/lit/ - Literature

>incites in you a sincere belief in the divine
heh nothing personnel kiddo, maybe you can date my 4/10 friend

>>14000477
At the very least he convinced me that the idea of the Monad is a sound one. The flight of the alone to the alone

>>14000477
Yeah no. His philosophy is a mess of wild speculation, folk superstitions, and appeals to emotion. He believed you could actually summon gods and that the fucking stars were alive and conscious. Enough said.

But there's no point in arguing with you since you're literally so stupid you are reading ancient memes trying to explain the universe instead of contemporary scientific papers that actually have a basis and authority for their claims.

>>14000993
a basis in the new religion of science?

>>14000544
Is she nice?

>>14000993
it saddens me to think that there are people who earnestly believe this

>>14000993
yeah nah.

>>14000993
>instead of contemporary scientific papers that actually have a basis and authority for their claims.

What do you know about scientific methodology, the claims it makes about the world, the content of our best physical theories and their mathematical apparatuses, the relationship between experiment and the ontological content of theory and what philosophers and scientists have had to say about that relationship? Can you say anything of substance about science or philosophy that does not invoke vague appeals to what you think is authority?

>it’s like this because umm... I say so!

Honestly comes off as if he was making stuff up as he went along

how do you motherfuckers recognize classical philosophers just by looking at a goddamn bust of their face. like i can get photos of authors but what the fuck

>>14001289
>he doesn’t recognise this exact bust from a museum he visited

Never gonna make it

>>14001289
>he doesn't lurk /lit/ for 3 hours every day and have an encyclopedic knowledge of every ancient, classical, medieval, enlightenment, modern and eastern philosopher just from shitposting

>>14001305
>3 hours
get those numbers up

>>14001289
you often see the same pictures

>>14001223
All arguments of the divine are arguments that appeal to authority.

>>14001350
false. show your work.

>>14000477
For me, it was Śaṅkarācārya, although from reading brief sections of Plotinus I have sensed the same potential from him

>>14001280
Doesn't he either refer to Plato or offer reasoning for most of what he says? He doesn't claim to offer point-by-point establishment of Neoplatonism on the basis of irrefutable logic but there is still a coherent path of thought he lays out that one can follow.

>>14000993
>implying stars aren't lesser gods

>>14000544
God I fucking wish she would bully me while I cry on her bare chest.

>>14001421
Except Plotinus wasn’t a crypo-buddhist fraud. Shankara is that posturing Pajeet that sits next to the smart kid in class to copy his homework and then pretends he’s a genius.

>>14000477
>incites in you a sincere belief in the divine but without actually making the flaw of Plato by mixing morality with the metaphysical
nothing personnel kid

>>14001619
Nice cope you hapless Buddhist clown. Nagarjuna ripped all his ideas from the Upanishads, the stuff people allege that Śaṅkarācārya took like the notion of a higher and lower knowledge appear in Hindu texts hundreds of years before Nagarjuna such as in the Manduka Upanishad verse 1.1.4. that mentions the two types of Brahma-knowledge, para and apara. Nearly a millenium before Nagarjuna and hundreds of years before Buddha as well the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad verse 2.3.1. and others also say that Brahma should be known in two forms, the one gross, mortal, limited and definite and the other subtle, immortal, unlimited and indefinite; which amounts to practically the same thing as Mundaka 1.1.4. And despite getting so many wonderful ideas from the divine Upanishads the irony is that Nagarjuna still bungled it by formulating as his doctrine some nonsensical contradictory garbage that was completely BTFO by some random professor of philosophy (pic related). It's funny how nobody has ever been able to point to anything in the voluminous writing that Śaṅkarācārya left behind that you can logically refute with the same ease as with which our friend Richard Robinson defnestrated Nagarjuna, I wonder why...

>>14000477

Joke's on you fucker, I'm autistic and physically incapable of being so tricked.

>>14000993
>He believed you could actually summon gods and that the fucking stars were alive and conscious. Enough said.
Looks like someone got filtered the fuck out.

>>14000477

>>14000993
>he doesn't know about the stars
wew

>>14000477
ok thanks, don't care

>>14000993
soience will never be able to even grasp the universe conceptually. go ahead, follow the links of causation and you'll either find 'god' (linear model) or you'll be stuck in an infinite matter loop.
can you explain why matter exists (i.e. give me the cause)? how come that it has existed forever, as scientists say, and you cannot find an empirical cause for its existence?

>>14002325
While I agree with you it's possible philosophy can't tell us those things either.

>>14001691
Very based

>>14002370
>replying to your own posts

>>14002403
I can assure you it was not me, you can get a janitor to get involved if you can, I have nothing to fear.

