/lit/ - Literature

>>10227193
Escapism from the absurdity of the world.

Read Myth of Sisyphus. unironically.

>>10227193
>thing-in-itself
>supernatural
>related

fear

>>10227207
Came to post this

>>10227193
The mind is a mirror with no reflection

The other alternative is to reject the notion that its object is accessible, which then leaves philosophy/religion largely useless.

>>10227330
The perceived is a reflection of the perceiver.

>>10227193

Because man is a thing half way between beast and god. A thing in endless pursuit of that which is not of itself. Seeking to know more, to grow more, to be more, every single day. It's no coincidence that for as long as man has been, he's been building ever more complex things, learning ever more complex ideas and seeking ever more complex experiences.

This is the fundamental problem with religion. It teaches a thing of becoming to abandon its goals and settle. Our inability to appreciate what we have now is our greatest strength, because it pushes us towards tomorrow. I fully believe that no man would truly enjoy heaven. It's why religions had to invent the concept of divine punishment. Man can't be coaxed with promises of happiness, he must be scared into it by the fear that it's impossible. If left to his own devices he would surely try and build heaven of his own accord, independent of the Divine, and hence hell had to be created.

>>10227193
having lack of access or exhaustion of material hedonism people go for immaterial hedonism

>>10227207
Isn't it an embrace of absurdity? The thing-in-itself is absurd to reason. Mysticism embraces this absurdism and our embeddedness in the word.

>>10227641
No. Stop. Read the book. Don't watch School of Life on YouTube. Please.

Mysticism inherently indulges in the belief that there is a god in the first place, thing-in-itself, should be formalised first and should be more than an abstract symbol which is confined to referentiality based purely on lingual notions.

Embracing the absurd has very little to do with god. It leans heavily on being anti-foundationalist, on every notion that claims to allow life to have a purpose, such are only illusions and escapism from the incoherency of the actual world we feel in the phenomena. Embracing the absurd would be akin to saying fuck it to any pre-ordained or even self-given meaning, to embrace it is the rebellion of the highest order for you declare that despite any notions of grandeur, any illusions to meaning, they are merely the symbolic and rarely ever the formalised version of the "Real".

>>10227193
>pic
That's one of the most underrated William Blakes

>>10228147
But what if you think being antifoundational is absurd in a stupid way? Like you going to stop speaking your common tongue or disobey the law because it's pre-ordained by others? You refuse to make art because it's self-given meaning? Shouldn't we say the thing-in-itself is beyond non-meaning as well as meaning? You don't know it doesn't have meaning, you yourself are putting it in a negative box instead of an agnostic box.

Moreover, if you think mysticism is about formalism and symbolism you are sorely mistaken. You are missing the moon for the finger.

>>10227193
because that was the original impetus for those things - to unite with the origin. to go full circle back to the start point is to run the infinite gamut, all 360 degrees of the circle until you reach home base