/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.21533054]

>yfw all "philosophy" since after the scholastics and the platonist revival in the renaissance isn't philosophy at all
>'German idealism', 'French existentialism', 'post-modernism', are all timesink piles of trash give you nothing
>post-modernism is literally just sophistry and the revival of protagoras, gorgias, et al
>people even call Marx a 'philosopher'

When did you learn to Start With The Greeks, maybe reading some Christian/Muslim stuff, but then just go straight to the Vedantic corpus in order to acquire actual knowledge and pursue the Good?

[Anonymous No.21533371]

>>21533054
I skipped the christians, took a deep dive into the islamic stuff and went str8 into vedanta, best decision ive ever made

[Anonymous No.21533402]

>>21533054
you need to understand the empirical philosophies and manifold philosophies in order to truly understand ancient PIE religion monism. If you haven't read Leibniz and Whitehead for their substance pluralism or William James and Locke for their empiricism then you will never be able to understand rationalistic substance monism. If you can't synthesize pure reason with empirical science then you're useless.

[Anonymous No.21533417]

>>21533054
I don't read Vedanta - the Gita was nice though. I feel like the Platonic tradition is where it's at for me.
>>21533402
That sounds totally wrong.

[Anonymous No.21533438]

>>21533417
because empirical science is still in a primitive state you don't realize that the physical and metaphysical worlds are the same and metaphysics and science are too avenues towards the same thing. The flaw of platonic metaphysics is that the physical world is not merely a projection of intellect, it IS intellect. The purpose of metaphysics is not to escape the physical world, it is to recognize that your localized and limited perspective on the physical world is what makes the physical world appear like something different from the true world of the One. The physical world and the one are identical, and this is why philosophy has been divided between empiricism, which focuses on our perception of manifolds, and rationalism, which focuses on the inescapable deduction that all is one. Both are correct, when taken to their extreme, because empiricism will show you that pure experience by itself actually has no manifold at all and pure reason will show you that the One is identical to the absolute many. So if you only focus on Platonism and neglect to understand why the sensible world exists then you will forever remain immature. If you continue to dismiss science because it conflicts with your pie in the sky rationalistic fantasies then you will never realize that science needs to be advanced further out of its current primitive state so that we can bring together the two strains of philosophy and achieve absolute knowledge of reality. The local perspective of science and the global perspective of the One are both equally real.

[Anonymous No.21533443]

>>21533371
Enjoy hell

[Anonymous No.21533460]

>>21533443
Hell isnt real

[Anonymous No.21533466]

>>21533438
also even if you're a complete retard you can already see how physics is beginning to show us that the activities of the sensible world can be directly deduced as activities of the One itself, not merely a projection of it. so continuing to reject modern science as if it is some polar opposite of rationalism is retarded. This platonic mysticism is very popular on /lit/ because you are all still immature in your thinking. picrelated, although even Hegel was retarded for criticizing mathematics and science as if it was somehow inferior to rationalism when in fact both are the same. in this respect you guys and hegel are still learners.

[Anonymous No.21533479]

in fact, by neglecting to understand the workings of the physical world, you are contradicting your own thesis that only the One exists. If only the One exists, even a child can see that these manifolds we perceive must also be the One and therefore worth investigating. Instead of trying to understand the One by escaping our physical brains, we should be using our brains and bodies to understand it. That is the only way because we can't escape them. Science is the method where we achieve the One through physicality.

[Anonymous No.21533493]

science is also the unity of human ethics with the inhuman pursuit of the One. Science allows you to raise up humanity while pursuing the One rather than to raise up only yourself through solitary meditation. So you can either sit around reading vedanta texts and adding nothing new to our knowledge and human civilization or you can simultaneously fulfill both your human social instincts for compassion and betterment of your fellow man and your instinct for pursuing the One by pursuing science. They aren't mutually exclusive anyway - you can practice Yoga and alchemy and do science in the same lifetime.

[Anonymous No.21533576]

>>21533466
>also even if you're a complete retard you can already see how physics is beginning to show us that the activities of the sensible world can be directly deduced as activities of the One itself, not merely a projection of it. so continuing to reject modern science as if it is some polar opposite of rationalism is retarded
I fucking hate this meme, go study physics stop getting filtered by the observer effect which filtered half the scientific community already
quantum quackery are our theoretical methods of approximation and not a literal represtantation of objective state of reality(or lack of such thing at all)
t. phys major

[Anonymous No.21533581]

>>21533576
im not talking about quantum physics, also you are dunking on le interpretation of quantum physics while giving your own "objective reality" interpretation that is just as unjustified and memey as every other interpretation. the mathematical contents of qm doesn't provide any interpretation, so if you want to criticize people who talk about philosophy of qm don't immediately offer your own naive realist interpretation.

