/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.21540933]

>there exists a transcendent form of the good

[Anonymous No.21541300]

>any occult reality that I can't experience because I'm a normie is not real because... IT JUST ISN'T OK!?

[Anonymous No.21541310]

>>21541300
that's just your miswired brain creating phantoms in your mind. It's why your family worries so much.
Please just give the pills a chance? It might help you with the constant fear and rage

[I V R I • N E M O !!GgBWHLRiayD No.21542665]

>>21540933


That is tautological; Good, in itself, is transcendent.

Agape love, and etymic truth. are the lifeline that reconnects one to one's transcendent source in God; even if one loves, and knows love without yet knowing this source, one still tends toward the latter, and toward knowledge of the latter.

[Anonymous No.21542694]

It's been a long time since I last saw a post with meds penguim.

[Anonymous No.21542705]

>>21542665
>Good, in itself, is transcendent.
There is in no wise tautological or self evident. The argument Proclus uses to “Prove” that the Good is transcendent takes completely for granted the Greek cultural conception of what “desire” is, while also taking for granted that desire is capable of acting as an immaterial principle. The good can’t be transcendent because we experience it and we can’t experience what doesn’t fall under any of the categories.

[Anonymous No.21542709]

>>21542705
>Immaterial
I should say incorporeal, to be precise to neoplatonic terminology.

[Anonymous No.21542726]

>>21540933
I hate the antichrist

[Anonymous No.21542739]

>>21540933
>literature

[I V R I • N E M O !!GgBWHLRiayD No.21542759]

>>21542705
>The argument Proclus uses to “Prove” that the Good is transcendent takes completely for granted the Greek cultural conception of what “desire” is, while also taking for granted that desire is capable of acting as an immaterial principle.

And?


>The good can’t be transcendent because we experience it and we can’t experience what doesn’t fall under any of the categories.

The material/corporeal, and the immaterial/incorporeal, currently subsist in one hypostasis; the fact that the Good can, and should be actualized within/through the material/corporeal does not invalidate its transcendent reality.

[Anonymous No.21542775]

>>21542759
I don’t think you even know what transcendent means. It doesn’t mean incorporeal, it means that it is above the categories.

[Anonymous No.21542785]

>>21540933
Benthamite utilitarianism is the objectively correct morality.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1BYUlKSY4wk&list=PL_HJ0tBxcTkZq-_b-P2xkKFhPkn85-_H9

[I V R I • N E M O !!GgBWHLRiayD No.21542957]

>>21542775
>I don’t think you even know what transcendent means.

I am using it in its etymologically valid sense; the transcendent is capable of partially manifesting on the material/corporeal level, and, therefore, of being partially understood, regardless of any ontological categories.


>It doesn’t mean incorporeal [...]

I know.

[Anonymous No.21542988]

>>21542957
the One doesn't have parts

[I V R I • N E M O !!GgBWHLRiayD No.21542996]

>>21542988


Yes, it does —quod vide: the Holy Trinity.

[Anonymous No.21543019]

>>21542996
>the holy trinity
how does this relate to any form of platonism or a transcendent Good? Christianity does not assert the One

[Anonymous No.21543026]

>>21542988
>t. brainlet

[I V R I • N E M O !!GgBWHLRiayD No.21543044]

>>21543019
>how does this relate to any form of platonism [...]

Why would it? who cares about Platonism right now beside you?


>[...] or a transcendent Good?

See above posts.


>Christianity does not assert the One

Yes, it does: in the unitary Holy Trinity.

[Anonymous No.21543053]

>>21543044
>>Why would it? who cares about Platonism right now beside you?
The OP post is about neoplatonism. There is no "transcendent form of Good" in neoplatonism. You're mixing up concepts because you're uneducated.
>Yes, it does: in the unitary Holy Trinity.
completely dissimilar to the One as found in platonism

[Anonymous No.21543056]

>>21543053
> There is no "transcendent form of Good" in neoplatonism
in christianity*

[Anonymous No.21543066]

>>21540933
>>21541310
>it's ther reddit midwit again

[I V R I • N E M O !!GgBWHLRiayD No.21543144]

>>21543053
>The OP post is about neoplatonism.

And?


>There is no "transcendent form of Good" in neoplatonism.
>in christianity*

Yes, because the Good is implicitly transcendent.

Christianity is universal; (Neo)platonism is erroneous in critical parts.


>You're mixing up concepts [...]

You mean: "not adhering to an erroneous notion".


>completely dissimilar to the One as found in platonism

See:

>>21543044
>who cares about Platonism right now beside you?

[Anonymous No.21543181]

>>21542785
For me, it's Mill's Utilitarianism

[Anonymous No.21543215]

KEK OP is getting absolutely shredded
>b-but in muh neogaytoism
>i-i'ts not fair gaytonus said something else
>please sir u must respect my debate rules

[Anonymous No.21543221]

>>21543215
I'm not OP. not my fault the tripfag pseud is too ignorant to even understand which concepts I am talking about.

[Anonymous No.21543313]

>>21543221
You got rekt, no one cares about your sophistry, people talk about the truth, not your manchildren toys

[Anonymous No.21543327]

>>21543313
>specifically defined concepts dating back thousands of years is sophistry
>some random bullshit about three magic demons that are actually one demon is "the truth" because an epileptic Jew from 50 AD accidentally implied that God is three people if you bend his words hard enough
fuck off

[Anonymous No.21543342]

>>21543327
KEK nothing makes pagans seethe so much as being called out on their BS by based Christians

[Anonymous No.21543347]

>>21543342
I wasn't called out on anything there was just a bunch of pointless dancing around homonyms.

[Anonymous No.21543350]

>>21540933
>there exists a transcendent form of the good
Yes, hello..it is me, the good of this world.

[Anonymous No.21543356]

>>21542726
tranny

[Anonymous No.21543379]

>>21543356
Eat my asshole kike