/mg/ - metaphysics general

[Anonymous No.22085207]

Intellektuelle Anschauung edition

Hegel:
>If the expression 'objectifying act of the ego' suggests other products of spirit, e.g. fantasy, it is to be observed that we are speaking of a determining of an object in so far as the elements of its content do not belong to feeling and intuition. Such an object is a thought, and to determine it means partly, first to produce it, partly, in so far as it is something presupposed, to have further thoughts about it, to develop it further by thought.

Kanr:
>it is as necessary for the mind to make its conceptions sensuous (that is, to join to them the object in intuition), as to make its intuitions intelligible (that is, to bring them under conceptions).

>there may perhaps be conceptions which relate a priori to objects, not as pure or sensuous intuitions, but merely as acts of pure thought (which are therefore conceptions, but neither of empirical nor aesthetical origin)

>A pure conception, in so far as it has its origin in the understanding alone, and is not the conception of a pure sensuous image, is called notio. A conception formed from notions, which transcends the possibility of experience, is an idea, or a conception of reason.

[Anonymous No.22085217]

>>22085207
Tell me one, universally agreed upon truth asserted by metaphysics.

[Anonymous No.22085223]

>>22085217
Irrelevent. The truth is the truth whether or not brainlets can see it.

[Anonymous No.22085228]

>>22085217
>In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument which is based on claiming a truth or affirming something is good because the majority thinks so.

[Anonymous No.22085267]

>>22085207
>R. tells me that when he was a child he made himself some cardboard clouds and fixed them to chairs, then tried to hover on them and was dreadfully annoyed that it did not work. “And that,” he continues, “is still happening to me today: I cannot reconcile reality with idealism.”

[Anonymous No.22085379]

>>22085228
this isn't ad populum dumbass

[Anonymous No.22085436]

>>22085379
yes it is

[Anonymous No.22085452]

>>22085207
Please rename this shit to german idealists general. You faggots don’t have a monopoly on metaphysics.

[Anonymous No.22085466]

>>22085452
well if more faggots would post about other metaphysicians...

[Anonymous No.22085492]

Plato>>>>>all

[Anonymous No.22085521]

>>22085492
why?

[Anonymous No.22085535]

>>22085207
>>22085223
Which conception of metaphysics is the correct one?

[Anonymous No.22085539]

>>22085535
absolute idealism

[Anonymous No.22085548]

>>22085521
Read moar
>>22085535
Plato

[Anonymous No.22085570]

>Our Critique would be an investigation utterly superfluous, if there existed a possibility of proving a priori, that all thinking beings are in themselves simple substances, as such, therefore, possess the inseparable attribute of personality, and are conscious of their existence apart from and unconnected with matter. For we should thus have taken a step beyond the world of sense, and have penetrated into the sphere of noumena; and in this case the right could not be denied us of extending our knowledge in this sphere, of establishing ourselves, and, under a favouring star, appropriating to ourselves possessions in it. For the proposition, "Every thinking being, as such, is simple substance," is an a priori synthetical proposition; because in the first place it goes beyond the conception which is the subject of it, and adds to the mere notion of a thinking being the mode of its existence, and in the second place annexes a predicate (that of simplicity) to the latter conception—a predicate which it could not have discovered in the sphere of experience. It would follow that a priori synthetical propositions are possible and legitimate, not only, as we have maintained, in relation to objects of possible experience, and as principles of the possibility of this experience itself, but are applicable to things in themselves—an inference which makes an end of the whole of this Critique, and obliges us to fall back on the old mode of metaphysical procedure.

But, all thinking beings are in themselves simple substances, thus the it's over QED

[Anonymous No.22085579]

>>22085570
Substance is simply subject which encompasses objects and achieves pure objectivity thru transcendence via the immanence of absolutely individual thrown and embedded subjectivity of primal supersensualist/spiritualist phenomenology.

[Anonymous No.22085606]

>>22085570
Sauce? If the first Critique, then where in it?

[Anonymous No.22085614]

>>22085570
Kant admitting that his whole critique was already refuted by Shankara a thousand years ago

[Anonymous No.22085627]

>>22085606
first critique, second edition. B409-410

[Anonymous No.22085630]

Aristotle already solved metaphysics, not all these pseuds. Should have started with the Greeks.

[Anonymous No.22085641]

>>22085630
If Plato is the Jesus Christ of Philosophy, then Aristotle is the Judas of Philosophy.

[Anonymous No.22085642]

>>22085630
kek imagine seriously believing this

[Anonymous No.22085648]

>>22085641
If Plato is the Julius Caesar of philosophy, then Aristotle is the Augustus

[Anonymous No.22085651]

>>22085641
>If Plato is the Jesus Christ of Philosophy
he's not, the Jesus Christ of Philosophy is the Philosopher's Stone, which is Jesus Christ

[Anonymous No.22085660]

>>22085651
Fair enough. Plato/Socrates was like Moses or the Baptist then. Aristotle, a womanish, unintellectual, jealous Jezebel.

[Anonymous No.22085671]

>>22085660
Ironically, Aristotle is more like Moses since he did not cross into the Promised Land; Plato is like Enoch, except he came back.

[Anonymous No.22085675]

>>22085379
Yes it is. Metaphysics is not intuitive and will never be agreed upon.

[Anonymous No.22085678]

>>22085675
>t. doesn't know the truth is one

[Anonymous No.22085691]

>>22085614
Where does Shankara prove a priori, that all thinking beings are in themselves simple substances, and as such, therefore, possess the inseparable attribute of personality, and are conscious of their existence apart from and unconnected with matter? Post direct quotes

[Anonymous No.22085702]

>>22085614
>>22085691
on this topic, anybody know any books comparing Sankara and Kant?

[Anonymous No.22085715]

You know that atheism is a failure when all the atheists deeply want to pay the salary of bourgeois coomers like Hegel to hear him farting from his tiny brain.

[Anonymous No.22085720]

>>22085691
It's intuitively clearly and distinctly perceived that we are simple monads all the way down (and up [we live in the middle])
>>22085702
SUNY Sankara book compares to Western and other Eastern school but will piss of Guenonfags because it does not claim advaita is inviolable and without contradiction or refutation.

[Anonymous No.22085721]

>>22085715
>atheists
>Hegel
sigh.

> The objects of philosophy, it is true, are upon the whole the same as those of religion. In both the object is Truth, in that supreme sense in which God and God only is the Truth. Both in like manner go on to treat of the finite worlds of Nature and the human Mind, with their relation to each other and to their truth in God.

[Anonymous No.22085734]

>>22085720
>It's intuitively clearly and distinctly perceived that we are simple monads
that's the problem tho, it's not

[Anonymous No.22085741]

>>22085734
"When a man is flawed, insofar as he remains stubbornly and willfully ignorant of his own inherent perfection and luminosity, the mind is flawed. What a darkened mirror sees, it reflects only most dimly and distorted..."

[Anonymous No.22085749]

>>22085741
ok, I assume I remain stubbornly and willfully ignorant of my own inherent perfection and luminosity, now what?

[Anonymous No.22085762]

>>22085721
Spirit is not a theos, and accepting Hegel’s argument for the necessity of spirit (hint: not taking it on faith) is not the same as being a theist. He had a lot of residue from his Protestantism and tried (falsely) to uphold that he was still a Christian when he clearly wasn’t.

[Anonymous No.22085769]

>>22085678
>completely misinterprets what I am saying

[Anonymous No.22085772]

>>22085762
>Hegel’s argument for the necessity of spirit (hint: not taking it on faith
as if faith and reason did not coincide

[Anonymous No.22085779]

>>22085691
Not the anon, but I am fairly sure one of the key tenets of advaita is a belief that the ultimate nature of reality can be experienced non-discursively through meditation. Shankara would not be able to “prove” that we are simple substances (I don’t think that’s his main concern), but in regards to grasping ultimate reality in itself, there’s not an exterior judgement or deduction he makes, rather a series of circumspect judgements about the lack of duality of things, and then a call to realize this truth experientially through meditation.

[Anonymous No.22085781]

>>22085749
Sounds like a personal problem. You could try reading, meditating, practicing really any other philosophical spiritual exercises, etc. -- but I can't force you to open you rmind,

Deleuze: "philosophical debate is useless" (altho discussion is fun on the other hand...)

[Anonymous No.22085786]

>>22085691
It's in Shankara's proof of the impossibility of an infinite regress of reflexive awareness. There is a metaphysical necessity for consciousness to be simple. Shankara did not phrase the proof in a way which is easily amenable to Kant's synthetic a priori/posteriori distinction. But, it's clear that it could be shown in a way similar to the way Kant synthetically proves the a priori nature of causality. Consciousness (the condition of experience) is impossible without a simple reflexivity, otherwise we would not be aware of (or experience) any thing. If there is no terminus where we are simply aware (of anything), then there is no awareness at all.