[Anonymous No.21533592]

>>21533054
it's also not literature.
>>>/his/
>>>/sci/
>>>/x/

[Anonymous No.21533598]

>>21533581
people who try to reconcile hegel with science(tm) almost always do so because of the supposed link between subjectivity and qm.
>while giving your own "objective reality" interpretation
far from it, of course it's not possible for something of subjective nature like a human(or more generally, consciousness) to do so in the first place. That doesn't automatically mean we also generate reality or transform our subjective into the outer world's "objective", nor does it say anything more of nature than of our limited understanding of it.

[Anonymous No.21533600]

>>21533592
six authors and two literary movements have been mentioned in this thread

[Anonymous No.21533608]

>>21533598
>nor does it say anything more of nature than of our limited understanding of it.
this is naive realism, you're making out there philosophical claims without realizing it because you're entrenched in your thought patterns and dogma. you think of science in a way that is particular to you and in no way implied by the scientific results themselves. there is no scientific result that points to such a thing as nature. if you look at what uncertainty principle actually says, there is nothing there that even remotely indicates it is caused by our "limited understanding of nature." Also I'm not trying to reconcile Hegel with Science, I only use Hegel for his quote and as an example of an anti-science rationalist and the general mindset of posters here.

[Anonymous No.21533613]

>>21533608
>if you look at what uncertainty principle actually says, there is nothing there that even remotely indicates it is caused by our "limited understanding of nature."
your perception of time itself limits your brain to perceiving things causally(or to be more general, temporally). of course science would reflect that, but I'll humour you a bit more, what does the uncertainty principle actually say? and don't quote me the dx*dp>h/2, tell me what it ACTUALLY says

[Anonymous No.21533617]

>>21533613
Mathematics doesn't appear to say anything to us until we add an interpretation. That's the nature of abstraction. If you imagine one point in your head, you have not imagined the number one, you have imagined an example of it, and you can never imagine the actual number one itself. That is why you inevitably become a hypocrite when criticizing interpretations of QM, because you will have to have your own interpretation that is no more bizarre or unfounded than the most bizarre interpretation.

[Anonymous No.21533632]

>>21533617
I'm not going to get into platonism, but the other part you're arguing is like saying statistics gives you an accurate and full picture of reality, instead of what we agree upon as acceptable similarity to an object/system for whatever practical purpose we use it.

[Anonymous No.21533644]

>>21533632
I wouldn't be the first to argue that our usage of chance in modeling physical systems represents the actual presence of chance in the universe rather than our "lack of knowledge" about the system. CS Peirce did so regarding thermodynamics and statistical mechanics before the uncertainty principle was even a thing. The idea that we find that statistics is useful in physical models because reality itself is statistical is if anything more obvious and apparent than the idea that we have to use statistics because there is a nebulous noumenal realm that we are making guesses at. The idea that statistics represents our lack of knowledge actually adds more assumptions and interpretation than the idea that reality is actually statistical, because in addition to the empirical observations you have to add on another idea of the "objective world." It's not like that's an incorrect interpretation, but it's by no means the most sensical interpretation, it just appears that way to you because it's the post-Kantian mindset you're steeped in.

[Anonymous No.21533649]

>>21533438
>>21533466
>claims you can't understand ancient views without studying modernist poopoopeepee
>predictably butchers and brutally misrepresents ancient views
Nice to know that rocks are pure intelligence itself bro, have a good one in wacko land.
I guess I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you actually know your shit and just suck at expressing it, so I'll make this point clear: there is a massive difference between pantheism (everything is god) and panentheism (god is in everything). Every sage of every era will agree with you if you affirm the former - only the confused and deluded will agree with the latter. You can say that god is present within a rock, or that the rock is a symbol of god - as the Muslims do for example - but if you say that the rock literally is god (the One) you've veered off into retard territory.
BTW I like how you post that Hegel quote about the "scholar finding merit in everything" yet you arrogate yourself the right to dismiss not only me but also Hegel as "immature". It's pleasantly ironic.

