Aleister Crowley

[Anonymous No.21556979]

He is harder to understand than Hegel. The book of lies in particular is impossibly cryptic. You'd have to look up the meaning of every single line, and then you would still have trouble understanding it.

[Anonymous No.21556981]

>>21556979
motherfucker, there's ALREADY A CROWLEY THREAD

[Anonymous No.21556984]

>>21556981
What a cohencidencre

[Anonymous No.21556986]

>>21556979
I've read his biography and while I think he had some genuine spiritual experiences I mostly think he was just an egotist.

[Anonymous No.21556988]

>>21556979
>He is harder to understand than Hegel
Wrong. He's harder for you because he wrote for a sub-culture; learn their codes and their history and Crowley will result pretty clear to you.

[Anonymous No.21556995]

>>21556988
>Nothing is
>Nothing becomes
>Nothing is not
What did he mean by this bros?

[Anonymous No.21556996]

>>21556986
Does it go much into his youth as an adventurer? Always been curious of his life before he became what he is known for, far more interesting to me.

[Anonymous No.21556998]

>>21556988
>he wrote for a sub-culture
The same applies to Hegel, really. You're just stating the obvious. The more familiar you are with something the easier it is to understand.

[Anonymous No.21557004]

>>21556996
Yeah it goes over his whole life beginning to end including some of his family history and his mountain climbing career. Be warned though it's quite a large book.

[Anonymous No.21557009]

>Thread theme
https://youtu.be/o0RE230PlX4

[Anonymous No.21557011]

>>21556998
Hegel is harder to understand than Crowley because he wrote in such a way that his philosophy can't be critiqued without falling inside Hegel's own traps ---which would be really cool if his philosophy core weren't as cringe as it is.

By the other hand, Crowlet is hard to understand only if you don't understand what his subculture is, for his ideas are pretty simple. They seem complex only in so far his imagery can't be decoded ---from symbol to sense.

[Anonymous No.21557036]

>>21557011
>Hegel is harder to understand than Crowley because he wrote in such a way that his philosophy can't be critiqued without falling inside Hegel's own traps
Of course it can, you just reject the presuppositions that Hegel operates under and you don't fall into his so-called trap. The same reason Plato and Aquinas are not encompassed by Hegel, namely the fact that they were never tricked by the pseudo-problems of modern Kantian philosophy.
>for his ideas are pretty simple
Go on and explain them then.

[Anonymous No.21557064]

>>21557036
>Go on and explain them then.
Sigh; i'll do explain one them but, most likely, it will be useless for the like of you:

>People's own Ego, repressed by the Ego of the Socius, cannot see the present for it only percieves the biffurcation between past and future in the instant. In the time regime, present is all that there is: past and future are as real as the philosophical actual. That's the reason you can talk with alien forms of life, and get weird knowledge from outside transcendental space-time.

[Anonymous No.21557115]

>>21557064
This is no less complicated than any of Hegel's ideas. In fact, this is actually very similar to an Augustinian argument you can find in the Confessions, if we assume that "alien forms" are the Angels from the Upper Waters. I could go ahead and explain plenty of Hegel's ideas, and they would appear much simpler than that explanation you just gave of Crowley. For example, a brief explanation of part of Hegel's most well-known and poorly written book:

>In the master-servant dialectic, the servant's consciousness is tied to the master's and he initially has his being-for-self in the master. But the servant, as directly in touch with "nature" and subjected to the direct fear of death, ends up directing and concretizing his consciousness into the arts and craft, his products, in which the master then ends up recognizing the slave's own unique consciousness and being-for-self. The master becomes aware of the necessity of his and the servant's reciprocal necessity as conscious beings.

This is simpler, and in particular far less abstract than Crowley.

[Anonymous No.21557139]

>>21556979
he and Hegel are generic atheist rationalists addicted to their own brain farts

anybody who take Crowley or Hegel seriously is braindead

[Anonymous No.21557148]

>>21557115
>This is no less complicated than any of Hegel's ideas
Wrong. It is easier for basic philosophical knowledge is required. Hegel's, as he has its own system, requires ---at least--- two steps more. I could have used the symbolic lexicon, but that is what Crowley uses most of the time.

>this is actually very similar to an Augustinian argument you can find in the Confessions
Idk; haven't read Agustin yet.

>I could go ahead and explain plenty of Hegel's ideas
Please don't; Hegel is fucking cringe. Even more; reading Crowley through Hegel is a waste of time, since Crowley ideas are non-dialectical.

[Anonymous No.21557245]

>>21557139
>Crowley
>Athiest
Fucking idiot

[Anonymous No.21557250]

>the British military had him doing sex rituals to win battles during WW2
Mad innit?