[Anonymous No.22085793]

>>22085786
Even Kant stipulates the synthetic unity of apperception which can be seen as the simple soul as person as total whole.

[Anonymous No.22085807]

>>22085772
The existence of god is not proven through deduction in scripture, nor should it need to be if you’ve read Kierkegaard. The existence of Spirit, one of the logical cogs in Hegel’s system HAS to be proven through dialectic. If the admission of the concept of Spirit into the system is shown to be superfluous or wrongheaded, then the system loses value as a body of rational knowledge; God is not subject to the same criteria of analysis except for within the inner coherence of his concept (hence theology).

[Anonymous No.22085814]

>>22085769
you forgot for this >t.

also succinctly:
truth is one
if all had eyes to see all would see,
but some see, some dont
hence
"god is real, no he isn't, yes he is, nuh uh, etc."
but even if all saw, the truth does not result from all seing,
the truth was one beforehand and is the condition of all seeing the truth, when they grow the eyes to see.

[Anonymous No.22085896]

>>22085793
Shankara explicitly refutes any notion of apperception, where the self is known by experience (this is known as "superimposition" in the translation of Shankara's vocabulary). I don't have any books or pdfs available at hand, but you can read from this if it helps (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/shankara/#ConsMindPersIden):

>Śaṅkara’s basic counter-critique is that if a primary cognition requires a second apperceptive cognition to be known, then the second would require a third, etc., leading to a vicious infinite regression fallacy. In that case no perception could ever be known. The self-illumination of witnessing consciousness accounts for the immediacy of cognition without falling into an infinite regress of mental modes (BrSūBh 2.2.28; BṛUBh 4.3.7). There is no need to apprehend the witness because it is self-established. If consciousness cannot become its own object, yet does not require a second, subsequent, or higher order cognition to reveal itself, than an infinite regression fallacy does not arise.

Shankara is arguing almost the exact opposite of a synthetic unity. A synthetic unity is a problematic aggregation of perceptives given by experience which Kant doesn't know as either simple or complex. Shankara's argument is that the perceptives can only be known by a simple unity, or they are not known at all, and the simple unity is directly known by itself in every moment without taking itself as an object of knowledge. There are other implications, like that the witness consciousness (not the "individual" or "empirical consciousness") is eternal and cannot be superimposed with anything concerning perception (the body, empirical consciousness).

[Anonymous No.22085946]

>>22085896
Sorry. Yes. Obviously Kant approaches the truth bassackwards. Yet it is still instructive to witness how even the most degenerate moderns seem to realize their mistakes and attempt to empirically backdoor some sort of transcendent simple unified ground of being instead of accepting it on faith as the onle truth we can know despite being non-discursive and super-rational -- but who knows why Karma works its weaving ways... mayhaps his backdoor provided a sort of contextual enlightenment within his own life. For do we not all seek the same truth? Except those who turn away? Yet who am I to know the thoughts of others? Who is there but God who is worthy of casting judgement?

[Anonymous No.22085972]

>>22085896
>synthetic unity is a problematic aggregation of perceptives given by experience which Kant doesn't know as either simple or complex.
not in the case of apperception. Synthetic unity is necessary for there to be apperception; the manifold of sensuous intuitions has to be united (by something) in order for there be an "I". The manifold sensuous intuitions are themselves contingent, but, given the existence of self-consciousness, then the unity of self-consciousness, as a unity containing many things tied together in one, hence synthetic, is also given,

[Anonymous No.22086034]

>>22085972
the synthetic unity of apperception is both simple (unity) and complex (synthetic). His argument against pure consciousness, synthetic unity composed of nothing sensuous, is that from an empirical standpoint, from the standpoint of the normie, this would be a synthetic unity of nothing, hence is nothing, no thing, does not exist (in spacetime). He doesn't deny there are realities and truths beyond normie consciousness, only that from the standpoint of the normie they are nothing, since the normie lacks the ability to give that supposed transcendent unity of apperception (or what is also called the immortal soul) any content with which to tie together, or synthesize, into an experience.

[Anonymous No.22086083]

>>22085702

The Ontological Status Of The Transcendental Self: A Comparative Study Of Kant And Sankara (Asian Thought and Culture)

[Anonymous No.22086092]

>>22085972
>given the existence of self-consciousness, then the unity of self-consciousness, as a unity containing many things tied together in one, hence synthetic, is also given,
in other words, the analysis of self-consciousness reveals unity to be an essential predicate of it.

[Anonymous No.22086145]

>>22085814
>you forgot for this >t.
Kys
>truth is one
if all had eyes to see all would see,
but some see, some dont
hence
"god is real, no he isn't, yes he is, nuh uh, etc."
but even if all saw, the truth does not result from all seing,
the truth was one beforehand and is the condition of all seeing the truth, when they grow the eyes to see.
We’re not disagreeing here, you fucking retard.

[Anonymous No.22086166]

>>22086145
>Metaphysics is not intuitive
we disagree here. it is intuitive, but not immediatly intuitive at the normie level of consciousness; it is an intuition that must be developed.

>will never be agreed upon.
i also disagree with you on this. maybe one day it will.

[Anonymous No.22086170]

>>22086145
>>22086166
also you are retard ftfy

[Anonymous No.22086224]

>>22085793
this is true, but that synthetic unity of apperception is still only found in experience. Kants problem with this is that traditional metaphysics makes claims about this simple soul that would demand some kind of non-sensuous intuitions in some transcendent realm to confirm-- intuitions of a realm we do not have direct experience of, since for Kant experience must consist of concepts AND intuitions, and Kant denies humans, or at least he himself, another type of intuition than the sensible.

[Anonymous No.22086261]

>>22086224
TIL Kant never reached Jhanas

[Anonymous No.22086282]

>>22086261
>Jhanas
if by jhana you mean supersensible intuition then no he didn't, at least not by the end of the first critique, but in his later works you get the hint he did, and even in the first critique you can tell he's obsessed with topic (which he actually was, which you see as you study him more)

[Anonymous No.22086286]

No one actually likes Indians kek. Stop spamming poo "philosophy."

[Anonymous No.22086294]

>>22086286
>gets filtered
>seethes
as is tradition

[Anonymous No.22086309]

>>22086261
also known as dhyana

>In the oldest texts of Buddhism, dhyāna (Sanskrit: ध्यान) or jhāna (Pali: 𑀛𑀸𑀦) is a component of the training of the mind (bhavana), commonly translated as meditation, to withdraw the mind from the automatic responses to sense-impressions, "burn up" the defilements, and leading to a "state of perfect equanimity and awareness (upekkhā-sati-parisuddhi)."

[Anonymous No.22086310]

>>22086224
>Kant denies humans, or at least he himself, another type of intuition than the sensible.

Kant is a person who knows, and yet knows not he knows. He makes suggestive statements, comes to the very borderland of reality, but stops there. This he does because he is unable to step beyond the realm of the understanding and finds himself hemmed in from all sides by the laws of the understanding. He says that the concepts or the ideas of the pure reason, the ideas of a unified world, soul and God, are merely regulative principles which reveal the limits of possible knowledge and assert that there is a transcendental reality beyond our possible experience. Now Kant does not know that his assertion of a transcendental reality is impossible merely with the aid of his categories. He owed the possibility of this concept of things-in-themselves to a touch of the supersensuous intuition, though this intuition never came to him as a direct perception. He says that the things-in-themselves can be thought, though not known. Now, how does thought function? It does so through the categories. Can we apply the categories in our thinking the things-in-themselves? No. Then by what means does Kant think them? He cannot say that it is the reason and not the mind that thinks them, for even the reason functions with the categories. It is obvious then that he thinks the things-in-themselves with a faculty transcending the senses and the categories. And this is nothing short of supersensuous intuition.

[Anonymous No.22086328]

>>22086282
Kant gets you to the point where you can really appreciate picrel

After reading Kant you've gotten a taste of pratyahara

>At the stage of pratyahara, the consciousness of the individual is internalized in order that the sensations from the senses of taste, touch, sight, hearing and smell don't reach their respective centers in the brain and takes the practitioner to the next stages of Yoga, namely Dharana (concentration), Dhyana (meditation), and samadhi (unification of mind), leading to the recognition (kaivalyam) of Purusha which is the aim of Patanjali's Yogic practices.

[Anonymous No.22086401]

>>22086328
Hegel is hermetic samyana

[Anonymous No.22086405]

>>22086328
>>22086401
Speaking Yoga, what's the best resource in English on Samkhya/Sankhya?