>>14000993
>openly blaspheming the Powers and Principalities

>>14002327
Well, by definition, if something of transcendental nature exists, then it can't be proved empirically.
Philosophy is about making assumptions based on the knowledge you have. Plotinus couldn't google that light he was seeing in the sky at night to see what that shit really was. That's why some people believed the earth was a few thousand years old at some time. Nowadays, obviously, even Christian mathematicians wouldn't get anywhere near admitting that the Earth is 6k years old.
Even more, you have to understand where philosophy ends and when mysticism starts.
>The empirical word is the shadow of immanent, perfect, prototype-like metaphysical substances.
That's something along the lines of what Plato said. It's a philosophical statement.
>I can expect direct metaphysical intervention (in my empirical plane) if I pray or believe strongly in something.
That's a mystical statement (and also a contradictory one, if the assumption was that the divine is completely transcendental and cannot be experience).
Here are two choices. you can either
>believe that there exists some type of transcendental plane.
or
>ok, there are some quantum particles that we cannot find the cause for their existence but im gonna ignore that and still not believe in metaphysics. next, these particles seem to be interacting randomly but somehow they form bigger, well-defined structures named atoms. skip again, don't belive in metaphysics. by completely random interactions, these atoms form 'beings' that through time and evolution will seemingly possess self-awareness. um... okay. so if A is random, and A is the cause of B, then B will also be random in nature. so let's reiterate, by random interaction of atoms, these 'beings' will seem as if they posses deeply complex meta-knowledge (aka math) about the universe and it's model-like (but after all, RANDOM) nature. yep... it's just particles hitting each other.now i'll smash some craft beer and watch my favorite chinese cartoons.

>>14002463
I'm pretty aware of the place of mysticism in human experience. I was just saying that philosophy can lead to skepticism and nihilism of various kinds as well.

>>14002471
Many things can lead to skepticism and nihilism.
Most importantly, I think that people resort to 'umm sweety, that's not science' as opposed to believing in something transcendental due to the fact that the latter would most probably imply some type of serious ethical consequences. if our existence conditioned empirically (meaning that we need a body) then how precisely we use that body (and what for) would have to be a main point towards leaving behind the empirical, inferior nature and reaching towards the superior, transcendental nature.
For example, after watching something like this ( https://youtu.be/LQRAfJyEsko ), it's easier to say
>it's just atoms BROOOOOOOOOOO
than coming to terms with the pain and suffering your day to day life brings (to beings that are very comparable in nature to us) and realizing you can live just as good without consuming those things.
Obviously there were philosophers who thought only humans 'mattered' or had 'souls' (i.e. REAL, metaphysical nature). If there's one thing soience BTFO'd it would ironically be that assumption (one of Plato's).

>>14001289
that's a pretty famous bust of Plotinus.
Soon you will become well acquainted with the visages of Socrates, Pericles, Parmenides, Aristophanes, and more

>>14002512
>than coming to terms with the pain and suffering your day to day life brings (to beings that are very comparable in nature to us) and realizing you can live just as good without consuming those things.
I think this almost misses the point though. Your mere existence, no matter your lifestyle, causes suffering to other living organisms, it's just not avoidable.

Also the metaphysical view can be much more pleasant, ie universal forgiveness, and the scientific view can become really quite depressing if you follow through on its implications.

>>14002520
>Your mere existence, no matter your lifestyle, causes suffering to other living organisms, it's just not avoidable
Well, intention and the nature of a specific action matter. If I were to grow my own wheat, I would be able to virtually cause no harm (or exploit) to animals in the growing, harvesting and consumption of a product. Meanwhile, no matter how well you grow an animal, you will always either exploit it or eventually cause it pain, or both.
The logical implication to your futility argument is that because pain is unavoidable, then if you cause any type of pain to any type of being, it's not unethical (so you can kill, rape, steal, etc. all you want).

>>14002536
No the logical conclusion is a very extreme and radical ascetic lifestyle of absolute primitive poverty

>>14002554
so if you won't choose to do that then why not try to do as little harm as possible while maintaining a place in civilization?

>>14002565
Sure, but then it becomes somewhat arbitrary doesnt it? Why do you deserve to live in civilization?

>>14000477
>incites in you a sincere belief in the divine nothing
nihts persœnlihs, kindlîn

>>14001691
based

>>14002572
forgot the image

>>14002568
It does become arbitrary, at least so far as the human mind can grasp. Not believing that suicide is the most ethical thing you could do means that you assume beings capable of self-awareness have some metaphysical quality that puts their empirical existence (and 'comfort', i.e. civilization, to a certain extent) above the 'unavoidable' suffering of some animals. To clarify on a context where intention matter, here's one: you have a piece of land and you need to build a structure on top of it. On that land there are some insects that would be killed by building the structure. The fact is that killing insects is not intrinsic to the building of the structure itself (they might as well not be there), so it would still be considered 'ethical' to build it after all. Compared to another scenario, let's say you are traveling with a cow towards someplace and there's nothing to eat besides the cow. You know you only have a day to live or you'll die of starvation, but killing the cow and eating some meat would be enough for reaching your destination. In this scenario though, killing IS intrinsic to your survival, so the ethical thing to do would be not killing the cow and eventually dying.

>>14002601
I mean that isn't very comforting to the insects. What if you destroy the habitat of some cows to build your house, which leads them to starve?

>>14002601
To end on that point, I'll say that I'm not sure myself if ANY pain is, in fact, justified by the intellectual abilities of human beings (or other such values), it's only an assumption. If I ever commit suicide it will certainly be because I will then believe that the best thing you can and should do is exactly that.

>>14000993
faggot

>>14002609
It would still follow the same principle, because cows have nothing to do intrinsically with the building. But as you go deeper, the discussion tends to become more abstract and arbitrary.
Read this >>14002624

>>14002634
To justify these actions you need some kind of divinely mandated telos for any given human life though right?