[Anonymous No.21533660]

>>21533644
I prefer to say wittgensteinian
The fact that we do not have words for it in our strictly logically structured languages does not mean it doesn't exist. What you mean when you say reality is statistical means there are aspects of reality impossible to describe using only reality, which is the phenomenon of randomness. So either we don't fully understand reality and attribute randomness to it to try and make statistical models, or there is something beyond, something possibly objective, which we can never truly experience and formulate, at least while shackled here.
Thanks for making me type out this stuff, made me formulate a couple of things I didn't have a chance to yet. Also go actually learn physics, cease trying to take the authority's stance on things you don't understand

[Anonymous No.21533666]

>>21533649
First of all, it's by no means given that every ancient sage was a panentheist. Panentheism is a significant jump in complexity from the basic mystic realization. I would be surprised if you can show me that Daoists, Buddhists, or even the authors of the original Upanishads are pantheists. Secondly, Panentheism isn't tenable for the modern world, it was only tenable for the ancients. For example, Platonic panentheism necessarily implies that the physical universe in the form that we know it is eternal. Plotinus's entire model is ultimately based on his heliocentric cosmology. We simply know that that is not true. We know that the earth will not last forever like it should if Plato's demiurgic theories from the Timaeus were correct. I don't believe in apophatic transcendence but I also don't believe you have to believe in it in order to understand and use ancient practices such as yoga.

[Anonymous No.21533674]

>>21533666
> original Upanishads are pantheists
panentheists*
>>21533660
it's not randomness, it's chance. Randomness implies acauslity. Chance has causality. Statistics isn't using anything that is "beyond reality."
>o either we don't fully understand reality and attribute randomness to it to try and make statistical models, or there is something beyond, something possibly objective, which we can never truly experience and formulate, at least while shackled here.
you used an "either/or" statement but both positions you described are identical and imply each other. You just can't manage to think outside your framework.

[Anonymous No.21533696]

>>21533674
>you used an "either/or" statement but both positions you described are identical and imply each other. You just can't manage to think outside your framework.
oh come on now, you'll try to argue your way out by claiming difference between chance and randomness. This is getting juvenile
>you used an "either/or" statement but both positions you described are identical and imply each other.
you literally don't comprehend the difference then project the inability to see onto me. funny thing to do, especially after claiming randomness and chance are different in nature

[Anonymous No.21533700]

>>21533674
Is chance causal? Is the uncertainty principal also causal then?

[Anonymous No.21533707]

>>21533666
>heliocentric
geocentric* lol
>>21533696
the words randomness and chance imply different things, that's my problem. you assume that when I say chance might be inherent to the universe that I am saying acauslity is inherent to the universe, which I'm not.
>you literally don't comprehend the difference then project the inability to see onto me
Either: We don't fully understand reality and attribute randomness to it to try and make statistical models
or: or there is something beyond, something possibly objective, which we can never truly experience and formulate
how do you not say that these are literally the same thing? There being something beyond is literally the reason we would have to attribute randomness and make statistical models. I am not arguing that the statistical models are models of an objective reality, but that reality itself is statistical, that the models might actually be reality, that there is no "external world."
>>21533700
if uncertainty principle didn't obey causality then it wouldn't be formulable at all, because human brains can't comprehend acausality. if you have a true random coin and flip it, and you get one side, then there wasn't "no reason" you got that side, that would be absurd. the reason is that you had a 50% chance to get it.

[Anonymous No.21533724]

>>21533707
>the reason is that you had a 50% chance to get it.
Place that coinflip in front of a high definition camera with a couple of other instruments and you'll see there was no chance involved in any of the coinflips the moment you're able to measure and process enough info about whatever is occuring. Going by this, statistics represent a model for what we don't understand, they don't represent the way reality operates.
>that would be absurd
To clarify other stuff:
either: This reality is a set of things and nothing aside from that set exists.
or: This reality is a subset of something greater and something aside from that exists.
both outcomes could turn out to be objective or subjective in the end, and whatever they are, our representations and perceptions will remain subjective

[Anonymous No.21533739]