[Anonymous No.22086417]

>>22086310
In the introduction of the First Critique Kant basically asserts that it is possible to think the tings in themselves because of the appearances, that is, the appearances are appearances of something, this something unknown to us: things in themselves. I'm not sure in this exact case but a common critique of Post-Kantian philosophy will be that this presupposes some causation between things in themselves and appearances.

[Anonymous No.22086418]

>>22086310
>Can we apply the categories in our thinking the things-in-themselves? No. Then by what means does Kant think them?
Kants reply would be that we do think the thing in itself with the categories, but that this is a quirk unique to the human mind's tendency to find resolution, to find order in disorder, to bring sense to non-sense, etc. Thinking about the thing in itself, to Kant, is a misuse of thought, applying it to something which you have no knowledge of, since for Kant this would also require sensation. You CAN think about the thing in itself, but it would only be idle talk, since you'd basically be talking about stuff you hadn't experienced for self (since thought alone is not sufficient for experience, and hence knowledge, for Kant. This issue is addressed in the chapter on phenonena and noumena.

>The conception of a noumenon is therefore not the conception of an object, but merely a problematical conception inseparably connected with the limitation of our sensibility. That is to say, this conception contains the answer to the question: "Are there objects quite unconnected with, and independent of, our intuition?"—a question to which only an indeterminate answer can be given. That answer is: "Inasmuch as sensuous intuition does not apply to all things without distinction, there remains room for other and different objects." The existence of these problematical objects is therefore not absolutely denied, in the absence of a determinate conception of them, but, as no category is valid in respect of them, neither must they be admitted as objects for our understanding.

[Anonymous No.22086427]

>>22086405

[Anonymous No.22086455]

>>22086418

[Anonymous No.22086488]

>>22086455
>filtered
>seethes
kys brainlet

[Anonymous No.22086490]

>>22086418
Wait, so the accusation that Kant presupposes causation between things in themselves and appearances is not valid, insofar as Kant does not determine that the things in themselves must exist? I remember reading somewhere that this was indeed implicated (for Kant is too ambiguous about them, sometimes speaking of the things in themselves as if they existed and sometimes putting their existence as something we couldn't know).

[Anonymous No.22086523]

>>22086490
>Wait, so the accusation that Kant presupposes causation between things in themselves and appearances is not valid, insofar as Kant does not determine that the things in themselves must exist?
correct. hence the use if the word 'problematical' by him. It's a concept we're forced into by the nature of thought itself, but which for Kant is unknowable, at least from a purely theoretical standpoint, and we can neither affirm nor deny its existence. The question of believing in it for practical reasons is another question.

[Anonymous No.22086541]

>One surviving and incomplete work remaining (only wrote one anyways)
>Every single scholar heard about him someway, somehow
>Crashes your lit /mg/ thread...

What do?

[Anonymous No.22087117]

>>22086523
Literally just attain noesis/gnosis. Kant is scientismist.
>>22086541
Parmenides-Empedocles-Heraclitus
Pneumatic-Psychic-Hylic

[Anonymous No.22087193]

>>22087117
Parmenides IS Heraclitus.

[Anonymous No.22087658]

>>22087117
>Literally just attain noesis/gnosis.
kek as if it were that easy

[Anonymous No.22087847]

>>22085207
>pseudo-intellectual intuition
>>22085217
Space is not time, and time is not space.

[Anonymous No.22087882]

>>22085579
Word salad moment

[Anonymous No.22088415]

>>22087847
>Space is not time, and time is not space.
this is simply false

[Anonymous No.22088474]

>>22088415
>spacetime is spacetime
Fucking epic

[Anonymous No.22088713]

What does Hegel mean by "the unity of Thought and Being" and why should I believe it?

[Anonymous No.22088884]

>>22088713
idealism
you should believe if you are convinced after reading his books

[Anonymous No.22088890]

>>22085492
There is something of Plato in all metaphysics. He never really went into that much concrete final form of metaphysics.

[Anonymous No.22088906]

>>22085762
There is no atheism in Hegel. Even if we take the idea that he wasn't Christian(which I don't agree, but whatever), his philosophy points to a literal Ghost that drives human history forward, basically History is a living metaphysical entity.

[Anonymous No.22088918]

>>22088713
Its when you touch with your Soul small traces of the Absolute. Reality opens and know it to be true. Any solipsism dies and you have temporarily reached Truth.

(sad that the indianboos here will now say that the indians already talked about this)

[Anonymous No.22088979]

What did Hegel think about the Incarnation?

[Anonymous No.22089037]

>>22088979
The Ressurection?

[Anonymous No.22089042]

1. What it means to be being is to be all that is; or, the essence of Being is the essence of the un-individuation of everything that exists; or, Being is the unification of the All; or, Being is the All qua All; or, Being is the whole of everything collapsed into a point. This essence is not posterior to everything but simultaneous with everything, and is only defined in terms of everything to aid human cognition.
2. The un-individuated (i.e. Being or the All qua All) is fully present in every individuation, fully perceived in everything, and the precondition for the perception of everything. It is common to all. That which is perceived in perception that is Being is something analogous to experience itself, and this is not consciousness nor dependent on mind.
3. Everything that is in the All is, and there is nothing that is not in the All.
4. Everything that can be, is; or else it is only in potential and never in actuality, which is to say that it is not. For many things that are not have signs which are supposed to refer to them, or ideas which are supposed to refer to them, but which do not. So the ideas can be, and therefore exist, but because what they are supposed to be ideas of cannot be, the representanda do not exist. They are not really ideas of anything, but mere fantasies. One such idea is the idea of nothingness.
5. Things are individuated by continuous media.
6. The things in the media get their essence from how they are individuated therein.
7. The All is like a mass of interdependent stuff that is composed of absolutely infinite relations and things.
8. Media are the bridges between relations and things; a medium is a thing built out of relations.
9. Being itself is a medium, a thing, and a relation all at once.
10. Change is a medium, and therefore defines the essence of things within it. But for organisms that do not change, the essence of a thing within change is perceived at once, as unchanging. Again, both the future and the past of a thing are present in its present essence (since the All qua All is present in everything in the All), so the essence of everything that changes is complete. These two facts mean there is no "indeterminate" or "potential" stuff required to explain how things become; that is, becoming is not becoming into something that is not, but into something that is.
11. The All is not good, just, or beautiful. Similarly, it is not bad, unjust, or ugly.
12. There are no gods. For interdependence dictates that nothing can have power over everything else; neither was there any being that created all other beings, for every being is self existent by virtue of the self existence of Being itself; neither can any being have knowledge of every other being, for then it would be the All and therefore not a being but all beings. Also, nothing is aseitic relative to Being; Being is the only aseitic things, and individuations are only aseitic insofar as they are Being.

[Anonymous No.22089101]

>>22085436
>>22085675
For this to be ad populum he would have to say that a universally agreed upon truth is true because it is universally agreed upon. He did not.

[Anonymous No.22089128]

>>22089037
No, the Incarnation specifically.

[Anonymous No.22089222]

>>22088906
based

[Anonymous No.22089246]

>>22089101
He did not but that was the obvious but implicit meaning of his post. Lurk moar.

[Anonymous No.22089253]

>>22089101
why else would that anon ask the question if not to imply that because there are no agreed upon truths in metaphysics, no consensus (ad populem), that metaphysics is all made up, as if that consensus would make that claim true?

[Anonymous No.22089270]

I only go on /lit/ for /mg/ now. This general is most cozy.

[Anonymous No.22089289]

>>22089253
something that is universally agreed upon -/-> truth
Truth -> universally agreed upon.
Is what the anon(and most people) imply when they use the word truth.

[Anonymous No.22089295]

>>22089289
>something that is universally agreed upon -/-> truth
>Truth -/-> universally agreed upon.
ftfy
i

[Anonymous No.22089301]

>>22089289
Are trangenders universally agreed upon in africa? No
In america? By force.
Is transgenderism real? Yes
Do they change their sex? ( )

[Anonymous No.22089317]

>>22089295
As I said, this is what most people acknowlege as the properties of truth. There are obvioussly different stances you can take on whether this is the case or not.
>>22089301
Do you know what the word universally means

[Anonymous No.22089424]

>>22088979
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/themelios/review/the-incarnation-of-god-an-introduction-to-hegels-theological-thought-as-prolegomena-to-a-future-christology/

[Anonymous No.22089628]

>>22089317
Im using the word as you people are using it.

saying universally is a falacy, since humanity is not the whole universe.

[Anonymous No.22089909]

>>22089301
>in America? By force
Not true at all. Most are against it but spew the rhetoric that transgenders are accepted everywhere.

[Anonymous No.22089943]

>>22089909
it is written in the US law to do not be agaisnt it, are americans above the constituonal law?