>>14001289
This one says 'Proklos' (Proclus) right on it.
I sure wonder who the fuck that might be.

>>14002536
>no matter how well you grow an animal, you will always either exploit it or eventually cause it pain, or both
Thats some retarded vegan shit right there.
What about all the good you do to your animals? Feeding them, keeping them sheltered and warm in the winter, curing theit ailments, cleaning them up, clearing thei shit up etc? You make it seem like a one sided parasitic relationship when its nothing of the sort.
Retards like you have never taken care of animals, but presume to make judgements based on your totally distorted ideas about what it means to raise animals. Retard.

>>14001041
Am I retarded? Why do those colours look so vivid?

>>14002641
Yes, namely that whether we like it or not the 'divination' of humans is done via empirical existence -you need to be born, grow, reach a certain neurological maturity and then attain 'ethical' status. The point is that before you reach that intellectual maturity, you may subject other beings to pain and exploitation. The question is if your eventually-attained grace and divination are excuses for the suffering in question.

>>14002656
Probably HDR

>>14002655
Nonsense. With the same logic you could get a human sex slave and deprive them of their freedom for life and still argue that it's ethical to do so, just because you give them shelter and food?

>>14002669
>human sex slave
Woah lad bestiality is fucked, you need therapy

>>14002686
Well, bestiality would also be 'ethical' following your reasoning.

>>14002694
im not him nor am i you, the filthy animal fucker.

>>14002669
If they're lesser men (simpletons) then yes.
>implying slavery is ontologically bad
>implying anyone's ever free, or that the difference between a slave of another man and that same other man's enslavement to his own passions is any different—everyone is a slave to something or someone, the tyrant most of all.

>>14002715
>>implying slavery is ontologically bad
please, do enlighten me with your ontological reasoning for this one, I'm afraid meme arrows won't suffice

>>14002710
I was actually arguing AGAINST sex slaves being ethical. If only you didn't have the reading comprehension of a wet sock

>>14002725
We're all always under the authority of something or someone. Slavery and freedom doesn't exist. While the "slave" might not rule his body, his mind is free from responsibility; while the "master" is free in his body, he is bound—chained like Prometheus—to his obligations and responsibilities. There is no freedom.

>>14000544
In what world is that a 4/10? That is a 7/10 or maybe 8/10 minimum.

>>14002742
You're getting lost in linguistics and semantics. The state of a literal prisoner is much different to that of a figurative one. The figurative one is bound by himself but he also has the capability of freeing himself. The literal one is bound by factors not in his reach.

>>14002725
>>14002742
slavery=/=beaten and whipped daily
https://youtu.be/Fgz1vvHDSIM

>>14002756
Most men (all women) have no Will either-way, longing to be lead and commanded.

>>14002773
are you any different from most men? if so, how exactly?

>>14002746
hello ben

>>14000993
>He believed you could actually summon gods and that the fucking stars were alive and conscious. Enough said.

>he hasn't taken the plasmapill

You don't belong here

bump

>>14003671
bump

Literally who?
No one cares about some dumb bed sheet wearing caveman

>>14002656
because P E N T A X super takumar

also maybe my monitor settings are different from yours? the saturation isn't as high as depicted, but then again my bookmark bar isn't curved either. a little distortion of shape and/or color is normal for almost any coated lens.

I love Plotinus and all religious thinkers of any spiritual value. I have read literally every book of Guenon's and a fair amount of academic stuff like Eliade and Coomaraswamy. The issue is that I don't understand how to put them into practice as a modern westerner. Western Catholicism is either boomer-tier cypto-protestantism or /pol/ reactionary nonsense. Western Buddhism seems like a yuppie capitalist perversion or a hippie rebranding. Western Hinduism is debatably even possible outside of India. Western Islam is incredibly lacking in any sufi spirituality. I feel like I have no spiritual identity. I am a Catholic but I just get so saddened at how spiritually dead everything in the west is; I feel as if I have a much different spiritual mindset than the other Catholics I am around, never mind the average westener. Do I have to just pick it all up and move to some remote monastery in the east. Do such places even exist, never mind take foreigners like me.

>>14000993
*strikes you dead with star rays*
nothin personal, kid.

>>14000993
Stars are alive and probably have something analogous to consciousness. Do you really believe you can have an animated system that complex without it having some sort of internal manifestation of the abstract?

>>14004611
>Western Catholicism is either boomer-tier cypto-protestantism or /pol/ reactionary nonsense.
Wrong. You haven't looked hard enough. Do more than a surface level search, and actually go to a church and talk to a priest. If you're in Chicago or NYC it may be difficult to find a "conservative" priest, but there's an argument to be made for priests who (for example) are inclusive of the Ls and the Gs and the Bs and the Ts and advocate for their cause. Whinging about novus ordo is rampant, but it's all a fucking meme. Mass is beautiful if you go.

Yes monasteries exist. Even in the US. Good on you for liking Plotinus, he's what got me seriously back into theology. No, not all of his ideas are scientifically proven, but that's not the purpose of reading him or even the correct way of viewing his field.

>>14004622
This subject is actually on the front lines of theology and science. Stars, dark matter, the origin of the universe, and what these objects have to say about causality by how they interact with and have shaped creation. I'm not saying they're living beings, but that we are all literally, scientifically and provably made of star stuff is certainly something to keep in mind.