>>21533724
>Place that coinflip in front of a high definition camera with a couple of other instruments and you'll see there was no chance involved in any of the coinflips the moment you're able to measure and process enough info about whatever is occuring. Going by this, statistics represent a model for what we don't understand, they don't represent the way reality operates.
I was arguing IF we had a truly random coin. obviously coins aren't random because you can actually empirically observe that they aren't. But you cannot empirically observe that the uncertainty principle isn't truly random, so assuming that it follows the same principle as the coin in that it wouldn't appear random if we had more information is just a hasty generalization. You are trying to make reality conform to your ideas of what it should and shouldn't do - you have a philosophical preconception that reality should be predetermined by laws and have no chance. But the empirical results say the opposite.
>both outcomes could turn out to be objective or subjective in the end, and whatever they are, our representations and perceptions will remain subjective
yes, all I'm arguing is that your interpretation isn't better than anyone else's, not that it couldn't go either way. It's not that you hate how people get "filtered" by uncertainty, it's that you don't like that they draw a different conclusion than yours because you think that yours is obvious and theirs is just naive philosophical fantasizing.

[Anonymous No.21533774]

>>21533739
>You are trying to make reality conform to your ideas of what it should and shouldn't do - you have a philosophical preconception that reality should be predetermined by laws and have no chance. But the empirical results say the opposite.
You are literally doing that. Your entire argument is applicable to a cointoss until about a 100 years ago, if that doesn't show you it's faults I don't think anything will.
>But you cannot empirically observe that the uncertainty principle isn't truly random, so assuming that it follows the same principle as the coin in that it wouldn't appear random if we had more information is just a hasty generalization
YET. YET.
We couldn't do that with a cointoss either. and with literally all the other statistical phenomena.
And I already said it COULD be otherwise, but it'd have to be RANDOM. Chance as you described it doesn't even exists. In your mind it's lack of information, but true chance can't be antything other than randomness.

[Anonymous No.21533789]

>>21533774
> In your mind it's lack of information
no it's not, i've been saying that it's in reality itself
>You are literally doing that. Your entire argument is applicable to a cointoss until about a 100 years ago, if that doesn't show you it's faults I don't think anything will.
anon, 100 years ago our model was classical mechanics which is indeed deterministic. We say the coin toss is determined because we accept that large bodies like that are governed by classical mechanics. you can't say the same thing about particles.

[Anonymous No.21533809]

>>21533666
Bro you're utterly confused. You haven't got the slightest clue about what you're talking about. The Platonists, and even less advanced Greek traditions, never ever ever said that the earth is eternal - they maintained the exact opposite of that, that material reality is in a constant flux and enjoys no stability whatever. That's the sublunary sphere - the sphere of that which is in the process of constant change, growth, decline and transformation. If you've actually read the fucking Timaeus you'll know that the only things that are exempt from this are immaterial, these are the gods and daimons who nevertheless are still forced to be in motion, albeit circular motion, which is capable of attaining quasi-eternal status, because all things in manifestation are forced to be in motion.
You don't know what pantheism is, what panentheism is, or what the ancients believed. You just don't. What is more, you make pronouncements on things that you do not understand. We could have a super long conversation on what the other great ancient traditions believed, but what'd be the point? You are not informed on the matter, and would have to take me up on faith, which you won't do. Go read the Gita and see if that isn't panenetheism - it is. Same with Daoism - all things stem from the Dao, but the Dao itself is no thing in particular. Panentheism. As to Buddhism, it is a radical apophatic methodology for arriving in union with the transcendent - this is nirvana. Look around and you'll see some Buddhist sages say "Nirvana is Samsara". But this is not the case for everyone - this is why enlightenment is necessary and useful in the first place. The transcendent and the immanent are united in a composite manner, but they are NOT one and the same - this is, once again, the panentheistic principle. For more on this perspective you can read up on Coomaraswamy.

[Anonymous No.21533843]

>>21533789
>you can't say the same thing about particles.
I can say "i don't know" about them, because of the lack of information I can infer
naming this lack of mine and ,making a principle out of it, now that's intellectually dishonest as fuck
it's as if at the point when we hit barriers we invented terms to make sure we don't break them
>>21533809
his metaphysics is like his physics. He watched enough yt videos explaining stuff, compiling stuff and so on, There is no insight and no knowledge, just regurgitation of others' views under which there is no comprehension

[Anonymous No.21533857]

>>21533843
>his metaphysics is like his physics
In his first post he directly says that metaphysics is the same thing as physics, which begs the question why do we even have separate words for them, with metaphysics meaning "that which is beyond the physical".