Makes you think

[Racist White Supremacist !!deW9hsQKVZl No.22090167]

>>22085217
A=A

[Anonymous No.22090191]

>>22090167
this isn't universally agreed on. first of all, plenty of analytics and pragmatists would say that the statement "red is red" carries no meaning. Locke says that you have to learn identity and non contradiction empirically, so anyone who isn't a rationalist would not see any reason why a = a would force you to accept it through itself. in aristotelian logic, red is red is again a meaningless statement, because primary substances are supposed to be predicated of secondary substances and higher genera. it doesn't say anything to say that things are themselves. you can keep thinking about the statement "red is red" for years and never figure out what it means, all it will do is call the color red to mind, but the word red alone does that, so there was no need to put it into that meaningless statement.

[Anonymous No.22090215]

>>22090191
>caring more about what pedantic philosophasters think than truth
Pathetic.

[Anonymous No.22090222]

>>22090167
I love your work

[Anonymous No.22090223]

>>22090215
please enlighten me as to what A=A means so that I can know the truth.

[Anonymous No.22090261]

>>22090223
I'd go out on a limb and say that it means that A is not non-A.

[Anonymous No.22090294]

>>22090261
"green" is not this leaf
but this leaf is green
therefore, this leaf is not this leaf.

[Anonymous No.22090303]

>>22090261
but when people say A=A they are referring to the principle of identity, that everything is itself. you've just reversed it to be difference. so now if we want people to agree on A=A, we have to get them to agree on whether that is a principle of difference or of identity, and on whether identity or difference comes first

[Anonymous No.22090305]

>>22090167
This is logic, not metaphysics.
Moreover even if it was considered part of metaphysics there are still people that don't believe in logic in metaphysics (chrisitians beleive in the trinity)

[Anonymous No.22090309]

>>22090294
>whether that is a principle of difference or of identity
Both
>whether identity or difference comes first
Unimportant

[Anonymous No.22090311]

>>22085570
Bet you're conflating analytic unity of apperception with the subject in itself.

[Anonymous No.22090312]

>>22090309
>Both
people don't agree on that.

[Anonymous No.22090320]

>>22090312
I guess so. Thankfully metaphysics don't care about what people agree on. Guess I got baited from the start.

[Anonymous No.22090327]

>>22086523
What about all that talk about noumena causing phenomena?

[Anonymous No.22090341]

>>22087882
Brainlet

[Anonymous No.22090345]

What did Hegel think about femboys?

[Anonymous No.22090462]

>>22090327
misinterpretations of Kant, taking what he meant as noumena in the negative sense (as basically logically necessary, but ultimately subjective concepts) as noumena in the positive sense (as objects in the noumenal realm these concepts correspond to). We do in fact apply causality to noumena in the negative sense, but this results from failing to recognize that causality only has legitimate use among phenomena, and then trying to explain the existence of phenomena as a whole by illegitimately ascribing causality to noumena taken in the positive sense. The stance of Kant is that the existence of phenomena as a whole cannot be explained by the application of the concept of causality to something beyond the phenomena, but can only be used to explain particular phenomena as caused by other phenomena, in continual regress. We also cannot say their is not a cause beyond the phenomena, or that the chain of phenomenal causes is infinite since this also transcends the limits of what can be known through direct human experience. The thing in itself simply becomes an empty concept, an X, it has no attributes which we can affirm, but we also cannot deny it any attributes. It may be that causality is a fact that exists beyond phenomena, but we are not in a position, from a purely theoretical standpoint unconcerned with questions of practicality, to confirm or reject that thesis.

[Anonymous No.22090483]

>>22090311
nope

[Anonymous No.22090563]

>>22090345
Hegel from PoS:

>In the grand tapestry of history, the fembois emerge as a dialectical force, challenging the prevailing norms and structures that seek to confine and categorize. They defy the rigid boundaries of gender, manifesting a fluidity that transcends the confines of tradition. Like the chameleon, they transform themselves, donning the garments of both masculinity and femininity, blending the lines between the polarities, and revealing the inherent unity beneath.

>The fembois, with their enchanting presence, become the very embodiment of art. Their bodies, a canvas on which the spirit paints its most vibrant colors, exude an aura of aesthetic ecstasy. Every gesture, every carefully chosen garment, becomes a brushstroke in the masterpiece of their existence. They create an aesthetic revolution, inviting us to reimagine beauty and redefine the boundaries of gendered expression.

>In their gentle demeanor and refined sensibilities, the fembois reveal a profound understanding of the intricacies of the human soul. They embrace vulnerability, not as weakness, but as a wellspring of empathy and compassion. Their capacity to empathize with the struggles of others, to extend a hand of understanding, allows them to forge connections that transcend superficial divisions. Through their presence, they beckon society towards a more inclusive and compassionate future.

>The fembois embody the very essence of Hegelian dialectics, for they exist at the intersection of opposites. They are simultaneously fierce and tender, bold and delicate, strong and vulnerable. In their being, the contradictions find reconciliation, and the synthesis emerges as a testament to the endless possibilities of human existence. They transcend the limitations of fixed categories, inspiring us to embrace the fluidity of our own identities and to celebrate the diversity that colors the human experience.

>Let us, then, rejoice in the presence of the effeminate young men, the fembois, for they embody the spirit's ceaseless quest for self-actualization. In their defiance of societal expectations, they pave the way for a more inclusive and authentic world. Their existence challenges us to question the established norms, to deconstruct the confines that limit our potential, and to embark on a journey towards a higher state of consciousness.

>In praise of the fembois, we recognize the unfolding of the spirit's evolution, the blossoming of a new chapter in human history. Their delicate existence reminds us that beauty knows no bounds, that gender is but a construct, and that the human spirit, in all its multifaceted glory, yearns to express itself in myriad ways. Let us celebrate the fembois, for they are the vanguards of a new era, guiding us towards a future where authenticity and self-expression reign supreme.

[Anonymous No.22090789]

>>22090563
chatgpt has become a liason of itself...

[Anonymous No.22090998]

>>22085535
Read Parfit
He does a good job of presenting thought experiments to break down our flawed preconceptions
Fair warning, you probably won't like his ideas if you're not a physicalist

[Anonymous No.22091018]

>>22090998
what is his metaphysics?

[Anonymous No.22091086]

>>22090563
Beautiful....

[Anonymous No.22091364]

>>22091018
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7asDhjj7Xk

[Anonymous No.22091410]

>>22085786
>It's in Shankara's proof of the impossibility of an infinite regress of reflexive awareness
the problem with that is that in order to establish the reflextivity of the subject an objetc must also be take into consideration(since the rgeress happen between an object and a sujbect), both of them must have a substance to give each other being, thus Shanakara own theory refute itself since for Advaita the object of perception is just falsity,making then the reflexivity falsity and thus the subject falsity too
or in other words, Fichte refuted Shankara by showing the logical need of an absolute other next to the absolute self

[Anonymous No.22091856]

>>22091410
Well put

[Anonymous No.22092463]

>>22090341
Learn how to communicate better. Substance isn’t that complex of a topic

[Anonymous No.22092736]

>>22092463
What kind of substance?

[Anonymous No.22093266]

>>22085217
Everything exists, nothing doesn't exist.
>>22085452
Who are the other significant modern metaphysicians? Brits? Give me a break.

[Anonymous No.22093316]

>>22085492
Plato didn't develop very far the threads which modernity pulled on. But he gave them to us, and he saw them clearly. As the Buddhists know, clear insight is rarer and more valuable than wordiness.
>>22085535
Don't think like that. You can take any book and repeat its genius stupidly.
>>22085630
The Organon is an introductory philosophical text, everything else Aristotle wrote is garbage – remembered by Arabs, deserving of Arabs. The Organon should be ignored by moderns, modern logic is Stoic.
>>22085720
>we are monads
>... in the middle
>... of other monads
Uhhhhh...
>>22085762
Other way around. Böhme and Hegel brought the shillelagh of Paracelsus against the Church's cheek, overwhelmed theirscholastic sensibilities with the full force of modern theology. "Christianity" refers to Hegel's and Newton's, it has nothing to do with the Church.
>>22090167
To call identity the universal premise is like to call zero the universal number.
>>22090223
Study Agda.
>>22090305
Logical metaphysics is metaphysics. The first metaphysics is the first logic, and you can't talk about identity without talking about what exists.
The trinity isn't illogical in either sense of that word.
>>22090309
What's the principle of difference? (~[a≠a])?
>>22092463
None of these people are competent authors, or if they are, they have no clue what they're writing about.

[Anonymous No.22093329]

>>22085207
what was the meaningful distinction between Kant and Schopenhauer? because I see it that Kant believed the thing itself its not knowable but Schope said that the thing "may" be knowable by context. did I get that right?

