/lit/ - Literature

>>21625677
>The physical forces of this world insofar as they devolve into so many fleeting moments of appearance require the understanding to posit another world of fixed laws as the invisible essence of the former. In the third phase of explanation though, these fixed and motionless laws find themselves perverted by a strange type of motion if you will, where they are met with a second type of Platonic realm which reduplicates the first Platonic realm of law but in an inverted form. The topsy-turvy world as it is called shows that the stable principles of law really are as unstable as the flux of forces which they tried to ground. At this point however, we realise that the topsy-turvy world really does exist: it's simply the world which we already live in for our world really does have both a north and a south pole to use Hegel's own example and both the sweet and the sour taste.
Can you explain this? It is making me feel like a brainlet. Also did Marx just have a poor understanding of Hegel?

>Jessi

Any of you plan on gettin a job this year

>not being misogynistic though
Why not? You fucking gay?

>Choosing to write a "brainless romance" story because they are so fucking dumb it feels like it's easy
>It isn't
Some people is digging it, but I always feel I'm about to lose my audience.
If I just write masturbatory romance, it's boring. If I take too long to get to masturbatory romance, it's boring. If I don't give enough personality to my characters it gets boring, If I write too much about my characters it gets boring.
But somehow, some people just eat it up.

>>20965841
>The auspice of posting here is anathema

>>18372416
>>18372371
>>18372360
>Having defined ‘solid’ that which is material, it is evident that he does not want to define the eternal vehicle of the soul as ‘solid’, because it is not three-dimensional, but flat, because it is thin and immaterial, and this is the reason he urges us to ‘not deepen the surface’ and not to make it earthly and damp through a filthy life.

>>17824804
How can I be a retard if it's a well known fact that everyone's a retard but me, retard?

>deskmate

>>16727767
Trips and i read another 5 pages.

SOCRATES: We have recently been informed that Clitophon the son of
Aristonymos, in discussion with Lysias, has been criticizing the conversations
and speeches of Socrates, while greatly praising the instruction of Thrasymachus.

CLITOPHON: Whoever told you that, Socrates, misrepresented what I said
to Lysias about you. Though it’s true that I didn’t praise you for some
things, I did praise you for others. Since you’re obviously scolding me
right now, though you’re pretending you don’t care, I’d be very glad to
tell you myself what I said—especially since we happen to find ourselves
alone—so you won’t so readily suppose that I have anything against you.
In fact, you probably didn’t hear the truth, which is why I think you’re
being needlessly hard on me. So if you’d let me speak freely, I’d gladly
do so—I want to tell you what I said.

SOCRATES: By all means; it would be shameful for me not to submit to
you when your intention is to help me; for clearly, once I know my good
and bad points, I will make it my practice to pursue and develop the
former while ridding myself of the latter to the extent that I am able.

CLITOPHON: Listen, then. Socrates, when I was associating with you I
was often struck with amazement by what you said. You appeared to me
to rise above all other men with your magnificent speeches when you
reproached mankind and, like a god suspended above the tragic stage,
chanted the following refrain:

O mortals, whither are you borne? Do you not realize that you
are doing none of the things you should?! You men spare no
pains in procuring wealth for yourselves, but you neither see to it
that your sons, to whom you are leaving this wealth, should know
how to use it justly, nor do you find them teachers of justice (if
justice can be taught), nor anybody to exercise and train them adequately
(if it is acquired by exercise and training)—nor indeed
have you started by undergoing such treatment yourselves!

>learning language with anki and "comprehensible input"
>forget 90% of what i learned the next day
>go to /int/ and be racist in the general thread for that language
>remember every word i learned forever

>in Kashmir Shaivism, activity is also ascribed to ātman, who is not inert, but in possession of the five-fold actions of creation, maintenance, dissolution, occultation, and grace.

literally neoplatonism

>>16495251
2.
In the same way, then, if the thing that is to receive repeatedly throughout its
whole self the likenesses of the intelligible objects, the things which always are—
if it is to do so successfully, then it ought to be devoid of any inherent
characteristics of its own. This, of course, is the reason why we shouldn’t
call the mother or receptacle of what has come to be, of what is visible or
perceivable in every other way, either earth or air, fire or water, or any of
their compounds or their constituents. But if we speak of it as an invisible
b and characterless sort of thing, one that receives all things and shares in
a most perplexing way in what is intelligible, a thing extremely difficult
to comprehend, we shall not be misled.

If you want even more basic
>David the Invincible Commentary on Porphyry’s Isagoge
I guess another advice, is to go chronologically (after the introductions they themselves wrote).
Because Aristotle is a response to Plato, Skeptics are a response to Aristotle and Plato (covered by Sextus Empiricus), Alexander of Aphrodisias is a bigger autist than Aristotle so he read Plato and Aristotle too literally and thus rejected Plato (a proto-anglo), Plotinus and the Proto-Neoplatonists (Maximus of Tyre, and Alcinousm Corpus Hermeticum) are responses to all of these (especially Alexander); Porphyry is an attempt to rationalize Plotinus sometimes confusing statements; Iamblichus is a response to Porphyry, the TL;DR being: "NO, NO it is intentional Porphyry, reason cannot reach beyond Intellect" (at least not alone); then we have Dexippus (the philosopher) who merely transcribed Iamblichus' and Porphyry's ideas and some of the others' views (necessary to understand them, also a nice dialogue easy to follow); then we have 150 years of Syncretism of Platonism everyone (especially Christianity) + Julian, also Gnostics become less gay and write more correct stuff like Three Stelae of Seth; then Plutarch, Syrianus, and Proclus step onto the scene, Proclus wrote thousands upon thousands of still extant pages (you can put Syrianus as co-author of most of them), and nicely systematized Iamblichus, but rejected his most important claim (the above TL;DR, aka the twofold One, which one can see glimpses of in Corpus Hermeticum, Iamblichus we now know has been proven right by the last centuries of Egyptology). Proclus wrote for 40+ years one can miss that in his latter writings (like the Theology of Plato and Commentary on the Parmenides) he did embrace the more paradoxical. After Proclus, "Neoplatonism" has a revival thanks to Isadore's and Damascius' "pro-life can-do attitude" and we get an explosion of Exegetical writings: Simplicius, Olympiodorus, David and Elias, Ammonius, Philoponus, Priscian, and the "Christian" Pseudo-Dionysiusm even Boethius can be counted from among these and likely studied with them.
Once Damascius completed German Idealism his successors mostly just did introductory and more simpler basic exegetical works, why you can read them first (Simplicius and Olymipodorus), I'd even recommend reading Simplicius before Aristotle and Plato desu.
But Justinian had to kill what would have restored Hellenism.

Then there's Eriugena later, who unknowingly rebuilds the later-neoplatonic system through its christian epigones (like Maximus the Confessor and heresy teasing Gregory of Nyssa).

On Power: The Natural History of Its Growth, 1948
The Ethics of Redistribution, 1951
Sovereignty: An Inquiry into the Political Good, 1957
The Pure Theory of Politics, 1963

High quality writing! Spontaneous! Fun for the whole spectrum!