[Anonymous No.21533866]

>>21533857
kek, forgot that
at least going back and forth helped me refine or reformulate an argument or two so it wasn't a complete waste of time

[Anonymous No.21533868]

>>21533809
>never ever ever said that the earth is eternal
lol absolute retard, Plato says exactly this in Laws. stopped reading when you said this. no point in engaging with you if all you can say is "y-you don't know what you're talking about!!" as you literally make a fundamental error showing you have not read what you say I haven't.
>>21533843
>his metaphysics is like his physics. He watched enough yt videos explaining stuff, compiling stuff and so on, There is no insight and no knowledge, just regurgitation of others' views under which there is no comprehension
lol
>naming this lack of mine and ,making a principle out of it, now that's intellectually dishonest as fuck
no more than assuming there's an outside world which you can never observe and never know anything about. Don't call me intellectually dishonest when you want to interpret the empirical results to mean something that they don't say. Heisenberg says there's chance - you say that that is just an illusion. It's a tenable belief but not one that is very justifiable.
>>21533857
We have separate words because there are two ways to think about reality, empirically and rationally. one looks at the reality within and the other without.

[Anonymous No.21533879]

>>21533868
>lol
lol indeed
>no more than assuming there's an outside world which you can never observe and never know anything about.
I knew that part would go over your head quite a bit, thanks for confirming and for convincing me at last that you are unironically too low iq to talk to further

[Anonymous No.21533882]

>>21533879
I understand the implications of your kantianism better than you. I'm sorry that I challenged your beliefs.

[Anonymous No.21533891]

>>21533054
Seethe and cope religious cuck

[Anonymous No.21533900]

>>21533438
They are not the same
http://heim-theory.com/?page_id=173

[Anonymous No.21533950]

>>21533460
According to whom?

[Anonymous No.21534111]

>>21533868
>lol absolute retard, Plato says exactly this in Laws. stopped reading when you said this. no point in engaging with you if all you can say is "y-you don't know what you're talking about!!" as you literally make a fundamental error showing you have not read what you say I haven't.
Your formal surrender of the argument is officially accepted anon. It's clear as day that you've been hopelessly btfo. It would also be nice to see where exactly Plato says that the earth is eternal (read also: immutable, that which is not subject to change). I happen to have actually read all of Laws - unlike you, presumably, so I'd be interested to see what wisdom you can cook up.

[Anonymous No.21534234]

>>21533649
Based
This anon gets it
The true knower knows how to break down others' retardations and miscommunications with a joke
I hope you enjoy this (You)

[Anonymous No.21534309]

>>21534234
(You) enjoyed.

[Anonymous No.21534428]

>>21533054
there can be only one

[Anonymous No.21534492]

I followed the Gnostic tradition and Vajrayana after Plato. It's all you need, anything else is Archonic delusion.

[Anonymous No.21534797]

>>21533950
Me

[Anonymous No.21536103]

>>21533443
slave

[Anonymous No.21536593]

>>21533891
the chad kant kek

[Anonymous No.21536842]

>>21533054
>I'm convinced by a position which emerged in x period
>Therefore, everything after x period (which rejects or modifies the position I agree with) is not real philosophy
>Also grouping large sets of ideas under convenient banners and accepting/dismissing those banners as philosophy or not
Just give it like five years and see if you still think this way.

[Anonymous No.21536846]

>>21536842
he gave valid reasons.
Explain how post-modernism isn't just classical sophistry 'BUT THATS A GOOD THING'

[Anonymous No.21536853]

>>21536846
Read the thread, no he didn't. Post quotes if you think I missed them.

[Anonymous No.21536863]

>>21536853
>Read the thread

[Anonymous No.21536871]

>>21536863
>says he gives valid reasons
>the OP is just assertions
>refuses to elaborate
nicely done, pseud-chan

[Anonymous No.21536872]

>>21536871
It's neither his nor my job to give you a basic education on what classical sophistry was and what post-modernism is. You clearly don't know what they are since the fact that they're exactly the same thing is blatantly obvious, so why are you so certain that they're not the same thing?

[Anonymous No.21536880]

>>21536872
Point to where in my post I voiced an opinion about post-modernism. Now, you're going to re-read my post and realise I didn't. Don't you feel silly?

[Anonymous No.21536885]

>>21536880
ok, enjoy your sophistry

[Anonymous No.21536896]

>>21536885
Remind me who the greatest of the Sophists was and how well his plea bargain worked?

[Anonymous No.21536904]

>>21536896
oh would you look at that, all of a sudden he doesn't need an education on sophistry after all!! Imagine my shock.
Would you care to explain how post-modernism isn't exactly the fucking same thing as sophistry, with your newfound enlightenment?