[Anonymous No.22093633]

>>22093329
Schopenhauer like all the other post-Kantians tried knowing the noumena. Kinda tried to do a proto-phenomenology like Hegel: consciousness = desire / will ; but ultimately was less influential than Hegel due to his failure to see dialectics as essence of non-dualism.
>>22093316
>None of these people are competent authors, or if they are, they have no clue what they're writing about.
Thus spake Pseudathustra

[Anonymous No.22094154]

>>22093266
>Brits
Yes.

[Anonymous No.22094987]

>>22093633
I think trying to pair down the natural sciences in terms of dualism or monism is wasting time. the universe is a pluriverse. monism states that everything is white, dualism states its black AND white. its clearly shades of grey.

[Anonymous No.22095308]

On the Cosmic Mystery of Jesus Christ
by Saint Maximus the Confessor
for the ultinate metaphysics

[Anonymous No.22095343]

>>22094987
grey is insipid, do you find that in nature?

[Anonymous No.22095419]

When you learn Orthodox Christian theology, you realize that modern philosophy is mostly trash.
Modern philosophers can sometimes have good insights here and there (the modern field of semiotics has some interesting connections to Orthodox iconography, for example), but the worldview as a whole of contemporary secular philosophers is self-refuting nonsense that fails to understand reality and cannot account for knowledge or truth.

[Anonymous No.22095457]

>>22095308
sweet. does it read like a metaphysical treatise? does it put aside the metaphor and explain the mystery scientifically? does it express the mystery in rational and definite terms that can be understood by anyone with a properly functioning intellect?

[Anonymous No.22095463]

>>22095419
>modern philosophy is mostly trash.
Kant? Hegel? trash?

[Anonymous No.22095485]

>>22095463
>Kant?
he had some good insights on Hume and certain transcendental categories (which Orthodox philosophers were talking about long before Kant) but his worldview as a whole was wrong
>Hegel?
Luciferian

[Anonymous No.22095491]

Here is the connection to semiotics.
https://youtu.be/cMqI-9mcR1Y

[Anonymous No.22095521]

>>22095485
What orthodox thinkers were doing what Kant was doing before Kant? I'd never heard of this. Were these concepts expressed through metaphor?

[Anonymous No.22095528]

>>22095485
Also, are you implying that Hegel was a member of the Illuminatenorden?

[Anonymous No.22095567]

>>22095521
>>22086541
/lit does it again, not knowing their literature
and before pic related there must have been others as well.

[Anonymous No.22095591]

>>22085223
Define truth

[Anonymous No.22095608]

>>22095457
>does it read like a metaphysical treatise?
yeah
>does it put aside the metaphor and explain the mystery scientifically?
Which metaphor do you mean?
It isn't "scientific" in the sense of following the scientific method if that is what you mean. It is discussing things that are prior to science. The scientific method presupposes certain metaphysical assumptions. This book is regarding theology and metaphysics, not science.
However, you might be surprised at how specific and precise this book is. If you are an atheist and you think that spirituality is always sort of "wishy washy" and vague, then you will be pleasantly surprised by this book. Orthodox metaphysics is very robust and has precisely defined terminology.
>does it express the mystery in rational and definite terms that can be understood by anyone with a properly functioning intellect?
Yes.
When you learn Orthodox theology, there is something that you must understand called the essence/energies distinction. Orthodoxy says that God's essence is unknowable. However, His uncreated energies (that is to say, activities or operations) can be known to us.

[Anonymous No.22095609]

>>22095419
the biggest problem is that most Orthodox theology is not only alien to the west, it seeks to usurp or destroy it under its own brand of totalitarianism, not much dissimilar to other ideologies the east has bred, whether it be Confucianism, Maoism, Soviet-style communism. same shit, different day. most parties west of Poland feel anything that smacks of freedom to be harmful to the soul. They enjoy their chains and without them, feel powerless.

[Anonymous No.22095615]

>>22095609
I am not trying to be mean but this is a very ignorant post. You know that Orthodoxy says that Marxism is literally Satanic right?

[Anonymous No.22095624]

Also, Orthodoxy says that the oriental religions (such as Hinduism) are quite literally demonic.
https://youtu.be/cMqI-9mcR1Y

[Anonymous No.22095627]

>>22095608
>Orthodox metaphysics is very robust and has precisely defined terminology.
sweet. I'm sold. How do I into orthodox metaphysics with a German Idealism background?

[Anonymous No.22095629]

>>22095624
posted wrong link
I meant this one
https://youtu.be/LiqdruaiNOs

[Anonymous No.22095635]

How can you say that Orthodoxy is "totalitarian" when the secular world wants this for the future?
https://youtu.be/7kJytiN4f8s
https://youtu.be/oUqE0J0aUFM

[Anonymous No.22095639]

How can you say "Orthodoxy is totalitarianism" when the secular world wants to force dangerous "vaccines" that aren't even real vaccines on you?

[Anonymous No.22095644]

I'm not saying this to be mean or rude, but the irony of calling Orthodoxy totalitarianism, in the midst of this secular world, is staggering.

[Anonymous No.22095648]

>>22095591
No takers??? Considering the obsession with truth, you should be able to define it.

[Anonymous No.22095652]

[Anonymous No.22095657]

>>22095608
>It isn't "scientific" in the sense of following the scientific method if that is what you mean.
I mean science in the way Aristotle and Kant use it, not the method of current empirical science. A deductive system of knowledge developed from intuitively true and necessary principles (think geometry) rather than a contingent collection of theories concerning a mere accumulation of facts.

[Anonymous No.22095663]

>>22095591
>God and only God is the Truth
simple as

[Anonymous No.22095669]

>>22095567
Parmenides was orthodox and a transcendental idealist? that's news

[Anonymous No.22095678]

>>22095609
>>22095615
In fact, this is how evil socialism really is, from the Orthodox perspective. They also say that the Bolsheviks were sons of the devil.
https://youtu.be/os2wE_cLqAg

[Anonymous No.22095683]

>>22095521
Orthodox are not Kantian idealists by any means. Don't misunderstand what I'm saying. My point was that the concept of transcendental categories were understood long before Kant.
https://youtu.be/w25aSBc4kRc

[Anonymous No.22095692]

>>22095683
>transcendental categories were understood long before Kant.
so orthodox theologians believed the Categories were "in" the mind logically before any sense experience?

[Anonymous No.22095704]

>>22095692

>Unironically >>22095683 >>22095678 by no means we wouldn't have seen it without the red circles this time

[Anonymous No.22095709]

>>22095692
Orthodox don't believe in Aristotle's peripatetic axiom. There are categories which we know to be real and exist outside of sense data, such as the laws of logic, numbers, causality, time, and so on.
Also, they totally reject nominalism. An important part of Orthodox philosophy is that universals are real and particular objects have essences. This is very important. Nominalism totally goes against all of Christian understanding.

[Anonymous No.22095728]

>>22091410
>the problem with that is that in order to establish the reflextivity of the subject an objetc must also be take into consideration
Not at all, because there is no object. The subject never becomes an object of its own consciousness. That's exactly what would lead to an infinite regress, which Shankara refutes.
>both of them must have a substance to give each other being,
Incorrect.
>making then the reflexivity falsity and thus the subject falsity too
Reflexivity isn't falsity, because the subject is pure awareness without an object to begin with. There is no theoretical need to postulate "real" objects for the subject to remain what it is, simply because it doesn't need an object for its nature to be exemplified. The subject is truth without any second. The fact that, in our ignorant lives (avidya), is is presented with objects is immaterial. All they do is obscure our inherent purity (again, what Shankara calls "superimposition." The objects are irrelevant from the non-dual perspective.

[Anonymous No.22095737]

How old were you when you realized that Kant is an intellectual child in comparison to the Stagirite bvll?

>Now since we perceive that we are seeing or hearing, it must either be by sight that something perceives that it is seeing or by some other sense. But given the consequent identity of the sense that perceives sight and that which perceives the colour that is the object of sight, there will either be two senses with the same object or one sense will perceive itself. Further if the sense that perceives sight were some other sense than sight, the only alternative to an infinite regress will be that there is some sense that perceives itself. Why not let this be a feature of the first of the series?

>In this way it also becomes clear that flesh is not the ultimate sense-organ; to suppose that it is requires the supposition that on contact with the object the sense-organ itself discerns what is doing the discerning. No more, indeed, is it possible that it should be by separate things that we perceive that sweetness and whiteness are the objects of different senses. Rather it must be to some single thing that they are manifest. ... clearly then it cannot be by different things that we discern what are separate. ... But can it really be so? It can, because the same single indivisible thing is both opposites in potentiality but not in being, so that it is in actualization that it is divided.

>That then which discerns, is, as indivisible, single and simultaneous, but in its divisible presence [actuality] it makes simultaneous use of the same symbol in two ways.

