Who has seen the deepest of all?

[Anonymous No.22845158]

Who has come the closest to absolute truth?

Plato? The abrahamics? Modern physicists? Hermetics? Gnostics?

[Anonymous No.22845172]

>>22845158
Define "truth"

[Anonymous No.22845173]

>>22845158
Pessoa

[Anonymous No.22845175]

>>22845158
Me

[Anonymous No.22845177]

i did im god yall not evn real btw

[Anonymous No.22845185]

>>22845158
Idk man I like Kant and Aristotle a lot though

[Anonymous No.22845188]

>>22845175
This anon

[Anonymous No.22845211]

>>22845158
Secular humanism, anon! Embrace the science!

[Anonymous No.22845233]

>>22845158
Plato: not particularly fond of him

[Anonymous No.22845245]

>>22845175
Yeah, this guy pretty much figured it out.

[Anonymous No.22845257]

Carl Jung got the closest to the absolute human condition

[Anonymous No.22845267]

>>22845158
probably jesus at the moment of his death
"Eli, Eli, Lama Sabachthani?"

[schizochaser No.22845298]

>>22845172
that which exists even if you stop believing in it


that which defines the rest. As physics defines chemistry, As chemistry defines ourselves, as we define greater egregores and dreams still.

What lay at the bottom of things?

[schizochaser No.22845315]

>>22845175
based

[Anonymous No.22845330]

>>22845158
Hegel haha jk jk

[Anonymous No.22845336]

>>22845158
Amos

[Anonymous No.22845398]

>>22845158
Plotinus, i.e neoplatonism or you can check out ancient indian philosophy advita vedanta, the upanishads, they say the same thing just in a different language.

[Anonymous No.22845401]

Jordan Peterson.

[Anonymous No.22845403]

>>22845158
Ronald McDonald

[Anonymous No.22845409]

>>22845158
God
And no-one else.

[schizochaser No.22845428]

>>22845409
How may i learn my earned share of gods truth?

[Anonymous No.22845429]

>>22845158
How would we know?

[Anonymous No.22845464]

>>22845409
Then why is God so selfish ? Why doesn't he share the truth with us ?

[Anonymous No.22845489]

>>22845158
retard

[Anonymous No.22845555]

>>22845158
Chris Langan

[Anonymous No.22845560]

>>22845158
Leopardi, Steiner, Fulcanelli, Pico della Mirandola, Holderlin, St. Catherine of Siena, Plotinus.

That's it.

[Anonymous No.22845561]

Karl Pilkington

[Anonymous No.22845601]

[Anonymous No.22847128]

>>22845158
Probably a lot of people that had an equally deep understanding of it all, just with different semantics and points of view

[Anonymous No.22847144]

Arthur de Gobineau made a comprehensive study of the human species as a whole.

[Anonymous No.22847194]

>>22845158
Wittgenstein. He saw there was almost nothing to see, and what there was to see you couldn't speak of.

[Anonymous No.22847202]

>>22845158
William Blake and Carl Jung

[Anonymous No.22847229]

>>22845267
It was a reference to one of the Psalms

[Anonymous No.22847237]

>>22847128
We just need to puzzle shit together

[Anonymous No.22847266]

>>22845158
Jonathan H. Smith, better known by his stage name Lil Jon.

[Anonymous No.22847279]

>>22845560
This anon knows.

[Anonymous No.22847320]

>>22845158
Andrew Tate.

[Anonymous No.22847330]

>>22845560
Of all these names I'm only familiar with holderlin and yet I know you are correct.

[Anonymous No.22847341]

>>22845175
Him.

[Anonymous No.22847595]

>>22845257
probably this

[Anonymous No.22847704]

>>22845158
Plato, Plotinus, Nietzsche, Jung, and just in general schizophrenics, but not the paranoid schizos who think people are stalking them, the other more profound kind that sees God.

[Anonymous No.22847750]

>>22845158
Primal messianists

[Anonymous No.22847764]

>>22845158
John the Evangelist.

[࿇ I V S E I ࿇ !!GgBWHLRiayD No.22848356]

>>22845158


Catholics: gnostic & theistic philosophers & theologians; warchiefs, and artprinces, at their personal best.

Christic reason is a train ticket to one's spiritual imagination, and a boarding pass to one's mystical body.

[࿇ I V S E I ࿇ !!GgBWHLRiayD No.22848364]

>>22845158


Excellent Catholics: gnostic & theistic philosophers & theologians; warchiefs, and artprinces, at their personal best.

Christic reason is a train ticket to one's spiritual imagination, and a boarding pass to one's mystical body.

