/lit/ - Literature

>>13542305
you and I both know you can't expound upon either of these thinkers' systems in any more detail than this fatuous meme

EXPLAIN BERGSON TO ME OR I'LL FUCKING KILL YOU! DON'T DUMB IT DOWN INTO SOME VAGUE SHIT! EXPLAIN BERGSON TO ME RIGHT NOW OR I'LL LITERALLY FUCKING KILL YOu! WHAT THE FUCK IS DURATION? WHAT THE FUCK IS CREATIVE EVOLUTION? DON'T DUMB IT DOWN OR I'LL FUCKING KILL YOU

So is Bergson the meme philosopher of the month now

>>13542305
>solves reality as productive process
*sorry guys, ahem**

>>13542349
The duration of each flash in the pan is getting progressively shorter, so maybe. The Great Klages Epoch lasted about 4 days. As long as someone shallowly shitposts about Bergson and two other people post spinoff threads going "where do i start with Bergson?" that get one or two half-informed replies before dying, The Bergson Epoch will fit the graph of the progression and become part of /lit/ history forever.

More important is what the next phase is, now that we're at the point of total entropic decay. Will people just make single-word posts like "Mirandola" and "Creuzer?" What is the lowest energy state of lazy /lit/ shitposting with no intent to actually read anything? Does someone still have to reply "creuzer is based" or "where start w/ creuzer," or is a single "creuzer" mention enough to qualify as a concrete moment in the post-positronic eternal darkness of /lit/? Or will we loop around again to the beginning, from pure derivative nothingness to an act of pure creation, with someone posting the next epoch-making work of philosophy right on /lit/ itself?

I'm excited to see what happens two days from now.

>>13542381
have sex

tried bergson last year writing was kind of a challenge reminded me of kant am i wrong? only did a few hours one day

>>13542305
where to start with Burgerson?

Bergson

Plotinus
therefore
Bergson

>>13542305
The same trend is noticeable in the scientific realm: research here is for its own sake far more than for the partial and fragmentary results it achieves; here we see an ever more rapid succession of unfounded theories and hypotheses, no sooner set up than crumbling to give way to others that will have an even shorter life— a veritable chaos amid which one would search in vain for anything definitive, unless it be a monstrous accumulation of facts and details incapable of proving or signifying anything. We refer here of course to speculative science, insofar as this still exists; in applied science there are on the contrary undeniable results, and this is easily understandable since these results bear directly on the domain of matter, the only domain in which modern man can boast any real superiority. It is therefore to be expected that discoveries, or rather mechanical and industrial inventions, will go on developing and multiplying more and more rapidly until the end of the present age; and who knows if, given the dangers of destruction they bear in themselves, they will not be one of the chief agents in the ultimate catastrophe, if things reach a point at which this cannot be averted?

Be that as it may, one has the general impression that, in the present state of things, there is no longer any stability; but while there are some who sense the danger and try to react to it, most of our contemporaries are quite at ease amid this confusion, in which they see a kind of exteriorized image of their own mentality. Indeed there is an exact correspondence between a world where everything seems to be in a state of mere ‘becoming’, leaving no place for the changeless and the permanent, and the state of mind of men who find all reality in this ‘becoming’, thus implicitly denying true knowledge as well as the object of that knowledge, namely transcendent and universal principles. One can go even further and say that it amounts to the negation of all real knowledge whatsoever, even of a relative order, since, as we have shown above, the relative is unintelligible and impossible without the absolute, the contingent without the necessary, change without the unchanging, and multiplicity without unity; ‘relativism’ is self-contradictory, for, in seeking to reduce everything to change, one logically arrives at a denial of the very existence of change; this was fundamentally the meaning of the famous arguments of Zeno of Elea.

>>13543190
However, we have no wish to exaggerate and must add that theories such as these are not exclusively encountered in modern times; examples are to be found in Greek philosophy also, the ‘universal flux’ of Heraclitus being the best known; indeed, it was this that led the school of Elea to combat his conceptions, as well as those of the atomists, by a sort of reductio ad absurdum. Even in India, something comparable can be found, though, of course, considered from a different point of view from that of philosophy, for Buddhism also developed a similar character, one of its essential theses being the ‘dissolubility of all things ’. These theories, however, were then no more than exceptions, and such revolts against the traditional outlook, which may well have occurred from time to time throughout the whole of the Kali-Yuga, were, when all is said and done, without wider influence; what is new is the general acceptance of such conceptions that we see in the West today.

It should be noted too that under the influence of the very recent idea of ‘progress’, ‘philosophies of becoming’ have, in modern times, taken on a special form that theories of the same type never had among the ancients: this form, although it may have multiple varieties, can be covered in general by the name ‘evolutionism’. We need not repeat here what we have already said elsewhere on this subject; we will merely recall the point that any conception allowing for nothing other than ‘becoming’ is thereby necessarily a ‘naturalistic’ conception, and, as such, implies a formal denial of whatever lies beyond nature, in other words the realm of metaphysics— which is the realm of immutable and eternal principles. We may point out also, in speaking of these anti-metaphysical theories, that the Bergonian idea of pure duration’ corresponds exactly with that dispersion in instantaneity to which we alluded above; a pretended intuition modeled on the ceaseless flux of the things of the senses, far from being able to serve as an instrument for obtaining true knowledge, represents in reality the dissolution of all possible knowledge.

