Rene Guenon on Reviving Broken Spiritual Transmission Links

[dago !deClb9SBC. No.20882107]

>The traditional teaching is handed down under conditions that are strictly determined by its nature: to produce its full effect, it must always be adapted to the intellectual possibilities of each man to whom it is offered, and should be graduated according to the degree of understanding reached at any given moment, and this demands, on the part of a recipient who aspires to advance still further, an unremitting personal effort to assimilate effectively the teaching imparted to him. This is a natural consequence of the way in which the doctrine is treated as a connected whole, and it is this fact that makes necessary the oral and direct teaching which nothing else can replace; indeed, in its absence, the chain of regular and unbroken 'spiritual filiation' is bound to be broke, except in certain quite unusual cases, where continuity can be preserved by other means which it would however be too difficult to describe in a Western language for us to undertake to do so here.
-Introduction to the Study of the Hindu Doctrines, Chapter "The Traditional Teaching"

>continuity can be preserved by other means
what exactly is he talking about here? via text?

I used to think there had to be a strict transmission from guru to disciple for it to be valid from the Guenonian perspective but this small bit caught my eye the other day while re-reading Intro to Hindu Doctrines.

hypothetically speaking, why couldn't something like Norse Paganism be revived if it prophecized to enter a 'Dark Age'?

[dago !deClb9SBC. No.20882153]

It should also be noted that Futhark can be classified as a revealed language that perfectly aligns with Guenon's definition of it.

[dago !deClb9SBC. No.20882171]

of course, I do not mean reviving it via LARPing like Varg or anything
but if the texts were preserved and one would learn the 'secret of the runes', then I cannot see why it couldn't be revived under "certain quite unusual cases" via revelation.

[Strange Love No.20882207]

>>20882107

>to produce its full effect, it must always be adapted to the intellectual possibilities of each man to whom it is offered

Guess we'll need another children's book version of it.

[dago !deClb9SBC. No.20882251]

>>20882207
>Guess we'll need another children's book version of it.
you mean animu?

[Anonymous No.20882252]

>>20882107
>why couldn't something like Norse Paganism be revived if it prophecized to enter a 'Dark Age'?
Because even the Norse admitted their gods were going to die.

[dago !deClb9SBC. No.20882272]

>>20882252
not all gods
a handful are to survive Ragnarok
and at the end of it, an even higher God is to be revealed

[Strange Love No.20882329]

>>20882251

>you mean animu?

For all I care why not?! :D
The form of the noospheric carrier wave isn't that relevant here.

>revival, transmission, continuity

First might be the easiest step as it can occur "spontaneously". Leaves us ofc at the restricted individual level, which might even allow for a form of transmission but again in a very limited, irregular way at best. Now to establish an actual continuity and actual regular transmission (a reliable method) you can likely not create something ex nihilo so instead I'd say such an attempt needs to rely on some existing remnant of traditional system, however degraded that might actually be. Point being, you wanna revive tradition and not some clinically dead particular traditional system ... risk being you fail to do the former and instead achieve the latter, which would likely go exactly nowhere.

[Anonymous No.20882331]

>>20882272
Well, the gods who are popular in the Prose and Poetic Eddas die, namely Odin and Thor. Their children survive and go on to inhabit a new golden age according to the Voluspa. I don't recall seeing anything about a higher god being revealed, and I've been reading through those two Eddas again recently.

By the way, Fenja and Menja... These are troll women, but they take mythological role of Gog and Magog. This is something I did not notice reading it last time. The obvious difference being they are women.

[dago !deClb9SBC. No.20882365]

>>20882331
>I don't recall seeing anything about a higher god being revealed,
im a bit rusty on this topic desu, just happened to read that passage from the book which got me thinking about possible scenarios

wish Monke-man had elaborated on this topic
maybe he does in one of his initiation books?