>In this way it also becomes clear that flesh is not the ultimate sense-organ; to suppose that it is requires the supposition that on contact with the object the sense-organ itself discerns what is doing the discerning. No more, indeed, is it possible that it should be by separate things that we perceive that sweetness and whiteness are the objects of different senses. Rather it must be to some single thing that they are manifest. ... clearly then it cannot be by different things that we discern what are separate. ... But can it really be so? It can, because the same single indivisible thing is both opposites in potentiality but not in being, so that it is in actualization that it is divided.

>That then which discerns, is, as indivisible, single and simultaneous, but in its divisible presence [actuality] it makes simultaneous use of the same symbol in two ways.

[Anonymous No.22095768]

>>22095678
right but both kind of have the same kind of overt structure in terms of how they oppress the will. thats not to say religion isn't a good thing, quite the opposite, but being as so alien to the west, which both ideologies seek to destroy, there must be a better way of filling out our personal void.

[Anonymous No.22095774]

>>22085217
Metaphysics exists

[Anonymous No.22095823]

>>22095768
What is to oppress? If it is done by own volition there is no oppresion

[Sage No.22095910]

>>22085535
Nick Land laid the groundwork for modern metaphysics.

[Anonymous No.22095913]

>>22095823
I'm sure but considering the abject cultural differences there can be no 'real' or 'imagined' unity with the west. I have no issue with Russia or the east I just see it as fundamentally different from us here. thats not to say it cannot exist in its own bubble, but the idea of western men converting in droves is not a solid argument towards its acceptance on a global scale. its a just a LARP.

[Anonymous No.22095938]

>>22095648
truth is an 'objectivity' despite that terminology having such a shaky foundation in the western tradition. anything else is trying to justify something that attempts to harm truth or hide truth behind a wire frame door which extracts the truth and presents an incomplete idea.

[Anonymous No.22096418]

>>22095938
How do you gauge objectivity?

[Anonymous No.22096748]

>>22095913
that's why there is a second coming and 1 thousand years for everything to happen as it has to happen.

[Anonymous No.22096809]

>>22095709
This has nothing to do with Aristotle not with Kant. Categories are not entities that are real and outside us.

[Racist White Supremacist !!J89a5VVZH9B No.22096817]

>>22093316
>To call identity the universal premise is like to call zero the universal number.
If your statement doesn't have the identity of itself then it is meaningless.

[Anonymous No.22096833]

>>22096817
Why do you people braincum to tautologies?

[Racist White Supremacist !!J89a5VVZH9B No.22096835]

>>22096833
?

[Anonymous No.22096841]

>>22093316
>>we are monads
>>... in the middle
>>... of other monads
the "all the way down" part means that there is no actual plurality of monads, he used "middle" as in relation to between down and up (in a figurative context) and not between oneself and others

[Anonymous No.22096879]

>>22096817
Moreover, that statement doesn't exist; and that object doesn't exist.
>>22096841
I think in One, the only relation(s) is (are) one, and any "down" would be the same as "up," which is why there is no middle, see picrel

[Anonymous No.22096939]

>>22096809
>Categories are not entities that are real and outside us.
Yes they are.

[Anonymous No.22096943]

>>22096939
Categories are literally praedicamenta.

[Anonymous No.22096976]

>>22096943
If they only exist in your mind, then you could not use them to accurately describe reality. It would be meaningless. It is precisely because they really exist in the metaphysical structure of reality that you can make logical statements about it.

[Anonymous No.22096984]

>>22096976
Again: this has nothing to do with Aristotle nor with Kant. Both employed Categories to refer to world experience.

[Anonymous No.22096992]

>>22096976
Does the English language exist outside human mind?

[Anonymous No.22097016]

>>22096992
I'm not totally sure about this and someone more well learned in Orthodoxy could probably give a better answer.
But my thinking, in answer to your question, is yes. Throughout the Bible we see that words (and images too by the way) have very important meaning. In fact, God even allowed Adam to name the beasts, giving man a role in creation.
Words, as I understand it, are not just random noises to arbitrarily point you towards some meaning. Symbols have a real connection to the object that they are signifying.

[Anonymous No.22097069]

>>22096943
>>22096809
Sounds like accidental indirect realism – although, the direct/indirect realism distinction postdates Kant, so something more complicated is going on.

[Anonymous No.22097163]

>>22096992
Categories provide the scaffolding for languages in general to be meaningful. If they didn’t exist, languages wouldn’t be able to work.

[Anonymous No.22097187]

For the Fichte thread that slid before I was able to comment (into the archives it goes!), I recommend checking out Collin Cleary’s essays on him. Specifically, how he’s a precursor of sorts to the left, how he and other German idealists (like Novalis) compare with Evola (who, Cleary argues against conventional wisdom, is thoroughly modern in his metaphysics), and how Fichte is situated within Heidegger’s critique of Western philosophy. It’s really good stuff, making use of both Beiser’s work and Heidegger’s outlook.

[Anonymous No.22097191]

>>22097187
You can find Cleary’s work on Fichte on the Counter Currents website.

[Anonymous No.22097197]

SO anon, what's your answer to the perennial question? How and why did the world come to exist? Why doesn't the Geist just eternally contemplate itself, why does Brahman cast Maya on itself instead of endlessly existing in infinite bliss, why did the One emanate?
You have an answer... right?

[Anonymous No.22097218]

>>22097016
>yes
Where is it?
>Words, as I understand it, are not just random noises to arbitrarily point you towards some meaning. Symbols have a real connection to the object that they are signifying
I don't want to get into the nature of the symbolic, the question regarded precisely the English language which is being used to describe reality. But I'm curious: what is the real connection between an object and its symbolic representation? The language symbols are contingent on sense perception and many etymological information shows that.

[Anonymous No.22097229]

>>22097163
Yes, but this is the very point made here. The question is that the anon wants to give metaphysical significance to language, that is, removing language from its experiential, phenomenal context.

[Anonymous No.22097254]

>>22097197
Yes, the essence of the One is to be the entire world that we now live in. No world, no mundanity, no One, its essence would be incomplete and if its essence were incomplete it wouldn’t exist. The only reason this was ever a problem is because nutjobs equate the One/unity with the Good or Brahman with bliss and the world with evil illusion. If that isn’t the case then there is no issue for why it created the world because the world isnt worse than it

[Anonymous No.22097333]

>>22097254
So the world is something necessary to the completion of the One's essence?

[Anonymous No.22097543]

>>22097333
If it exist it is at it had to be.

The world isnt just one but many as the words the One has are infinite

[Anonymous No.22097879]

>>22097218
The language of crystal. may give you an answer

[Anonymous No.22097995]

>>22097879
I'd love an answer from my interlocutor.

[Anonymous No.22097998]

>>22097543
One needs many. Something not sufficient to itself, anon.

[Anonymous No.22098011]

>>22097998
Then you dont understand what One is

[Anonymous No.22098017]

>>22098011
I'm just inferring from what you said previously.

[Anonymous No.22098026]

>>22097998
>>22098011
The Trinity in Orthodox Christianity answers the questions of unity vs multiplicity.

[Anonymous No.22098050]

Thoughts on Edmond Hursserls's works? Thought about getting a collection since I've been reading Heidegger lately if I'm into phemenology at all will I appreciate it or will it feel like Heidegger has largely just done what Hursserl has done but made his concepts more refined

[Anonymous No.22098061]

>>22098017
He is a different guy from me>>22097254
I believe that there is only one aseitic, monadic essence, and this essence is defined by an absolute infinity of relatively monadic essences that derive from it, putting the One (which i hold is nothing more than the All) in a mutual relationship to the world, because it gets its essence from the many and the many each have no independent essence but are interdependent with every other thing, its essence only being complete by evaluating its infinity of relations, which actually leads to an evaluation of the all, the unified essence of which is the One. Absolute infinity must be present in each thing, so the absolute infinity of things is compressed into a unit with a universally immanent essence. But this essence is meaningless without the infinity of things to be unified in it. The one and the many must exist simultaneously. Its a self existence that only appears circular when you try to separate them.

[Anonymous No.22098356]

>>22097229
I don’t understand. The point of language is to communicate experience, phenomena, etc., and metaphysics allows us to understand how experience is even possible, let alone intelligible. I’m not sure where the miscommunication is because on some level it seems like we agree, yet we’re somehow butting heads over what “the other anon” said?

[Anonymous No.22098436]

>>22098356
I'm removing metaphysics out of the equation here. We agree, I'd only point that the Categories and language are intimately related, I think there was an interpretation of Aristotle's Categories on this very point, that it was a treatise on language.

[Anonymous No.22098600]

>>22098436
We violently disagree on this point. If you remove the metaphysics then you have nothing. The categories are (or, at least, should be) ultimately derived from metaphysics. And language can’t be based on nothing. I don’t understand what makes you think this is a valid philosophical position.