[Anonymous No.22848367]

>>22845158
They.

[Anonymous No.22848371]

>>22845158
goofy ass question

[Anonymous No.22848379]

>>22845177
Aristotle mogs you and didn't just spin the wheels. But that also makes him kind of a jerk

[Anonymous No.22848393]

>>22845158
Celine.

[Anonymous No.22848402]

>>22845158
All humans died. Truth is just a tool for survival and reproduction, so how can any man stand far above the rest? Inventors arguably saw more than philosophers, since they actually advanced their society the most.

[Anonymous No.22848446]

>>22845185
I took philosophy in college and Kant was the only philosopher that made an impact on me namely that you can't disprove the existence of God and the categorical imperative.

[Anonymous No.22848461]

>>22848446
>you should follow the categorical imperative because… you just should OK?!
read a real book. Like any evolutionary biology book.

[Anonymous No.22848477]

>>22845158
rupi kaur

[Anonymous No.22848483]

>>22845175
I kneel

[Anonymous No.22848492]

>>22848461
Do you mean something like
>On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life

[Anonymous No.22848501]

>>22848492
have fun

[Anonymous No.22848503]

>>22845158
Rudolph Steiner.

[Anonymous No.22848506]

>>22848501
No thanks I'm done with jewish wizardry.

[Anonymous No.22848558]

>>22845158
The Kabbalah

[Anonymous No.22848578]

>>22845173
please elaborate, anon

[Anonymous No.22848584]

>>22848506
koolaid has many flavors

[Anonymous No.22848601]

These are all relative truths. If you want the absolute try the Buddha, Krishnamurti or Osho.

[Anonymous No.22848881]

>>22848446
Schopenhauer refuted Kant's categorical imperative.

[Anonymous No.22849053]

Plato, Plotinus, Boethius, Schelling, and Nietzsche. Absolute geniuses.

[Anonymous No.22849221]

>>22845158
Who has come the closest to absolute truth?
Plato, The abrahamics, Modern physicists, Hermetics and Gnostics to name a few.

Plato's timaeus.
Pythagoras, at least the legendary/mythological perception of what he knew.
There's a number of math geniuses mentioned in Stella Maris.
Carl Jung's Aion.

There's certain things you read and they are like a lit match in the desert night and you realize there is much out in the darkness

[Anonymous No.22849718]

>>22845158
lao tzu
nietzsche
carl sagan

[Anonymous No.22849955]

>>22845158
Adi Shankara

[Anonymous No.22850023]

>>22848501
his theory really isn't that mindblowing

[Anonymous No.22850040]

Wittgenstein, and everyone else has been trying to return to metaphysics as a cope.

[Anonymous No.22850054]

>>22849053
>dat frequency separation
JUST

[Anonymous No.22850109]

Unironically the postmodernist

[Anonymous No.22851019]

>>22845158
Why is Kramer so sad?

[Anonymous No.22851443]

>>22847194
>>22850040
Philosophers have really never recovered from this, they have just decided to move on and pretend Wittgenstein didn't completely wreck them forever. But it really is all over for philosocels. Indeed, it never even started.

[Anonymous No.22851540]

>>22845158
Unironically Socrates because he truly understood how limited human knowledge is

picrel

>>22845561
Close second

>>22845173
If being self aware is what you consider absolute truth then sure

[Anonymous No.22851545]

>>22847266
WHAT?!
OKAAYYY!!
yeAHHH!!

[Anonymous No.22851562]

The Bible and subsequent thousand years of apologetics and theology imo

[Anonymous No.22851655]

>>22851443
Can you explain what he did to me in a simple way? I'm a pleb but curious

[Anonymous No.22851717]

>>22851655
if I tell you that I saw a nice car today you will probably have a different image in your head than what I actually saw

[Anonymous No.22851767]

>>22851655
It's sort of a meme, but Wittgenstein made a systematic critique of philosophy through analysis of language, and demonstrating that most of the words we use for philosophical argument don't refer to anything - can't refer to anything - and so what looks like deep philosophical argument is at best an argument about the definition of words, but more probably "nonsense". In general not only is the debate ambiguous, it's unambiguously not even an argument.

He moved away from the "early" analytic/linguistic position of the Tractatus (that's mostly what I'm talking about here), but while the later Wittgenstein is less easy to summarize, he's basically pursuing the same program, and his critiques of philosophy and philosophers don't get any gentler. Wittgenstein was definitely at least half crazy so read him critically, but he was also extremely sharp and had a real talent for cutting situations down to size in very few words. He didn't like philosophers - he hated them, and discouraged his students from becoming philosophers - so it's no surprise that he's not currently very popular, but he's still very much worth reading and reading about. One of the true characters in the history of philosophy.