[Anonymous No.21536910]

It's disturbing how common this extremely simple and boring bit has become.
We get it. You read Wikipedia. You have been on 4chan before. You've seen the posts.

You don't have to prove it.

[Anonymous No.21536911]

>>21533054
>>21533371
Can I get a traditional Islamic reading list? Who are the most important authors?

[Anonymous No.21536924]

>>21533371
I really doubt Avicenna could measure up to Augustine.

[Anonymous No.21536980]

>>21533054
this is THE midwit larper opinion

[Anonymous No.21537436]

>>21533054
>post-modernism is literally just sophistry
philosophy is probably the correct term then, unless you can describe the intrinsic difference between sophia and sophistry

[Anonymous No.21537540]

>>21533479
>Science is the method where we achieve the One through physicality.

[Anonymous No.21537554]

>>21533371
buddism is better

[Anonymous No.21537562]

>>21537436
sophia is wisdom
sophistry is the ability to fool others in to thinking you have wisdom

[Anonymous No.21537564]

>>21533809
>Look around and you'll see some Buddhist sages say "Nirvana is Samsara"
No buddhist ever this, mahayanists, and hindus on the other hand ....

[Anonymous No.21537595]

>>21536911
https://themuslimtheist.com/the-great-books-of-the-islamic-world-megalist-draft/

To note, this is a gigantic list containing works that can be ignored by beginners. For general gist, ignore works of Fikh or Hadith and focus on Metaphysics ( العقيدة) Sufism (التصوف) and Philosophy (الفلسفة). The words are in labels are in Jawi script but I’m sure you can figure it out.

[Anonymous No.21537609]

>>21537595
*The words used to label these works are in Jawi script

[Anonymous No.21537719]

>>21537554

[Anonymous No.21537766]

>>21537564
Seethe more.

[Anonymous No.21537770]

>>21533054
>renaissance platonism
>philosophy

[Anonymous No.21537775]

>>21537595

It's true that the list you posted can be ignored. But not for the reasons you think.

[Anonymous No.21537784]

>>21537775
Well yes, if you lack the intelligence to understand it, you should probably ignore it also.

[Anonymous No.21537812]

>>21536924
Lmao, augustine is just some country bumpkin, any retard can understand that berbers ramblings, nothing he says is of any worth, ibn sina is one of the most complex and profound thinkers of all time, there are even scholars that struggle to comprehend the wealth of his knowledge, because augustine wrote to proselytize, ibn sina wrote for himself

[Anonymous No.21537820]

>>21534492
How to into Vajrayana?

[Anonymous No.21537825]

>>21533402
I’m never referring to them as “PIE.” Just going to call them Aryans. And you academically-correct cucks can’t stop me

[Anonymous No.21537834]

>>21537825
What does PIE mean? Pre-Indo-Europeans?

[Anonymous No.21537882]

>>21536911
Assuming you've finished with the greeks? Start with al kindi, move onto al farabi, then ibn rushd and finally ibn sina, you can continue form thereon with people like ibn arabi, ibn khaldun and mulla sadra if you want, but you'd really have to be a big brained ascended genius at that point, theres a lot of underappreciated thinkers like mir damad, haydar amuli and ibn bajja, but those are like for people past the big leagues -- ibn zafer too if youre a sociopath; the shitflinging battle between ibn tufail and ibn al nafs is also interesting, especially you heckin love spine tingling, slow burn, atmospheric, character development driven novels and fiction in general

[Anonymous No.21537896]

>>21536911
Assuming you've finished with the greeks? Start with al kindi, he's your 101 to islamic philosophy, then move onto al farabi, then ibn rushd and finally ibn sina (these guys form an important triad in islamic phillsophy), later on you can read al ghazali and youre good, but you can continue from thereon with people like ibn arabi, the greatest mystic of all time imo, and ibn khaldun whom is like the islamic predecessor to hegel, then mulla sadra if you want, but you'd really have to be a big brained ascended genius at that point, very esoteric stuff, he's kinda like heidegger, theres a lot of underappreciated thinkers too like mir damad, haydar amuli and ibn bajja, but those are like for people way past the big leagues -- ibn zafer too if youre a sociopath; the shitflinging battle between ibn tufail and ibn al nafs is also interesting, especially if you heckin love spine tingling, slow burn, atmospheric, character-development driven fiction literature

[Anonymous No.21537903]

>>21537834
proto-indo-european