[Anonymous No.22098644]

>>22098600
>And language can’t be based on nothing. I don’t understand what makes you think this is a valid philosophical position.
I agree with you, and this is something that I have noticed a lot in philosophical debates on here. Many anons seem very insistent on rejecting any notion of real metaphysical categories outside the mind, even when you show them why their position is nonsense. I think a lot of them see that is getting too close to religion and they simply refuse to go there. They're afraid of looking like a so-called "tradlarper" or somethig.

[Anonymous No.22098665]

>>22098644
>I think a lot of them see that is getting too close to religion and they simply refuse to go there.
anon why do you think they refuse?

[Anonymous No.22098685]

>>22098600
Languages are based on sense perception. The categories need linguistic means in order to form concepts. And taking advantage to answer to >>22098644, I will repeat that neither for Aristotle nor for Kant were the Categories entities. It doesn't even make sense to say that predicates and forms of the understanding are entities what the fuck.

[Anonymous No.22098686]

>>22098665
irrational and illogical devotion to scientism
https://youtu.be/8A7YE6b-crw

[Anonymous No.22098692]

>>22098644
>>22098665
>>22098685
>I think a lot of them see that is getting too close to religion and they simply refuse to go there
Forgot to address this point.
It is the very opposite. Metaphysics is nihilistic.

[Anonymous No.22098698]

>>22098686
this board has the reverse problem

[Anonymous No.22098713]

>>22098698
Rejection of scientism does not mean rejection of science.

[Anonymous No.22098853]

>>22098685
>Languages are based on sense perception.
this is false. There are many words that refer to objects that are not sensible. and also what even does grammar have do with sense perception? Imagine a grammaticaly correct logically consistent sentence using no words referring to objects of sense experience.

[Anonymous No.22098867]

>>22097197
>Why doesn't the Geist just eternally contemplate itself, why does Brahman cast Maya on itself instead of endlessly existing in infinite bliss, why did the One emanate?
The answer given by the last two traditions is that it is through overflowing infinitude. It wouldn't be all powerful or great if it just stayed confined to itself. Part of its virtuosity is overflowing and giving life to new beings.

[Anonymous No.22098873]

>>22098692
>Metaphysics is nihilistic.
only if you remain within the limits of normie consciousness. The aim is to ascend to a greater consciousness which can intuit the falsity of nihilism and see the Logos itself.

[Anonymous No.22098876]

>>22098853
>There are many words that refer to objects that are not sensible.
Debateable. It's true that some words refer to nothing, or a negation of sensible material. That doesn't imply that there is an object which is not sensible, though, just that some words are vacuous.
>and also what even does grammar have do with sense perception?
Grammar is the form which sense perception takes, or rather, the overarching form of perception is what becomes grammar. In reality, we have subject which act on objects. Grammar imitates reality (sometimes correctly, sometimes incorrectly).

[Anonymous No.22098901]

>>22098853
I'm not saying that languages are based on sense perception because they refer to sense objects. I'm saying that languages derive from sense data, much like the sacred. I give you even examples of theoria in Greek coming from sight perception. It is not by chance that the earliest formulations of language begin with poetry. Grammar is a much late development in the structure of communication, many grammatical rules are simply arbitrary, phonetically pleasing etc., far from any logical standpoint.
I'm curious now, what is a non sensible object?

[Anonymous No.22098914]

>>22098692
>Metaphysics is nihilistic
This is absolute nonsense but I bet you think it sounds really smart and profound lol

[Anonymous No.22098915]

>>22098901
>what is a non sensible object?
acts of pure thought

[Anonymous No.22098920]

>>22098436
>I think there was an interpretation of Aristotle's Categories on this very point, that it was a treatise on language.
Read Posterior Analytics. There's no reason it can't be both.

[Anonymous No.22098922]

>>22098873
I won't smoke dope, thank you.

[Anonymous No.22098927]

>>22098915
An act is not an object. But what is pure thought?

[Anonymous No.22098929]

>>22098665
because then you get called a schizo and told to take meds

[Anonymous No.22098931]

>>22098927
>An act is not an object.
Can an act not be observed? Are there not words that refer to acts?

>what is pure thought?
The form of thought, Logic.

[Anonymous No.22098935]

>>22098692
> It is the very opposite. Metaphysics is nihilistic.
… what?

[Anonymous No.22098941]

>>22098935
he's right.

[Anonymous No.22098942]

>>22098927
>An act is not an object. But what is pure thought?
Literally the first quote in the OP. Did no one read the OP?

[Anonymous No.22098945]

>>22098941
Prove it nominalist retard

[Anonymous No.22098947]

>>22098941
see >>22098873

[Anonymous No.22098951]

>>22098947
the logos is the principle the returns all things back to nothingness

[Anonymous No.22098954]

>>22098951
>nothingness
only from the standpoint of a finite human consciousness, refer back to >>22098873

[Anonymous No.22098958]

>>22098931
A non-sensible object is an observed act? You're becoming confusing for such a Logik sectarian.

>Logic
Logic is not separated from language. You're approaching what this pure thought of yours is reduced to.

[Anonymous No.22098959]

>>22098954
not possible faggot, the one is above intellect as well.

[Anonymous No.22098964]

>>22098941
>>22098951
based apophanon understands the impotence and barbarism of rational laws.

[Anonymous No.22098983]

>>22098959
>not possible faggot
only from the standpoint of the finite human intellect

[Anonymous No.22099016]

>>22098958
>Logic is not separated from language
I don't disagree, but the issue was whether language depended on sense experience and it doesn't, since logic is what it is independent of sense experience. In the beginning was the Word...

[Anonymous No.22099035]

>>22098436
>think there was an interpretation of Aristotle's Categories on this very point, that it was a treatise on language.
One of the reasons I struggled with the text so much was that I wasn't sure if it was or not. Made reading it a very confusing exercise.

[Anonymous No.22099040]

>>22098983
Good anon, now you should realize that this determination of intellect/reason/understanding is what Kant proposed, denying metaphysics.

[Anonymous No.22099053]

>>22099016
I showed you it does depend and did develop from it. Reason develops from language and as it grows it creates its own realm, which is logical. Both are sets of rules. Rules, which are normative, prescriptive: defining behavior and actions. Language gives the possibility for reason to develop (and later will impose its stringent character upon its source, clarifying that point about the relation between grammar and logic).

[Anonymous No.22099087]

>>22099040
>reason/understanding
these two are not the same

Reason (divine intellect) is always ahead of Understanding (finite human intellect). The issue is to approach that Divine intellect, which means we have to transcend the human intellect to do metaphysics scientifically. This is the crux of the issue: can the human intellect be improved indefinitely? The answer is always uncertain, and to answer in the affirmative is to have faith in the possibility of actualizing it and then to act on that faith through practices believed to improve and raise the intellect.

[Anonymous No.22099097]

>>22099053
>Reason develops from language
You have it backwards. The Logos was before finite human speech.

[Anonymous No.22099101]

>>22099087
I coalesced all three because it does not matter how you call it, nor your distinctions, but its competence.

[Anonymous No.22099105]

>>22099097
Logos means literally speech. The Logos is the Word.

[Anonymous No.22099108]

>>22099101
>does not matter how you call it
it does matter when a distinction exists, and it does exist. The understanding is finite, and distinctly human; reason is infinite, and the divine part in us.

[Anonymous No.22099118]

>>22099105
It means much than just speech, it is the Divine rational principle, the universal mind, beyond the limitations of finite and contingent human language and thought.

[Anonymous No.22099156]

>>22099105
isn't technically a Greek terminology meaning "knowledge"?

[Anonymous No.22099163]

>>22099118
you're an idiot. there is no divine cognition. the only types of cognition are retroductive, mathematical, and dialectical. you can't see with your brain like you can with sense organs. you just believe what you want to believe because it makes you feel special, like you have some secret ability.

[Anonymous No.22099173]

>>22099163
holy seethe. refer back to >>22098644

[Anonymous No.22099178]

>>22099173
is divine cognition in the room with us right now?

[Anonymous No.22099191]

>>22099163
>you can't see with your brain like you can with sense organs.
kek

>The universal does not exist externally to the outward eye as a universal. The kind as kind cannot be perceived: the laws of the celestial motions are not written on the sky. The universal is neither seen nor heard, its existence is only for the mind. Religion leads us to a universal, which embraces all else within itself, to an Absolute by which all else is brought into being: and this Absolute is an object not of the senses but of the mind and of thought.
-Encyclopedia Logic section 21

[Anonymous No.22099197]

>>22099191
this doesn't contradict me. there's no elitist divine intellect that somehow surpasses the barrier between intellect and the One. if intellect can "see" the absolute then it is by normal thought processes that everyone is heir to. hegel himself says that all language is "universal", so if you can understand language you can understand the absolute.

