[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature


View post   

File: 745 KB, 1256x1276, IMG_20201201_204450.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16922000 No.16922000 [Reply] [Original]

I'm ascended

>> No.16922011
File: 8 KB, 231x218, cucktholic.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16922011

>AQUINAS!

>> No.16922023

No, you're a gigantic faggot treating philosophy like an accessory to show off to others.

>> No.16922049

>>16922000
Remove Spinoza (and maybe Bueno) and that is very close to 10/10.

>> No.16922597

>>16922000
Replace Heidegger, Spinoza and Gustavo Bueno with de Maistre, Carlyle and Kierkegaard and you've got the best 3x3 I've seen

>> No.16922612
File: 489 KB, 1152x1600, stthomas.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16922612

>>16922000
Use a better icon than from monasteryicons my g. They're cringe

>> No.16922629

>>16922000
The Reactionary Spic

>> No.16922847

>>16922629
funny all people in his 3x3 are spics too

>> No.16923745
File: 1.15 MB, 1000x1000, Philosopher3x3.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16923745

>>16922000

>> No.16923789

>>16922847
>Francisco Suárez
>Don Gustavo Bueno
>Nicolás Gómez Dávila
Just 3

>> No.16923792
File: 1.18 MB, 1024x1024, 1606630347145.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16923792

>>16922000
Outta here pleb

>> No.16923829
File: 251 KB, 640x640, 1595202818619.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16923829

>>16923745
Go fuck yourself worm, eat your own shit while you're at for that is your nature

>> No.16923836

>>16923829
Why so angry?

>> No.16924527

>>16922000
What do you recommend by Suárez?

>> No.16924612
File: 1.06 MB, 1266x1280, 52342453.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16924612

>>16922000
checked

>> No.16924667

>>16922000
>Byzantine Thomas icon
>it's from Monastery Icons

Please don't use icons from hindu syncretists ty

>> No.16924734
File: 1.70 MB, 1280x1280, GettyImages-525524182-840x1024.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16924734

>>16922000
I've come to the conclusion that I am not bound by your format and that Nasreddin is the secret tenth man listed. Also what's the point of making these thread so often if the same people are gonna post their 3x3s over and over?
>>16922023
This is true even though I am a giant hypocrite.
>>16922049
>remove Spinoza
Filtered and quartered.
>>16923745
Who's the dude in the top row on the right? Otherwise not bad, dunno how you square Roseau with the other people listed but alright.
>>16923792
Looked up the dude on the bottom right and he seems like a huge faggot, get him off the same chart as Heraclitus.
>>16924612
I should get around to reading Ficino, where does one start with him?

>> No.16924937

>>16924734
Arthur Farndell's Gardens of Philosophy (a collection of his miscellaneous commentaries on various Platonic dialogues) is a nice entry point
The key thing to read is the Platonic Theology but if that's a bit daunting take a detour and read his commentary on Plato's Symposium

Farndell published that one under "On the Nature of Love"

that commentary might be the most famous commentary on Plato next to Proclus's commentary on the Timaeus
it is after all the work that gave us the very understanding of "Platonic Love"

>> No.16924959

>>16924937
Ah gotcha, thanks for the info anon

>> No.16925217

>>16924734
Anyone with a brain can see how Spinoza’s system has gaps. His “god” has no will, but has a mind but is bound by a supernatural Necessity. Matter/bodies cant be just an attribute like thought/mind as if the former were as independent as the latter. Theres a gap between his direct and indirect modes as well and he cant account for it.
“Theres no good and bad, but you should behave like a stoic because uhh this resembles god but it is not good nor bad!!”
Anyway Jacobi already destroyed this nihilistic subversive jew.

>> No.16925569

>>16924612
very based. redpill me on nishida and tell me why deleuze.

>> No.16925653

>>16924734
Not this >>16923745 guy but I'm pretty sure that the top right is Valentinus (the Gnostic).