[Anonymous No.20882377]

I can't take this tripe seriously

[Anonymous No.20882399]

>>20882107
>hypothetically speaking, why couldn't something like Norse Paganism be revived if it prophecized to enter a 'Dark Age'?
He didn't say everything could just be revived irrespective of context. There still has to be some cultural connection.

[dago !deClb9SBC. No.20882511]

>>20882399
>except in certain quite unusual cases
what are these certain quite unusual cases damnit!!!!!

[dago !deClb9SBC. No.20882535]

>>20882329
>First might be the easiest step as it can occur "spontaneously". Leaves us ofc at the restricted individual level
what is interesting here is that if we look at the traditional Norse texts, there are gods that are going to reawaken and /make it/, thus leaving open the possibility of divine revelation happening to a handful of individuals simultaneously.

the only comparable thing I can think of is something like Pentecost where the Holy Spirit descendeth uponeth a handful of people too

[Anonymous No.20882628]

>>20882377
he's possibly the most pretentious pseud on 4chan

[Strange Love No.20882639]

>>20882535

>what is interesting here is that if we look at the traditional Norse texts, there are gods that are going to reawaken and /make it/, thus leaving open the possibility of divine revelation happening to a handful of individuals simultaneously

I would not be surprised if this had once been founded on deeper consideration than just a "fancy tale" (which is what we mostly got left over). A handful, a few ... a certain critical mass which allows the "idea" to self stabilize and go beyond the current state of individual emergence? Pentecost could be a good example here indeed. Perhaps I got an ... nah, need to ponder that a bit more.

[Anonymous No.20882647]

>>20882365
You will probably have to rely on other authors for an elaboration, but even still the texts we still have from the Nordics are scant, and also adulterated by Christianity and Greco-Roman myths (which doesn't take away from their independent value, but there is just not enough retained to make any very deep comparisons to, say, the Vedas, or extract any significant degree of knowledge which is not merely allusive). Maybe Schuon has written about them, I'm not sure.

[Anonymous No.20882760]

>>20882107
>>continuity can be preserved by other means
preserved, not maintained, stop larping

[dago !deClb9SBC. No.20882794]

>>20882760
>stop larping
picrel
>>20882647
>also adulterated by Christianity and Greco-Roman myths
big time
snorri goes as far as saying the aesir were trojans initially iirc

[Anonymous No.20883113]

>>20882272
That's post christian retcon actually, all gods do die and no "adam and even but they're actually baldr and some girl"

[dago !deClb9SBC. No.20883126]

>>20883113
>That's post christian retcon actually
damn, it's over

still curious to what guenon meant by that passage tho

[Anonymous No.20883241]

>>20883126
>still curious to what guenon meant by that passage tho
Magic. Guenon was a LARPer. There are parts in Reign of Quantity where he implies gemstones have magical properties and that the reason science hasn't proved magic is that magic works in the East but not the West.

[Anonymous No.20883910]

>>20883126
He is just making a note of admitting the possibility of 'spiritual filiation' outside of a formal initiatic chain relying on oral and direct teaching.
The "language of initiation" consists of symbols and images, which serve as the "spiritual influences" which the rites serve as vehicles of, this process is all oriented towards communicating what is once acquired or realized incommunicable, a supra-individual conscious state, now what is necessary for what you are saying that is a transmission of related to the ancient Nordic traditions, is the preservation of these "spiritual influences" or symbols and images, in even a potential state, the carrier of these influences doesn't need to himself even be fully aware of it, he just has to be able to carry or serve as a vehicle for these conscious impressions which can engender the aforementioned supra-individual states of being which Guenon refers to. It can certainly be argued that there has been in some way a conscious transmission of the language of initiation tracing back to the Nordic religions, these survivals exist in symbol and mythology and can serve as a support for an "initiatic work," in the same way Guénon said the "christian tradition" was dead excepting hesychasm, and that the sacrements were in themselves not efficacious but that they could serve as supports to an initiatic work, after that had been commenced through some other source. Guénon's whole discrediting of what he coins "mysticism" is disproven by Meister
Eckhart which proves that it would be be incoherent and exaggerative to say the west has never known what he calls "supra-individual," etc.