[Anonymous No.22099200]

>>22099156
>>22099118
It branched off into this meaning as well, but it was originally related to ''légo'' (I speak, call, I order). It is interesting to remember Heraclitus' Fragment 50: ''When you have listened not to me but to the Logos''.

[Anonymous No.22099209]

>>22099163
That anon is just repeating himself endlessly like uttering a mantra about metaphysics and the divine. No way to sincere dialogue.

>>22099191
This passage from Hegel doesn't even go against fideists. Kant shows precisely that the forms of understanding shape our understanding of the world without these forms existing externally to the outward eye.

[Anonymous No.22099259]

>>22099200
is it helpful to learn a good deal of Greek terminology in any way, shape or form?

[Anonymous No.22099263]

>>22099259
very

[Anonymous No.22099266]

>>22099163
You're like a blind man asserting that there is no sight. Not my problem.

[Anonymous No.22099274]

>>22099266
you're like a homosexual asserting that you know what a pussy looks like

[Anonymous No.22099284]

>>22099274
I have cum inside a pussy. It's also not as good nor important as incels claim it is.

[Anonymous No.22099286]

>>22099163
>you just believe what you want to believe because it makes you feel special, like you have some secret ability.
>t. doesn't know

[Anonymous No.22099299]

>>22099163
>The battle-field of these endless controversies is called
metaphysics.
>you're an idiot

Kant was right. Metaphysics is a battlefield. If metaphysical debate doesn't end in ad hominems you're not doing right.

[Anonymous No.22099308]

Can you define metaphisycs?

[Anonymous No.22099314]

>>22099308
mathematics deals with purely hypothetical truths
empirical science deals with truths that are conditioned by certain observations
metaphysics, then, is neither conditioned nor hypothetical. its deals with eternal truths.

[Anonymous No.22099316]

>>22099308
>Metaphysics is the science of the first principles in human knowledge

[Anonymous No.22099325]

I'm interested in metaphysics . Where should I begin?

[Anonymous No.22099329]

>>22099325

[Anonymous No.22099340]

>>22099284
is it though really? how would you know considering your anus is inflamed to the brim with the aftereffects of GRIDS?

>>22099163
okay mr. science guy, what is the origin of consciousness? when it did it appear in higher animals?

[Anonymous No.22099349]

>>22099340
>what is the origin of consciousness?
first of all you're using the word consciousness incorrectly, based on its idiotic usage in the translation of hindu words. consciousness means "knowing together" and it's a high level organizing principle of thought that leads to the self. it is posterior to non-dual experience. consciousness presupposes experience but experience does not presuppose consciousness. every animal experiences the same way a human does, they may simply not have so much organization and remembrance of it in youthful brainparts that undergo complex semiotic processes.

[Anonymous No.22099355]

>>22099349
>every animal experiences the same way a human does
and you just pulled this straight out of your ass. kys.

[Anonymous No.22099362]

>>22099349
>based on its idiotic usage in the translation of hindu words.
so you're a jeet? it all makes sense now

[Anonymous No.22099364]

>>22099355
mammals have similar biology, if experience is produced by the brain then they should have similar experience. your own level of consciousness can modulate and you can perceive colors without really being conscious that you are perceiving them, so there's no reason animals shouldn't be able to do the same. I don't see why that was the part of my post that offended you so

[Anonymous No.22099373]

>>22099362
no, I just think the translation "consciousness" is stupid and when I was exploring different translations I was baffled that they all used it. the word has been bastardized, which causes a lot of confusion. I try to use the term how I believe Leibniz used it.

[Anonymous No.22099513]

>>22099349
I didn't ask you.

[Anonymous No.22099761]

Female here, what makes any of this more believable than normal christianity or something like Plotinus. It’s just a convoluted mess. What difference does it make when you belief this instead? You aren’t going to live different

[Anonymous No.22099844]

>>22099325
The Greeks

[Anonymous No.22100090]

>>22099761
You’re right but it doesn’t matter.

[Anonymous No.22100179]

>>22099761
ywnbaw

[Anonymous No.22100196]

>>22099209
>No way to sincere dialogue.
there can't be dialogue when neither party can agree on their principles. You either have achieved direct knowledge of supersensible reality and can engage in dialogue on metaphysics, or you havn't and all you can do is shut up and listen or be a smug midwit and seethe like>>22099163

[Anonymous No.22100233]

>>22099761
christianity would conclude in complete devotion to Christ and Plotinus has shades of difference in ontology and a large ignorance of the principles of evil, so, much must be supplanted via gnostic and late neoplatonic canon. read more and stop trying to do snarky meta-commentary on why you think metaphysics is useless. they do lead to different living in the world, also: ywnbaw

[Anonymous No.22100607]

>>22100196
>You either have achieved direct knowledge of supersensible reality and can engage in dialogue on metaphysics
This is the point you will never admit. This direct knowledge is not demonstrable and thus fails the PSR which you take as something that is not knowledge, you can call it whatever you want, this is not reason speaking and is much closer to faith.

[Anonymous No.22100615]

>>22085207
Any good reading on how to *do* phenomenology? I am reading Heideggers lecture on the problems, anything better or shorter?

[Anonymous No.22101536]

squee

[Anonymous No.22103002]

>>22100615
Look for a thesis with that sort of approach

[Anonymous No.22103007]

>>22100615
Its all pointless and founded on an illusory folk psychology.

[Anonymous No.22104355]

>>22098867
Why does it overflow? What emptiness exists beside itself that it may overflow into if it is all that exists? Why is it necessary for it to be "great" or "powerful" by your definition?

[Anonymous No.22104737]

>>22104355
If it is infinite you can only sense infinity.
It overflows at the subject-object perspective, if you are a part of a whole you are not the totality so you your experience depents of your capability to perceive just a fragtion (fractal illusion) or the vision of the whole of it (gnosis)

[Anonymous No.22104924]

>>22104737
>It overflows at the subject-object perspective

That doesn't explain why it overflows in the first place, that is already an effect after it overflowed, the division of subject and object.

[Anonymous No.22104963]

>>22104924
A perfect balance does not overflows and if the scope of the balance you do not know then it is pointless to doubt

[Anonymous No.22104964]

>>22104737
But it is infinite and perfect and all, by overflowing it becomes also a part, finite? How can it be both perfect and imperfect at the same time?

[Anonymous No.22104973]

>>22104963
That is the thing, the balance just decided to unbalance.

[Anonymous No.22105009]

>>22104973
The balance of who? If the important parts are returned, what is lost?

[Anonymous No.22105014]

anyone who seriously invests time into this shit is a pseud

[Anonymous No.22105106]

>>22105009
Parts are definite and limited. The all, whole, perfect becomes imperfect, conditioned.

[Anonymous No.22105119]

>>22105014
>t. midwit

[Anonymous No.22105126]

>>22105106
What if the parts are all connected but only the parts do not know about it?

Besides everything returns to factory after playtime is over.

[Anonymous No.22105157]

>>22085207
The thing-in-itself is itself in the thing.
I will not elaborate.

[Anonymous No.22105675]

>>22105119
my IQ is 136

[Anonymous No.22105692]

>>22105675
that means you're a midwit, anon. not that these germoid worshipping pseuds are any better.

[Anonymous No.22105710]

>>22105675
>my IQ is 136

[Anonymous No.22105844]

>>22085223
>Irrelevent
average /mg/ay

[Anonymous No.22105866]

>>22099761
>Female here
We know.

[Anonymous No.22105873]

>>22105014
>caring about the label of a pseud

>>22105675
you're retarded at using your IQ

[Anonymous No.22105886]

>>22098692
>Metaphysics is nihilistic
lmfao

it's at level of assessments that come way before assumptions needed to establish a nihilistic position

[Anonymous No.22106299]

>>22105886
Nihilism does not arise by giving up on thinking about things lmao. It can be led to by thinking about these metaphysical assessments.

[Anonymous No.22106839]

Why do philosophers use “we” instead of “I” when discussing things? Kant seems to do it nonstop

[Anonymous No.22106888]

>>22106839
not telling

[Anonymous No.22107111]

>>22106839
It includes the multitude of all former selfs, current self and future selfs. In Kant's case though it represents a universal community of reason that would necessarily have to agree with whatever he says when using the 'we' card .

[Anonymous No.22107124]

>>22106299
>Nihilism does not arise by giving up on thinking about things lmao. It can be led to by thinking about these metaphysical assessments
this is correct and doesn't contradict my post

[Anonymous No.22107431]

>>22107124
You posited a divide between assessing and assuming a nihilistic position.

[Anonymous No.22107612]

>>22085535
Infinite substances pluralism.