>>14004637
I have been practicing Catholicism all my life. I used to go to Latin Mass every weekend before coming to Uni. Maybe you don't think so, but Novus Ordo is legitimately awful in comparison. I feel as if I have spiritually died at University. Maybe it is just the place and not the tradition, but I feel as if my latent dissatisfactions have been brought out. I feel as if I am just practicing for the esoteric value of the tradition and not doing the exoteric part in good faith.

>>14004611
Read Kierkegaard, if you haven't. He might help.

>>14004659
I have. I do not like him. Regardless, I don't think he really provides a solution for the question I am having. I don't question whether I should believe or not, but what communities/traditions with which I should associate myself

>>14004664
Your problem seems then to be more a problem with your society then it is with yourself. I don't know how you can fix that problem Anon. I feel similarly though.

>>14004657
sounds like a personal problem, anon. I wish you all the best in returning to being happy in your faith. Maybe try, in addition to your prayers, exercising the theological virtues. Charity, especially. In spirit towards others in your new place as well as in the traditional sense. Would definitely seek the counsel of a priest. fwiw I haven't been to a Latin Mass since I was a kid.

>>14004611
>Simplicius: On Epictetus Handbook 1-26 and 27-53 (Ancient Commentators on Aristotle)
>Montaigne Complete Works

>>14004724
I'm not sure what you are implying with this. My issue is not really about a lack of reading, it's about a lack of a meaningful tradition with which to identify myself.

>>14004649
It depends on what you consider living. They aren't organic and their lives aren't at all similar, but they are highly complex systems that have life cycles.

Consider that the prevailing view of consciousness asserts that it arose because it provided an advantage to consume resources which were necessary to perpetuate its existence.

The inside of a star sees similar competition for resources as flows and tides of hydrogen and helium are used to feed specific regions of fusion. Consider that these regions are locked in competition for dozens of billions of years and are constantly fighting to maintain stasis. A sea of electrons and elements that shift and interact upon each other, with temperatures and gravity and pressures altering the shape. All of this in a system so complex it becomes incomprehensible to the meek brain of a human, barely more advanced than an insects in the scheme of things.

I don't think the question is whether or not stars have a mind at all. I think the question is, what could this mind "think" about? Are we even capable of perceiving it? Or is it so foreign, so alien that we have no chance of understanding in the first place?

>>14004748
we have never been many

>>14004757
if they "think" at all, if you can call a relatively balanced system in the process of collapse and fission thinking, I'm sure it is only about creation: their own mortality and what comes after them and from them. rather like us.

>>14004622
>>14004649
Books which delve into this subject?

>>14004611
>I love all religious thinkers of any spiritual value
this is about as cringe as it gets
What is the purpose of becoming "spiritual" if you do not intend to become a zealot for a specific tradition and dunking on all the others? If all traditions are considered right then it doesn't take much of a brain to realize that they're all wrong, seeing how different they all are.
>imagine becoming a Buddhist but telling all other traditions that they're subscribing to Wrong-View and are therefore bound for a bad rebirth
>imagine becoming a Christian and not telling all others they're going to hell
>imagine becoming a neo-platonist and not demolishing all Abrahamics and letting them know that their perversion and subversion of the neo-platonist tradition has not gone unnoticed

We have to do something about the sissification and ecumenism of modern religiosity!

>>14005247
I didn't say they are all good. I said I enjoy reading and learning about them. I would never considering join a native american tribe or partaking in their rituals, but I can still enjoy learning about them and see spiritual value in certain beliefs.

I don't know enough about all religions to make a firm commitment. I wish I did. Maybe you have some hidden wisdom I do not. If I knew exactly what would be best for me, I would not be here.

>>14004611
>>14005267

Keep the light within you, and open it to people who are worth it. Lead a virtuous life to the best of your abilities. Without taking more radical steps, this is what is left from that golden lineage for us, the sincere.

>>14004757
>Consider that the prevailing view of consciousness asserts that it arose because it provided an advantage to consume resources which were necessary to perpetuate its existence.
>The inside of a star sees similar competition for resources as flows and tides of hydrogen and helium are used to feed specific regions of fusion. Consider that these regions are locked in competition for dozens of billions of years and are constantly fighting to maintain stasis. A sea of electrons and elements that shift and interact upon each other, with temperatures and gravity and pressures altering the shape. All of this in a system so complex it becomes incomprehensible to the meek brain of a human, barely more advanced than an insects in the scheme of things.

>I don't think the question is whether or not stars have a mind at all. I think the question is, what could this mind "think" about? Are we even capable of perceiving it? Or is it so foreign, so alien that we have no chance of understanding in the first place?

that just sounds like a projection of the current social reality(liberal capitalism, secular materialism) on to the unknowable universe. How is that not like medieval natural theology reproducing ecclesiastical and feudal hierarchies? Science as an institution looks at emergent complex systems only as objects to be controlled and managed, mere data, not to be felt with the force of revelation but to be filed away and rationally administered. Thinking cannot be but an endless process of estrangement, what about an enactive, accelerationist science that breaks down all structures of control and fragmentation?

So how exactly to I reach the One like Plotinus claims you can?

>>14001350
Appeal to authority is not fallacious in all cases

>>14004757
I've always wondered if the devas of radiance had something to do with stars, then again I know little about Buddhism so maybe that doesn't make any sense.