[Anonymous No.20883960]

>>20882107
Dago. Remember, especially if you consider yourself more "kshatriya-like", the ancient saying "when the wise man points at the moon, the fool stares at the finger". Sometimes too much rational analysis of the works of your teachers can lead you astray. Focus on accessing, true whatever methods is more adapted to you due to your immanent context, the true "core" of tradition.
Evola and Guenon can be wrong, or they may use words not exacly useful for your journey.

[Anonymous No.20884759]

>>20883241
Perhaps one shouldn't take it all too serious and only focus on the things that are useful?

[dago !deClb9SBC. No.20885215]

>>20883960
> Focus on accessing, true whatever methods is more adapted to you due to your immanent context, the true "core" of tradition.
yes, sensei
>Evola and Guenon can be wrong
absolutely, I was cringing hard at Guenon whilst reading 'East & West' the other day on the topic of Japan.
>Evola and Guenon can be wrong
not schuon tho
he's always right

[dago !deClb9SBC. No.20885303]

>>20883910
very based post and I wholeheartedly agree

[Anonymous No.20885388]

>>20882107
You can be initiated if you read Plato very carefully, not in the way Westerns read him (somebody who believes in multiple worlds, who is obsessed with universals, who thinks mathematics is the end-all be-all to truth, etc., which is not satisfied by any close textual reading) but rather as the great synthesizer of all ancient Greek philosophical thought. It also helps if you remember that Plato was a profoundly spiritual man, writing in the backdrop of the Orphic mysteries of death and rebirth.

[Anonymous No.20885794]

>>20885388
What does it mean to be initiated? Can one be intellectually initiated but not fully initiated, e.g. feeling it in their bones and gut?

[Anonymous No.20885817]

>>20883241
Magic, clairvoyance, ghosts, aliens etc are all real

[dago No.20885824]

>>20885388
>if you read Plato very carefully
in greek?

[Anonymous No.20885847]

>>20885824
You don't need to read him in Greek, I don't think. But you definitely need to cross-reference thinkers, be familiar with Greek culture, and do your best to avoid projecting modernism onto the text. Wiktionary is incredibly helpful in understanding Greek terms and contemplating their grammatical and linguistic origins. It is also helpful to read commentary, to get the bits and pieces of the hyperuranion forms (the metaphor of Phaedrus) before synthesizing them together to get the full understanding of Being. But ultimately you have to see past mere language to see the underlying fabric of reality, which is what Plato (through Socrates) keeps trying to tell you.

[Anonymous No.20885888]

>>20882107
>pick Islam
>not even Shia, where Sufi actually has that cachet
https://youtu.be/oZwRofAECVc?t=1

It's about the people. If the vessel remains, the transmission can be renewed. Systematized commentary calcifying interpersonal and oral transmission is a sign of corruption. If it cannot be remembered, it should not be passed down.

[Anonymous No.20886115]

>>20885888
Checked.
Words means little. The context creates the issues, again and again. Eventually the same concept and words for it will emerge.

[dago !deClb9SBC. No.20886499]

>>20885847
alright, i'll get around to the greeks eventually
thanks

[Anonymous No.20886863]

interesting

[Anonymous No.20887059]

Why even care about the dead shells of a long dead tradition? Just pick the tradition with the strongest initiatic chain.

[Anonymous No.20887317]

>>20882107
He is most certainly not talking about texts. He would have said so if it was. He is probably talking about extreme circumstances involving revelations of some sort being imparted onto a mystical figure. Or some elaborate ritual designed to get knowledge from the demons of the air. Stuff that is out of reach for almost everyone today. Nothing is getting revived until the end of the Kali Yuga, which is coming soon.