>>13542305
>bergson
>solves
stopped reading right there. anyone who took kant literally and tried to add to the critique via toy concepts like “memory” is a literal retarded in my book.

>>13543199
This leads us to repeat an essential point on which not the slightist ambiguity must be allowed to persist: intellectual intuition, by which alone metaphysical knowledge is to be obtained, has absolutely nothing in common with this other ‘intuition’ of which certain contemporary philosophers speak: the latter pertains to the sensible realm and in fact is sub-rational, whereas the former, which is pure intelligence, is on the contrary supra-rational. But the moderns, knowing nothing higher than reason in the order of intelligence, do not even conceive of the possibility of intellectual intuition, whereas the doctrines of the ancient world and of the Middle Ages, even when they were no more than philosophical in character, and therefore incapable of effectively calling this intuition into play, nevertheless explicitly recognized its existence and its supremacy over all the other faculties. This is why there was no rationalism before Descartes, for rationalism is a specifically modern phenomenon, one that is closely connected with individualism, being nothing other than the negation of any faculty of a supra- individual order. As long as Westerners persist in ignoring or denying intellectual intuition, they can have no tradition in the true sense of the word, nor can they reach any understanding with the authentic representatives of the Eastern civilizations, in which everything, so to speak, derives from this intuition, which is immutable and infallible in itself, and the only starting-point for any development in conformity with traditional norms

BERGSON BTFO

>>13542305
Bergson vs Whitehead
Who wins?

>>13542381
Reddit space fag fuckj off ffaggot

>>13543240
Bergson

>>13542381
kek based

>>13543190
>>13543199
>>13543205
reddit: the copypasta

>>13543240
Whitehead, prolly.

>>13543861
>>13544972
Who was in the right here?

>>13546486
Bergson

>>13546486

guenon
u
e
n
o
n

>>13542871
What do you mean? I'm interested in that connection, too

>>13546675
Following a monist reading of Empedocles, Plotinus believed that love was incorporeal while strife has corporeality I guess here we mean in an apriori or banal/given sense. This meant that the soul had to be first wooed or invoked into bodily presence and then anchored or tethered. Plotinus we recall believed that the soul never fully descended. This was a very controversial claim on the neoplatonic founders part, and I'm not sure any of the other degree zero neoplatonists followed or supported that claim. I could have been that Plotinus made that claim in a tutelary key, to keep everyone's mind and spirit always engaged in tethering the soul or it could be that he truly believed that.

Bergson is very underrated as far as /lit/ memes go. He could easily be the next Whitehead, as Whitehead was billed as the next Deleuze last year.

>>13542381
Insightful and amusing post

>>13546729
Was this really worth replying? Just keep it to yourself.

>>13542381
Klages looks unironically fascinating but his stuff isnt in English so he can't be a proper meme on /lit/.

>>13542305
Bergson, according to Guénon, is an “anti-metaphysical,” intuitionist dog, his “reality” corresponding blandly “to a vaguely defined sensory order… conceived as something essentially changing and unstable.” But if everything were “change” no possibility of knowledge would exist; nor could intuition have an object, not even itself.

>>13546741
I need to upvote somehow, and I thought the usual “based and redpilled” a bit outmoded

>>13544972
whitehead sucks

>>13547352
Better than Bergson and Guenon at least

>>13546862
Imagine believing something does not change. What a retard.

>>13546862
Is Guenon parmenidean?

>>13547356
I think it goes Bergson>Whitehead>Deleuze

>>13542381
I wish I could tell if this was a legit post or just a lefty flipping the table

>>13543849
>me no like parugraf lahn brayk be reddit

based bergson

>>13542349
i was working on this for a couple years with zero progress. i left /lit/ for a few months and come back to this???

bergson, spengler, plato, bataille, guenon, whitehead, late wittgenstein and deleuze are all compatible and complementary

>>13549339
plotinus and neoplatonic islamists too

>>13549349
who is a neoplatonic islamist? you mean sufism/man of light type stuff?

>>13542305
Cringe

>>13549357
Al-Farabi

>>13549364
J A X A R T E S

>>13549339
>forgetting Hegel

>>13549391
that's a great title for a romantic comedy

>>13549357
Who was that muslim mystic guenon cites

>>13550880
ibn arabi

http://www.sufi.ir/books/download/english/ibn-arabi-en/fusus-al-hikam-en.pdf

>>13550943
Thank you

>>13542381
meanwhile Guenon has been steady gaining ground for years now. this board is practically traditionalism central by now or will be very soon. all according to plan

>>13551720
he’s not even remotely neoplatonic though. he did his own idiosyncratic thing. his writing is really bizarre and difficult

>>13547428
the only correct post