>>14006003
you have to be at least 160 IQ

>>14005195
Olaf Stapledon's Star Maker is a fictional take on sentient stars

I know that the sentient star hypothesis is actually being seriously pursued by Greg Metcalf.

Stellar Larva Theory (online, google it) is a system that argues biological life are actually "larval" stars.

John Lamb Lash's Not In His Image is a cosmological interpretation of the gnostic creation myths. In it, he explains the reason why our sun is so stable (it is, look it up) is because it is allied to the Sophia's grand plan for the Earth. The sun is actually a lesser god of the "outer chaos": the galactic arms.

If you ask me, and especially when you internalize certain Platonic doctrines (such as an exterior form always being the correlate of some an internal state: what could be the mental correlate of a giant ball of pure light and energy illuminating the void for billions of miles around, I wonder?), I believe stars have minds.

>>14006003
in the hindu tradition are three ways: the path of knowledge (jnana-yoga), the path of love (bhakti-yoga), and the path of action (karma-yoga)

depending on your particular tradition, one or more of these paths may be available to you.

>>14005195
>>14006085

Finally, there are some extremely fringe theories floating around that argue planets are the cores of dead/"dying" stars. Planets are just basically late stages in a star's metamorphic life cycle.

The earth was once a star, and the Sun will eventually be an Earth.

Understood in light of certain gnostic doctrines, and some recent findings in plasma cosmology, I think the view that universe is basically a bath of "divine" plasma at varying densities seems right on the money.

>>14006121
of course it's divine. it is the beginning of the solar system and all life as we know it, literally the beginning (first cause) and the end (final cause) of creation on Earth.

and I would say we are all potentially black hole stuff, or doomed to fall apart as the universe expands.

if the big bang had happened 1 millionth of one percent faster or slower, reality as we know it would not exist. this is science fact. for all we know the big bang and big crunch happened many "times" over until this viable universe happened along.

>>14006121
The idea of density is limited to the physical plane

>>14006153
You're preaching to the choir, friend. I think the sun is a god, and the plasma nucleus at the heart of our galaxy is a god to our sun.

>>14006155
The "spiritual" planes are just high energy, low density matter. Objects/entities with zero/negligible mass. Angels whose substance is their form: they've observed spontaneously self-ordering structures of plasma in nature, even crystalline structures within them.

Lash believes gnostic Aeons are sentient currents of plasma that live in the galactic core.

>>14006153
>if the big bang had happened 1 millionth of one percent faster or slower, reality as we know it would not exist. this is science fact. for all we know the big bang and big crunch happened many "times" over until this viable universe happened along.

im ignorant in scientism but how can people even accomplish data like these?

>>14004622
>Do you really believe you can have an animated system that complex without it having some sort of internal manifestation of the abstract?

I agree 100%.

>>14006203
you have to be at least 160 IQ

and have a particle accelerator and inferometers and x-ray telescopes

>>14006216
>scientists
>high IQ
bruh...

>>14006174
Nah spiritual substances are pure in form thus no differentials in their densities

>>14006737
Only the purest, though. There's still room for differentials between a man and an angel.

But the divine isn't real.

>>14006862
>"But the divine isn't real."

>>14006871
>It was real in my mind, though

>>14006254
>random idiot on 4chan
>high IQ

>>14006203
>scientism

>>14006833
But that is the identity of the substance... Not the spectrum of such a substance

>>14000477
The existence of the divine can be objectively shown to exist scientifically.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxYbA1pt8LA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIno-PhSQlM

t. has read maybe 1 Ed feser book and 2 Plato dialogues, has a PDF of the seraphim rose book on nihilism on his pc which he hasn’t read (next to some evolas and that ‘libido dominandi’ book - Is thinking about deleting michael gira’s the consumer for being ‘degenerate’ and worldly), has ‘Christ: the eternal tao’ and ‘the reign of quantity and the sign of the times’ on his goodreads ‘to read’ list, regularly makes haughty and mocking replies whenever he sees people talking about modern philosophers he hasn’t read; is particularly incensed by discussion of people like Foucault, Deleuze, Derrida etc., tried to read alasdair Macintyre once but found himself rereading basic sentences four, maybe five times, used to idolise Mishima as a traditionalist but now skirts around the topic of his sexuality, browses the Catholic subreddit sometimes but gets annoyed by the light tone of conversation (for him religiosity means acting brooding and grim, possessing a smouldering pessimism, a seriousness that admits no levity—primarily a sensual fantasy although he won't admit it) and stops browsing within a day or two, says he might check out this ‘tradcath’ subreddit sometime but never does—he isn’t attracted to online spaces which don’t irritate him: he likes the orthodox subreddit for the occasional ‘based’ pictures of hirsute priests blessing ak-47s but blushes when some regular and well-respected poster (who he imagines to be grave, broad and muscular, like a Slavic bear) talks (without hysteria or moralism but rather with a peasant's brute insight) about the western alt-right noodle-arms that mistakenly think they’re in good company on orthodox discussion forums, and quickly retreats back to the anonymity of 4chan, reconsolidates his withering faith by rewatching the passion of the christ and crying when millionaire-actor jesus says 'see mother, i make all things new', listens to the prince of egypt sountrack when he gets humiliated by some "tranny" online and feels vengeful (righteous anger at evil he calls it), misses the mde and common filth subreddits but is ashamed of having ever indulged in such vulgar and un-erudite company, the lowbrow circumstances of his first steps toward conversion constitute a serious threat to his self-identity and the attractive notion that his conversion was motivated by the discovery of the arcane logics and argumentation rigour of the Catholic Church, makes up for his low status on the intellectual totem pole by criticising youtube preacher pastor anderson's irrationalist baptist doctrines, although he tepidly praises his 'enthusiasm' and his 'redpilled attitude' toward the jews (nazism is a perpetual attraction for him, he feels saintly for resisting it)

>>14007205
Those videos might be the dumbest things I've watched all year.