[Pneumatike No.20887353]

>>20882107
>what exactly is he talking about here? via text?
Guenon is better than Evola from the metaphysical standpoint, but he's too much of a midwit to actually say what he thinks. he has the same illness as Nietzsche had.

but don't worry. I explain this in my thread on Pneumatika and my thread on Evola. Right here on the catalog.

[Anonymous No.20887390]

>>20885388
Careful you'll trigger the Straussians with talk like that.

[Anonymous No.20887417]

I ended up reading this, and it isn't as bad I expected. Mostly because the actual traditionalist aspects form little more than the backdrop, and while the author obviously isn't a fan he isn't writing a frothing polemic against it either. The book ends up covering the creation of The Alt-Right Corporation, comprising of Richard Spencer, Jorjani, and the guy from Red Ice Radio, and some paramilitary/private intel company, and how everyone is being connected by, and scared of, a mysterious Englishman with occult ties that is never outright referred to by name, but may or may not be David Myatt. In the end it all amounts to Jorjani trying to hijack the entire enterprise because he is desperate to get a meeting with Steve Bannon so he can try to convince him to advocate that Trump needs to push for regime change in Iran. Naturally it all falls apart.

At it's core it is mostly a book of investigative journalism into brief confluence of key figures and interested parties. Far from being an 'attack' on Traditionalism I would place the book in the company of similar tomes like CHAOS and Weird Scenes In The Canyon, books that tread the line between Deep State journalism and Conspiracy lit.

[Anonymous No.20887433]

>>20887059
>Stronger
Quantitative hylic

[Pneumatike No.20887441]

>>20885388
ABSOLUTELY BASED ADVICE

start with the greeks my men. dont waste your time with pseuds like Guenon. just start with the greeks. Plato. the Republic. i recommend c.d.c. reeve's 2004 translation

[Anonymous No.20887461]

>>20887441
There's no need to ignore Guenon. I personally enjoyed Reign of Quantity. I'm just saying that Plato is a fantastic philosopher.

[Pneumatike No.20887465]

>>20887461
guenon, evola, they're novelty. fine to read when you're done with everything but shouldn't waste time on them beforehand while you're still young

get into pneumatics, bitches! Dasein, that's all this is about, and pneumatics is an entire cosmogonic system.

[Pneumatike No.20887481]

The short introduction to the doctrine of pneumatics:
>>>/lit/thread/S20732229
Introduction to the introduction of the "introduction to the long introduction of the doctrine of pneumatics":
>1st link in post >>20808545 (7th post in the thread lined below)
The long introduction to the doctrine of pneumatics (entire thread replete with links):
>>>/lit/thread/S20808452
Introduction to the long introduction of the doctrine of pneumatics:
>>20876337

Short introduction is for the midwits, Introduction to the long introduction is for the upperwits.

[Anonymous No.20887487]

>>20887481
Stop shilling your shit namefag hylic,
>>20887465
It is evident that you have read neither.

[Pneumatike No.20887496]

>>20887487
Stop shilling uninitiated power-tripping "esoteric" losers. They're all just more intellectual Eckhart Tolle's.

[Anonymous No.20887499]

>>20887481
>>>/lit/thread/S20732229
>a children's manifestom
>Muh capitalism, *insert political buzzword here*, etc.
What does any of this have to with pneumaticism, in terms of the esoterism of Guénon? Put your tripcode back on so we can filter you.

[Anonymous No.20887506]

>>20887496
There is nothing "esoteric" in your juvenile posts, you are not passing as a pneumatic? Stick to neitzche and politics.

[dago !deClb9SBC. No.20887532]

>>20887441
Both Guenon (pbuh) and Schuon (pbuh) explicitly state to start with Advaita Vedanta

[Pneumatike No.20887538]

>>20887499
It's the short introduction to an esoteric philosophy and worldview.
>>20887506
It's a broad field of study. Pneumatological semiotics is what would specifically pass of as a scientifically-based study of perennial wisdom.
>>20887532
Wait till you hear about Hellenism.

