wrong view in this way the correction stays with you effortlessly. Similarly when one sublates the false knowledge that multiplicity is real that sublation effortlessly stays with you. If you can't provide a concrete argument for why why this sublation wouldn't function similarly to the sublation of other errors in practical matters (which doesn't require us to revisit them but which just sticks with us naturally) then there isn't any reason to take what you say seriously

That's just being hypocritical. You're in deep denial.

[Anonymous No.20744129]

>>20744029
>That's just being hypocritical.
Being hypocritical about what and how?
>You're in deep denial.
In denial about what and how?

Can you back up a single thing you are saying with actual arguments?

[Anonymous No.20744148]

>>20744129
You're spinning in circles because I don't buy your pilpul. Bolton is correct that those who aren't mentally ill on Advaita are those who don't take it seriously and are essentially hypocritical about it. Their day to day life is nothing like what Advaita should imply for them, yet they preach and insist to others that they should believe in Advaita seriously.

Believing in Advaita is self-delusion.

[Anonymous No.20744154]

>>20744148
Believing in anything is self-delusion, and Advaita is not a Belief system.

[Anonymous No.20744241]

>>20744148
>You're spinning in circles because I don't buy your pilpul.
How have I been spinning in circles? I have just been asking you to back up your non-arguments and silly leaps of 'logic'
>Bolton is correct that those who aren't mentally ill on Advaita are those who don't take it seriously and are essentially hypocritical about it.
No he isn't and practically everything he writes about the subject is laughably stupid and was already refuted in medieval Advaita writings
>Their day to day life is nothing like what Advaita should imply for them, yet they preach and insist to others that they should believe in Advaita seriously.
So? That doesn't make them into hypocrites at all since a person may have perfectly logical and consistent reasons for why they personally believe Advaita to be true despite not being initiated as Advaita monks themselves. Reasons such as they were not born as Brahmins and so it wouldn't be fully proper for them to try to fly to India and become a traditional Advaita monk which is traditionally done by Brahmins and sometimes some other upper castes. Or because said persons may already be married and have a spouse or children or elderly parents they support and so they don't want to abandon them.

Simply believing Advaita to be a true metaphysics does not make one into a hypocrite for continuing to live a normal life and having a family and job because Advaita actually says that most people or the masses should keep doing this and that only monks should stop doing it; in other words just because you personally believe its true doesn't mean there is any obligation for you to become a homeless Advaita monk but its perfectly fine to practice alternative paths of spirituality for householders while believing Advaita to be true metaphysically. For Advaita essentially if you didn't receive the correct cosmic dice roll of Brahminhood-caste AND high intelligence and a spiritual-inclination etc then it's more proper and befitting for you to just stay in your lane for now and practice householder non-monk paths like karma-yoga etc instead of trying to be a monk; if one is meant to be a monk in a future life then one will be one; trying to force right now what one did not have the karmic seeds/disposition for can end up leading to more confusion than good