And he isn't proving the "divine" at all. The guy should just accept the atheism that is clearing eating away at him and not try to dress it up in theological terms or jump through so many hoops. It'd make his life a whole lot simpler and he might be able to contribute something worthwhile.

>>14007361
>t. non-schizo midwit

>>14007209
Well thought out post anon

>>14007209
based and saved and how do you know so much about that guy anon, you must see some of yourself in him eh :^)

>>14007178
Not sure what you mean by this. I'm just saying there are intermediate steps between man and (what I take to be) living plasma currents - angels/Aeons.

That said, I think those intermediate steps are actually plants and animals, but you didn't hear it from me

>>14000477
..but who is it?

>>14008487
redding 2 herd - /lit/

>>14000993
As someone trained in physics and mathematics and with an interest in philosophy I'd urge you to recognize the disjunctive union of what science and philosophy can bring to your thoughts. The one needn't trangress against the other, contrary to your and many other's narrative.

The problem with the divine is that we perceive transcendence as linear. There is a belief of a God above us, and that is that. There are no philosophies that treat divinity as a strange loop; where by traversing transcendent layers upwards from us, you eventually arrive back to our existence.

This is a problem in Western philosophy in general: looping and cyclic structures are scary unknowns never even considered. Consider that all western theological propositions about the creation of the universe are reliant on the idea that the universe has a beginning, often using severely outdated conceptions of metaphysics. Those that interface with science do it poorly, conflating the observable universe with the universe, time arrows with time, and projecting emergent properties of the atomic onto the quantum realm, such as causality. Indeed much work was done in the 20th century that proved that the classical logic we rely on is a highly flawed system that inherently has to fight against itself to properly describe reality. In the wake of it, we created the bandaid system of quantum logic. While not an ideal replacement, it's important that formal dialogues of metaphysics use this adapted logic in order to provide a cleaner base for discussions.

With all the above layed out, I may finally say:
If we are to take ourselves seriously, we must make our best effort and utilize our most powerful tools to prod the metaphysical. Serious discussion needs to throw out these outdated dialogues and accept them as built on pillars of salt. For posterity and cultural education, we should still preserve and study these flawed arguments made in ignorance. But seriously considering them is foolish at best, and I cannot take seriously any man who advocates for their practical usage.

>>14008682
I should make a disclaimer that there exists multiple exceptions to some of the assertions I make in this post.

Empedocles is a notable greco-philosopher that utilized cyclic structures is some of his musings.

>>14000993
>all these butthurt responses
/lit/ frauds exposed

>>14008763
This is not a counterargument to my proposition 2 posts above yours.

>>14008780
I think you're making quite a leap in saying that because our classical conceptions of the physical reality of the world have been been flawed we should start prodding for answers in the realm of the metaphysical. I don't see how metaphysicians living thousands of years ago would have a better idea of the true nature of reality than we do today. Quantum theory, a band-aid as you put it, is certainly incomplete and provisory, but it's still the cutting edge as far as making sense of the underlying substance of reality, and there's nothing that suggests to me that any ancient metaphysician could accurately predict the phenomena described by quantum theory except in the most superficial New Age analogous way.

All your talk about loops and transcendent layers of reality or doesn't seem to have much substance to it that I can see.

>>14008744
a lot of Indian religious philosophy seems to be an exception to it as well

>>14008852
>I don't see how metaphysicians living thousands of years ago would have a better idea of the true nature of reality than we do today
because you already presuming a materialist viewpoint and don't realize there is an inherent capacity and ability in living beings to connect with and intuitively realize and experience higher realities and the divine, which in terms of coming face to face with reality and the truth infinitely transcends the utility of any scientific instrument or equation

>>14009040
Based. Got em

>>14009040
I have no reason to believe in anything but the material, since the material can adequately explain every phenomenon I'm interested in exploring. Your notions of "truth" and the divine are entirely irrelevant to my experience of life. What you call "reality" I call playing make-believe. Who's to say which one of is right?

>>14009077
That's fine and dandy if you choose to subscribe to those beliefs, but you only make a fool out of yourself by insisting that other should be limited by them too, the opposite of the enlightened sage is the man who wishes to impose his ignorance onto others.

>>14009040
Do you have a single fact to back that up?

>>14008852
You misunderstand. I am not arguing from a position that seeks to lower the importance of the insights and revelations our work into the quantum realm. I am arguing for the exact opposite; that metaphysics which doesn't engage and understand this cutting edge has become, epistemilogically speaking, deprecated.