[Anonymous No.20887545]

>>20887532
Pneumatike is not serious.
>>20887538
>esoteric philosophy and worldview.
No it's profane speculation
Stop larping
>Wait till you hear about Hellenism.
???
>Pneumatological semiotics is what would specifically pass of as a scientifically-based study of perennial wisdom
Obscurantist jargon, you're trying too hard, muh "scientifically-based"

[Anonymous No.20887559]

It'd like to add the norse creation myth where order arbitrarily comes from chaos seems very modern, existentialist.

[Pneumatike No.20887561]

>>20887545
>Obscurantist jargon
the chutzpah of this guenontard who says this. kek.

[Pneumatike No.20887565]

>>20887545
Also I am serious but there has been 1 or 2 impersonators who are very clearly not serious and just trolling. However I'm not. It's clear who's a parody and who isn't.

[Pneumatike No.20887567]

>>20887559
key word
>arbitrarily

[dago !deClb9SBC. No.20887572]

>>20887538
Never heard of it
Qrd?

[Pneumatike No.20887575]

>>20887572
Greek-Indian confluence, since Alexander the Great's conquest with more influence on Eastern philosophy than Western (which was mostly influenced by Eastern philosophy only starting from Orientalism in the 19th century, though there are traces of Eastern thought in the 1600s-1700s)

[Anonymous No.20887576]

>>20887565
You're a walking parody.

[Anonymous No.20887583]

>>20887559
>Cosmogonies about order originating in chaos, void, nothingness, "darkness upon the deep," primordial chaos, or in otherwords the potency to act, unmanifest to manifest is Modern and Existentialist!
Filtered by every traditional cosmogony ever, these ancient stories are only serving as a mirror reflecting your tainted view.

[Pneumatike No.20887592]

>>20887583
>as a mirror reflecting your tainted view.
It's because Germanics are naturally of the material--i.e. they are slaves of the Demiurge. Germanics are naturally evil. I am excluding "Anglo-Saxons" here (proper term: just Anglos). Anglos are evil in their own right differently from Germanics because Anglo metaphysics/Logos is different from Germanic metaphysics/Logos, although Germanics are ancestors of Anglos. Anglos are all evil but Americans aren't inherently evil. The UK is inherently evil but since 1944 it's been contained by America's superpower. Read the Introduction to the Long Introduction (the last thread linked, which is on the catalog), half of it is about answering the Anglo question (and how they, not the Jews, rule the world--the Jews are just Anglos' little helpers):
>>20887481

[Anonymous No.20887603]

>>20887532
Where does guenon say this? I thought Vedanta was too advanced for puny western minds, and it would be better to read Plato and Aristotle.

[Anonymous No.20887612]

>>20887583
You're prejudiced against anything remotely contemporary kek irregardless

[Pneumatike No.20887613]

>>20887603
>it would be better to read Plato
Yes, he's superior to Eastern retards
>and Aristotle
no

Western (Greek/Plato) philosophy:
>Reason guides me, Intuition completes me
Eastern philosophy:
>Intuition alone guides me
or
>Intuition guides me, Reason completes me

[dago !deClb9SBC. No.20887625]

>>20887603
Okay my post was slightly misleading
He states the metaphysical superiority of AV in intro to Hindu doctrines and implies that one should start there
It is Schuon who explicitly says that AV is the best starting point

[Anonymous No.20887633]

>>20887625
Schuon even started with AV himself

[Anonymous No.20887689]

>>20887625
I do not remember him implying for anyone to start with AV. I know he states that AV is the best, and I think this too. I think coomaraswami suggested to start with Plato and Aristotle, along with the gospels and a few other philosophers, before moving onto Vedanta. I am inclined to believe this. Unless you are gifted like Guenon. It is up to each person at the end of the day.
>>20887613
Shut the fuck up.