[Anonymous No.22851775]

>>22845158
Schopenhauer. You'll all see soon enough, just give it enough time. Things are gonna turn ugly in the future when the realization hits for everyone, I didn't want him to be right but it doesn't matter what I like.

[Anonymous No.22851802]

>>22851443
t. has never read Severino and therefore thinks Autisticstein is some hot shit

[Anonymous No.22851880]

>>22845158
>Gnostics
I feel like they were genuinely onto something. They showed up very quickly after the founding of Christianity, spread like wildfire, then were hunted to extinction for "heresy". Big coverup energy by the church.

[Anonymous No.22851896]

>>22851767
Wittgenstein's later philosophy is basically just finished Kantianism. In his early philosophy he did it within logic, but then realized logic itself needed to be autocritiqued, so "backed up" as far as he could go, into language, or really into our experience of meaningful thought and communication, which for us is inseparable from language. He didn't know where to go from there, he just knew he was right (because he was) that "epistemology" in the modern sense inevitably culminates in the kind of pragmatic scepticism at which he finally arrived, along with several others.

Of course, all this is the result of modern categories of knowledge not allowing for mystical or nondual experience, so one can just begin exploring those while also accepting the humbling of ordinary knowledge undertaken by Kant and Wittgenstein and many others.

[Anonymous No.22851925]

>>22851896
You are philosophically illiterate. Please go back to Plato and work your way up from there.

[Anonymous No.22852220]

>>22845158
borges
vedas

[Anonymous No.22852278]

remember that episode of Always Sunny in Philly where Dee couldn't tell if her white rapper boyfriend was legitimately retarded?
I was just xmas shopping at Walmart and half the people there shopping and talking to each other talked like that, I believe peoples natural state is half retarded. everyone was like a mutated form of what a "human" should be
Is it the miscegenation? The GMO seed oils?
I don't know, but "people" are almost all now a mutated form, That I cannot define.

[Anonymous No.22852297]

>>22848503
Quick rundown?

[Anonymous No.22852537]

>>22851925
Make a substantive critique or you are a woman. Your post is empty.

[Anonymous No.22852540]

>>22851775
share some of his predictions

[Anonymous No.22852689]

>>22848367
My idols in one photo. What a dopamine hit

[Anonymous No.22852997]

Da Vinci

[Anonymous No.22853016]

>>22845158
The dead

[Anonymous No.22853093]

>>22845257
The absolute state of the human condition

[Anonymous No.22853366]

>>22845158
I have the feeling that it may be Plato with his ideas... that would make the most sense at least...
but who knows

[Anonymous No.22853383]

I've seen the deepest, after I looked at your mom's pussy

[Anonymous No.22853637]

>>22852540
Well because of the will that is a unquenchable thirst that can't be satisfied fully, people will go mad and start civil wars, robbing, mental illness and suicide will rise, more aggression towards big superpowers etc, shit thats happening now but on fucking steroids'. I'm fucking scared of his prediction and feel like we can be better than this.

[Anonymous No.22853873]

>>22851767
He sounds pretty based. I hate philosophical debates on metaphysics and a lot of the time discourse never agrees on set definitions.

[Anonymous No.22853932]

>>22853873
metaphysics itself is a schizo shitshow anyways, physics is 100 times more believable considering how bullshit it is nowadays.

[Anonymous No.22853936]

I'm in doubt between Hermetics and Gnostics.

[Cult of Passion No.22853939]

>>22845175
I stand.

[Cult of Passion No.22853941]

>>22853932
>believable
Notice, thread, how he didnt say verifiable, but whether or not he beliefs it. Like how someone beliefs a snakeoil salesman who made a sale and a friend at the same time.
:^)

[Anonymous No.22854192]

>>22845158
alfred tarski

[Anonymous No.22855370]

>>22845158

Peter Watts

[Anonymous No.22855446]

>>22853873
He's good, but the Tractatus is extremely strict in what it allows as "sayable" - basically physics (and kind of math although strictly speaking it's all tautological and therefore contentless). After proving the impossibility of philosophy it proves the impossibility of its own argument about the impossibly of philosophy, and ends with silence. So it's a weird book, and by its own admission you can't take it as an actual argument. To some degree he walked it back later, but the same ideas reappear in his later work, which contains a lot of silence as well.

[Anonymous No.22855454]

Friedrich Nietzsche