Quantum logic is a band-aid specifically because it is a redressed classical logic. It has a rejects a few fundamental principles, replacing them with some new concepts, generally borrowed from other deviations of classical logic. I call it a bandaid because I believe the logic approach is flawed in-itself. An ideal system of propositional reasoning is one that lacks truth-values at all. This system being designed in such a way that there is no possibility to create a statement which would yield an impossible/false proposition. The possibility of this is clearly evident, the universe itself is such a system. Our capacity to develop such a system, however... remains to be seen. It's difficult to even conceive of such a thing, a procedural truth system, as it is completely outside our mental framework, and goes against all traditions of thought the world over. From this impossible perspective, quantum logic is certainly a bandaid. This in itself is a sidetrack that I'd rather not waste time or effort on. It was merely a comment made to add color, one of many. The actual thought behind it is mostly irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

The fact of cycles is not inherently evident, it requires lengthy massaging of the concept to understand the inherent advantage it has. I will give a small example of the flaw in linear thought, and then point you in the direction of our most advanced hypothesis that are becoming closer to solidified theories. Creatio ex Nihilo is the most common argument I see in Western thought, and it's the most fundamentally flawed. The idea of an uncreated creator seeks to satisfy a classical logic conundrum of causality, and there are a few problems with this:

Firstly, the way that it seeks to satisfy causality of a "first cause" is to simply provide a cap. But this cap, one cap of causality, is completely arbitrary. The entire purpose of it is arbitrary, it only exists to block discussion. You can place the cap of causality anywhere you like, and the result and utility is the same. You simply define an entity with an identity of on that "breaks the rules to preserve the rules".
Secondly, this is a fundamental projection of atomic realm causality onto an explicitly sub-quantum plane. Beginning and end only make sense in a system with a time arrow, which isn't inherent to the fundamental fabric of the universe and the contents within. The "beginning of the universe" is essentially nonsense. In a less pedantic, less condescending line of thought, it describes the spark that ignited entropy in the observable universe. Spacetime exists independent of this time arrow, and time is a bit less intuitive. (1/2)

>>14009104
the fact that chad Aryan sages predicted quantum physics

>>14000993
Why not read and appreciate both?

>>14009096
I'm not imposing anything on anyone. You're free to believe in your mystical pseudo-profound tripe as much as you want, just as I'm free to call you out when you present your views in a public forum.

>>14009107
I'm with you up to a point. I agree that there are limitations to the logical systems humans being are capable of developing, just as we are limited in pretty much every facet of our cognitive abilities. Whether cause and effect or the unidirectional flow of time are ontological realities or simply an artifact of the human mind are valid questions, and have been explored before. I think they're really interesting, but given those very limitations I think we'd have difficulties making use of the answers in whatever form they we would be able to glean them.

I'm also less certain than you that causality is truly not an inherent element of the universe. I'm more inclined to believe that we have some misunderstanding regarding the beginning of the universe and what came "before it" than to throw the baby out with the bathwater and say that all causation and the flow of time are illusory. We know that they are relative terms to a greater or lesser extent, and it's certainly possible that we'll come upon some Theory of Relativity-level epiphany that blows the lid open on our ideas of causality and the direction of time. As of yet though, I don't know of anything that points to that. Your example of entropy is an interesting case. Entropy is irreversible - therefore it could act as the most certain axis on which to measure the passage of time, insofar as any exists. I'm curious as to what else you have to say.

>>14009263
>Theory of Relativity-level epiphany that blows the lid open on our ideas of causality and the direction of time
It's already happened, but word has not yet gotten fully out. The experimental results have been consistent across a wide range of labs and teams though

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24723870

>A recent meta-analysis of experiments from seven independent laboratories (n = 26) indicates that the human body can apparently detect randomly delivered stimuli occurring 1-10 s in the future (Mossbridge etal., 2012). The key observation in these studies is that human physiology appears to be able to distinguish between unpredictable dichotomous future stimuli, such as emotional vs. neutral images or sound vs. silence. This phenomenon has been called presentiment (as in "feeling the future"). In this paper we call it predictive anticipatory activity (PAA). The phenomenon is "predictive" because it can distinguish between upcoming stimuli; it is "anticipatory" because the physiological changes occur before a future event; and it is an "activity" because it involves changes in the cardiopulmonary, skin, and/or nervous systems. PAA is an unconscious phenomenon that seems to be a time-reversed reflection of the usual physiological response to a stimulus. It appears to resemble precognition (consciously knowing something is going to happen before it does), but PAA specifically refers to unconscious physiological reactions as opposed to conscious premonitions. Though it is possible that PAA underlies the conscious experience of precognition, experiments testing this idea have not produced clear results

>>14008852
>>14009107
To review, the cap of causality seeks to prevent rules from being broken, by breaking those same rules first. The idea that violating a principle first results in an inability to violate that principle again is nonsense. Reason should dictate to you that the principle, or the premise you're running against the principle, was wrong in the first place.

Solutions that seek to preserve this linear cosmology are doomed to this fatal flaw. So with the beginning of everything being a nonsense proposal, the immediate alternative to begin testing is one of cyclical cosmology. The idea that there is no universal beginning, violates absolutely no fundamental principles that we have ever observed, at any layer of reality. The first cause was the last effect. We know the observable universe is a closed system, not an isolated system. At the absolute most cutting edge of cosmological research, we're starting to get a very solid grasp on the nature of things that fit into the prevailing theories.