[dago !deClb9SBC. No.20887723]

>>20887633
>Schuon even started with AV himself
in elementary school…
>>20887689
yes you’re right
I’m putting words in his mouth

[Pneumatike No.20887735]

>>20887689
>Shut the fuck up.
Guenon says the same thing as me when it comes to this lol. He just decides to praise Eastern philosophy but "intuition" is simply midwit cope (see: Nietzsche, the King of Midwits) for people who can't stomach Reason and Logic.

[Anonymous No.20887758]

>>20885388
>>20885847
>>20885824
>>20886499
I will share one critical tip. The word that Plato uses for "participation", as in, "participating in the form of Beauty", is critically misunderstood. The Greek word is methexis (μέθεξις), meaning:
>μέθεξις, meaning "group-sharing"
which is derived from:
>μετέχω
which can be broken down into:
>μέθ (met-, meta-) + ἔχω (exo)
>meta-: "between, among, in common with, a movement into, a succession of, etc." https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%BC%CE%B5%CF%84%CE%B1-#Ancient_Greek
>exo: to have, possess, hold, be able to do, an impersonal "is", to depend on, cling to, etc. (shares same root as Aristotle's εξις (hexis) https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E1%BC%94%CF%87%CF%89#Ancient_Greek
Already, the "meta-" and "group" connotations of methexis highlight a transient "becoming", a succession of ideas, a community of ideas, that is also somehow supposed to be knowledge, something that cannot change in order to be knowable.

[Pneumatike No.20887774]

>>20887758
The best Greek word that expresses the sensation of true enlightenment (in the rationally-mystical, so typically Greek sense, none of that Eastern obscurantism) is metanoia.

[Anonymous No.20887779]

>>20887774
>metanoia
Can easily just be pistis, something that is erratic because it's always changing due to the unintelligible contradictions perceived in the realm of becoming.

[Pneumatike No.20887885]

>>20887779
i don't like hera-clitus shit

[Anonymous No.20887905]

>>20887885
Then you must hate Plato because he's a reformed Heraclitean philosopher by his own admission.

[Pneumatike No.20887934]

>>20887905
If you actually read Plato you'd know what kind of reformed "Heraclitean" philosopher he is.

[Anonymous No.20887940]

>>20887934
Yes, I did. And his MO is uniting Being with Becoming.

[Pneumatike No.20887939]

Plato is as much of a reformed Heraclitean as Marx is a reformed Hegelian.

I recommend checking out Pneumatics, the whole thread is here:
>>20887841

[Pneumatike No.20887958]

>>20887940
>And his MO is uniting Being with Becoming.
Exactly. That's quite far out from where Heraclitus is. I'm merely refining Plato, something no one has managed to get ever done in history except (in parts) Plotinus, Spinoza, Hegel and Marx.

[Pneumatike No.20887963]

>>20887958
I forgot to mention Kant there.

[Anonymous No.20888001]

>>20887958
Where do you think Plato gets his emphasis on logos from?

[Pneumatike No.20888007]

>>20888001
Logos isn't unique to Plato or Heraclitus.

[Anonymous No.20888350]

>>20887689
>I know he states that AV is the best, and I think this too
Are you the anon who was posting about reading Siddhantabindu earlier? I'm working on a chart for translated post-Shankara Advaita works right now but in the meantime you may enjoy checking out this translation of Vidyarana's Vivaranaprameya-Sangraha which does not seem to be purchasable anywhere or in print anymore but I can only find it online

https://adishankaracharya.net/Vivaranaprameya-sangraha-engllish.pdf

[Anonymous No.20888355]

>>20888007
Where did Heraclitus get it from?

[Pneumatike No.20888444]

>>20888355
You think that every Greek philosopher formulated Logos exactly the way Heraclitus formulated it? In fact the difference in formulation is the most fundamental difference between Plato and Heraclitus. Fundamental in the very sense of this word.

[Anonymous No.20888451]

>>20888444
I'm just asking you where Heraclitus got the logos from. No need to get uppity.

[Pneumatike No.20888455]

>>20888451
And I'm just responding to your Socratic tricks with my Socratic tricks. Two can play this game.

[Anonymous No.20888457]

>>20888455
There's no such thing as a Socratic trick. Either you know something or you don't. Only charlatans get tricked.

[Pneumatike No.20888465]

>>20888457
elenchus
>Only charlatans get tricked.
Socrates (or "Socrates") tricked almost everyone he conversed with. It's a fool's errand. The dialectic method is the only proper way. No bad faith arguing.

[Anonymous No.20888472]

>>20888465
>Socrates (or "Socrates") tricked almost everyone he conversed with.
Okay. And what did he trick them into doing?

[Pneumatike No.20888481]

>>20888472
There are really only 3 forms of discussion (from best to worst): dialectic, eristic and rhetoric. Socrates was a philosopher because he wasn't arguing just in bad faith. But his method was an eristic method. That's unproductive among serious people.

[Anonymous No.20888488]

>>20888481
You dodged the question. But what did Socrates trick his interlocutors into saying? I won't budge until you answer.

[Pneumatike No.20888498]

>>20888488
You keep doing this but it won't work, I'm telling you. Either give up or give in (to the dialektike).

[Anonymous No.20888505]

>>20888498
What am I doing? All I'm asking you is to tell me what Socrates did to his interlocutors. This is entry philosophy 101. I'm starting to suspect that you haven't read Plato if you can't answer a simple question without blustering. This is embarrassing for you.

[Pneumatike No.20888508]

>>20888505
The fact that I referred to the Socratic method as elenchus should already tell you I know what I'm saying. Now cut the bullshit and either put up or shut up (and you're not putting up).

[Anonymous No.20888526]

>>20888508
That's weird. Because Socrates thought he was doing dialectic. So you're libeling him.

What did Socrates do to the interlocutors, in your own words?

[Anonymous No.20888674]

>>20888444
>>20888455
>>20888465
>>20888481
>>20888498
>>20888508
You're too embarrassed to say that Socrates made his interlocutors admit that they didn't know what they were talking about. Which is exactly what you're afraid to say, because you accused the other anon of saying that he was playing Socrates's trick on you.

You're a sophist. Go home. Read a book. Be useful for once in your life.

[Pneumatike No.20888679]

>>20888526
Socrates was doing elenchus, Plato was doing dialektike, Socrates was a real human who existed and got executed for a reason and not merely a mouthpiece for someone who didn't get executed (Plato).
So I'd better watch my step if I were you...
>>20888674
My entire philosophy is about fighting of modern sophistry i.e. the "philosophy" (anti-philosophy) produced by the "culture" (anti-culture) of the Capital. Stay in your lane.

[Anonymous No.20888698]

>>20888679
>So I'd better watch my step if I were you...
What are you implying?
>My entire philosophy is about fighting of modern sophistry i.e. the "philosophy" (anti-philosophy) produced by the "culture" (anti-culture) of the Capital. Stay in your lane.
You're afraid of Socrates's trick of making people admit that they don't know in public spaces. That makes you the sophist. If you knew, you'd just prove that you knew something. You wouldn't be tricked into saying otherwise.

[Pneumatike No.20888709]

>>20888698
>What are you implying?
Pulling Socratic tricks on people is a quick way to get them to dislike you. People notice these patterns very well though they may not always be able to name them off-hand and might just call you arrogant, a know-it-all or pretentious, coward etc.

[Anonymous No.20888730]

>>20888709
>Pulling Socratic tricks on people is a quick way to get them to dislike you.
What else would you recommend to get a person to admit that they don't know something?

[Pneumatike No.20888818]

>>20888730
>get a person to admit that they don't know something?
it's just called bad faith arguing

[Anonymous No.20888835]

>>20888818
What if the other person doesn't actually know anything, though, despite parading their views everywhere? I don't even see how it's bad faith. It's an easy gambit to avoid. Just show that you know something. It immediately BTFO's the other person doing the Socratic gambit.