Enter Conformal Cyclical Cosmology hypothesis, which fits in very cleanly with the Black Hole Cosmology hypothesis. Combined, these hypothesis answer an extremely surprising amount of fundamental questions without any real violations of established, highly reviewed and tested theories. It also opens up many new doors for philosophical questions and propositions to be made about our own selves.

The history of CCC is an interesting one. While it had some early success in experimentation, peers weren't able to reproduce the results of the experimentation. This is always an extremely damning thing to happen to a fledgling hypothesis. However, it turned out to be a question of experimentation method, and plenty of new research has come out in support of it, making CCC now a burgeoning cosmological hypothesis, well on its way to becoming theory.
https://arxiv.org/abs/1011.3706
https://arxiv.org/abs/1512.00554
https://arxiv.org/abs/1808.01740

Metaphysics has returned to a hard school of epistemology. There is a distinct message and my proposal goes along with it. Our classical conceptions of material ontology are completely false. In the best interest of discussion, and to develop the highest level of understanding, we need to recognize that much of the old ideas and traditional lines of thought are outdated and false. I believe it is still important to study and learn these old ideas, naturally. But serious discussion about the metaphysical must take into account our new knowledge.

The original ontological narratives were informed by observations, and gaps of observation were filled in with intuition. Musings of the metaphysical have always been extensions of our finest and most advanced observations. Despite having come into many new and strange observations, we still seek to muddle around in the lower levels of the old observations. In order to have proper dialogues, we have to grasp with and utilize these new frontiers of knowledge.

>>14009325
I'm already somewhat familiar with CCC. What do you think of electric universe/plasma cosmology? Any other bleeding edge metaphysics you'd care to share?

>>14008682
>muh lsd

>>14009339
I am very interested plasma cosmology, I have some whitepapers on my laptop that I have to get around to. I only have a basic gestalt of the hypothesis, and find its unusual nature to be highly intriguing. I'm specifically interested to see what insights it will produce about the nebulae life cycle, which I have always found fascinating at face value.

I am still a young man, I have only had so much time to read and process things. Additionally, I am at a stage in life where I must scramble to secure a reasonable career, or another source of comfortable income. In conjunction with my fondness of fiction (I am planning on tackling Ulysses again, this winter) I am left with only some time spent reading and reflecting on contemporary metaphysics.

That being said, lately I have been interested in superficialities, and especially negative ontology. Holes and Other Superficialities is a work I read recently that explores this in-depth. It's introduced me to Achille Varzi, who is a prominent modern philosopher that has worked a lot with mereology, which is another one of my interests. This strays from the hard science of metaphysics, but it explores a new frontier of thinking that I believe is criminally neglected.

>>14009510
>Holes and Other Superficialities is a work I read recently that explores this in-depth. It's introduced me to Achille Varzi, who is a prominent modern philosopher that has worked a lot with mereology, which is another one of my interests. This strays from the hard science of metaphysics, but it explores a new frontier of thinking that I believe is criminally neglected.

Do go on if you'd like, I know nothing about mereology

>>14009283
>n = 26
You can probably prove that angel exist an take the form of chickens with that sample size.
I remember a example in article on bias in psychology, which managed to "prove" people get physiologically and legally younger when listening to songs from their childhood.

>>14009499
Serotonergic hallucinogens aren't really my thing. I did a very large variety some years back, and found the whole affair mediocre. I am however very interested in salvia divinorum extracts. They are an exceedingly intriguing experience, and serve as a vessel that you can experience truly alien qualia through. I keep a few grams of 100x in a drawer for times when I feel the need to break up the human experience, and I've found it to be a great catalyst for patting out new approaches to things.

I have a friend who, as a grad student doing data analysis, assisted in an experiment that discovered people who's first intoxicating experience is with salvinorin a are often deterred from experimenting with drugs ever again. The foreign nature of the experience is naturally repulsive and terrifying on a primal level, which serves well to prevent dependence and frequent usage. I really do believe it's the only worthwhile recreational drug.

Besides chili peppers, that is.

>>14009534
If this thread is still up later and I remember, I will certainly return to do so. I have been wasting a lot of time today and need to engage in some productivity for a while.

>>14009779
I've tried salvia and I just can't get into it. There's no coherent thought during the experience like with weed, at least not any I can see being philosophically fruitful. How do you even beat those qualia into sense?

>>14009794
It's important to note that salvia induces delirium, so it should be met with similar nonsense explanations.

The first time I smoked it, I would say I found nyarlathotep behind my couch cushions, and got the easter egg joke ending for reality.

I would describe my most recent experience as being ripped across the membrane of reality into the next. Over and over and over. In the non-existent gaps I swear I can see those mischievous things, striped tentacles and impossible flexible mouths, like unzipped zippers, curled in a grin. Each reality comes in and out with an impossibly short flicker, I am being forced through wick rotations and I notice the differences in each "frame", just ever so slight. It doesn't make sense, but then I listen to the things in the gaps explain it and I now see the story. I'm moving sideways through time, and it makes as much sense as moving backwards or forwards.

I may not remember the details of why it made sense, but I remember the qualia of how it made sense, and with creative liberty I can assign fictionalized meaning. The experience is what was important though, and it is as if I stopped thinking about things for a year and come back again. I now see my present occupations in a different light, and that's what is useful to me.

>>14002746
lmao