[Pneumatike No.20888846]

>>20888835
>What if the other person doesn't actually know anything, though,
Socrates would actually eagerly listen to long-winded definitions of things other people would tell him. You're not doing that, you're not Socrates, I never said you're Socrates, I merely said you're using elenchus to score points on a mongolian basket weaving forum. Get lost, loser.

[Anonymous No.20888871]

>>20888846
>Socrates would actually eagerly listen to long-winded definitions of things other people would tell him.
But we've listened to you ramble on and on about people you've admitted to never have reading. And we know that what you're saying is wrong because we've read the books. We've pointed it out to you, yet you refuse to take the advice. If anything, you've insulted us and doubled down on your autism. What we've been doing isn't working. How else are we supposed to reach you?

Are we supposed to just roll over and accept your ignorant takes on everything? Are we supposed to lay down the red carpet so you can admit that you're wrong about almost everything? It's an exhausting thing to go through, especially since I'm almost positive that this is done out of your own vice, e.g. hubris, laziness, envy, etc., not out of any genuine misunderstanding.

You think that standards of rationality ought to apply to everybody except you. That is immensely frustrating. Try seeing it from our side for once.

[Pneumatike No.20888885]

>>20888871
>Are we supposed to just roll over and accept your ignorant takes on everything?
You're supposed to put up or shut up. Provide substance or perish. I provide substance. What do you provide?

[Anonymous No.20888903]

>>20888885
We've been putting up. But you don't even put up when we ask you to. Instead you dodge simple questions and say things like "I'm not falling for that trick!" You treat every conversation like you're a cornered animal, not somebody who has breezy command of the material. This is not a fair exchange.

Again, how much do we need to bend over backwards for you to get the hint that you know nothing of what you're talking about?

[Pneumatike No.20888925]

>>20888903
>We've been putting up.
Umm, no, no one reads my actual writing, everyone responds just to my hot takes.

[Anonymous No.20888955]

>>20888925
I spent a lot of time in the past reading what you had to say, especially in the beginning. Despite strongly suspecting that it was dilettante work, I pointed out the deficiencies in it. They were never fixed. They still haven't been fixed. And you demand a lot from us to get yourself to change, even though the thing you need most has to come from yourself, e.g. reading books, contrasting thinkers, and maturing a little bit more.

Again, I don't know what else you want from us. You want to take a mile, but you're unwilling to give an inch. I can't even give you what you really need. Only you can.

[Pneumatike No.20888978]

>>20888955
Well, the extremely dense work has been shortened to just 9 /lit/ posts:
>>20876594
So I'd really appreciate input

[Anonymous No.20889006]

>>20888978
I read the first page, saw it was full of tedious truisms, and decided it wasn't worth my time to continue. I've already given you plenty of critique. The red carpet treatment is done. Offer me something in return.

[Anonymous No.20889063]

>>20888978
Okay, I was struck by a fit of pity and decided to continue reading. I was surprised to see that we generally agree on where things are going and how they happened, unimportant quibbling on details aside. I have to say, you have good taste.

But it seems like there's a brunt of my critique that you never seriously addressed. I have some medium-sized points I'd like to offer too, at least to improve your work and expand your philosophical toolkit. But there's a deep point that you're overlooking, and you won't make progress until you can overcome it.

However, I'm not going to tell you what I think until you offer me something that I might like. Because I find it disrespectful to give, give, and give to somebody who refuses to accept my advice and even insults me for the pleasure. I'm a generous person, but there's a limit that I have to draw lest I tacitly admit that only selfishness wins in the end.

I'll sit here until you give me a good counteroffer. I'll be fair about it too. Think carefully about what I might want from you. If you manage to woo me, I'll give you the secret to philosophy, the ultimate Gordion knot that defines the Kali Yuga.

[Anonymous No.20889451]

>>20888978
>>20889006
>>20889063
Offer still stands as long as the thread is open. Bump.