>> No.16925708

>>16923789
and spinoza... but all of them look like spics

>> No.16925729
File: 214 KB, 920x920, deleuze whitehead nietzsche marx adorno benjamin baudrillard mcluhan debord.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16925729

hmmmmmm

>> No.16925741

>>16925217
I mean, if anyone wants to larp as a pre-Kantian rationalist wouldn't Leibniz be a much better option? His descriptions are actually explanatory and convincing instead of being vague things like naturing nature etc.

>> No.16925754

>>16922000
>Why yes, I'm a reactionary spic, how could you tell?

>> No.16925764
File: 719 KB, 648x653, Screenshot (132).png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16925764

I find Girard to really expand upon Nietzschean genealogy whilst simultaneously giving a much more nuanced view to post-structuralism and defending Religion against what I think is a rather naive attack by Nietzsche and Deleuze (imo they totally miss the point of Christianity, though they do point out a lot of its flaws).

>> No.16925810

>>16925741
Yes, Leibniz is much more consistent and his Monadology is very fun and trippy.

>> No.16926530

>>16925217
I didn't say his system was flawless but he was on the right track, and Jacobi was literally a nihilist whereas you're only saying Spinoza was because you dislike his theory.

>> No.16926569

>>16922000
Checked. Redpill me on Gustavo Bueno.

>> No.16926605
File: 230 KB, 920x920, mosaic3095f48262d1049cd6d0e247d5c1f6d6f60d2973.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16926605

>> No.16926905
File: 3.11 MB, 2672x2564, Untitled.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16926905

>>16922000

>> No.16927088

It's just Peterson x8 with me in the middle

>> No.16927144

>>16924734
That guy is Author of Starting Strength, Mark Rippetoe, He's likely a meme entry on anon's list.

>> No.16927151

>>16924734
I'm more interested in Roseau's theories of how the modern day state should be run than in his theories of human nature or history.

>> No.16927335
File: 553 KB, 1081x1214, Gigachad bows before his brothers and sisters.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16927335

bow before them

>> No.16927434
File: 39 KB, 900x898, v69BjIK.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16927434

>> No.16928072

>>16926530
A flawed system is different from a retarded one. Spinoza was on the right track to increase the force of atheism/nihilism, materialism, nominalism, movements on which he was a powerful influence.
>you dislike his theory
Yes, I dislike everything which is incoherent and false. I showed to you how this is the case.
>Jacobi was literally a nihilist
You can start reading his wikipedia page.

>> No.16928748

>>16927335
baaaaaased

>> No.16928765

>>16925764
the girardpill is reserved for basedboys

>> No.16928904

>>16925741
>His descriptions are actually explanatory and convincing instead of being vague things like naturing nature etc.
That's not true at all. Leibniz is partly inconsistent with the language he uses adapting it to the audience he is writing to which makes it really hard to pin him down for scholars. Leibniz had correspondence with literally everyone. So his archive is huge

>> No.16928945
File: 1.11 MB, 3218x3264, toopowerful.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16928945

>> No.16929063

>>16925217
>bound by supernatural necessity
Good lord, what (we) call 'necessity' is an aspect of God's expression of his own perdonal freedom; how can it not be? Spinoza's 'gaps' refect the imperfection of our own thinking, and yet his thinking absorbs that of most who would pass judgement upon him; for instance, Hegel can only get at him by positing a realm of 'spirit' somehow detached from mind, or thought, which of course it isn't, etc.
Don't post about philosophers of whom your knowledge is less than imperfect.

>> No.16929075

>>16922000
Not a bad grouping. That Heidegger's the weak link here's impressive.

>> No.16929082

>>16928945
>Xi
Commie retard

>> No.16929454

>>16922011
>He doesn't know metaphysics
>He never read Aquinas

>> No.16929467

>>16929063
It seems you have never read Spinoza.
This expression of necessity is not only expressed in natura naturata but also in natura naturans.
>>“That eternal and infinite being we call God, or Nature, acts from the same necessity from which he exists” (Part IV).
>(Ip33): Things could have been produced by God in no other way, and in no other order than they have been produced.
Thinking is a process of Will. If Spinoza's god cannot produce something according to his FREE nature, but only bound by a natural necessity, so to speak, then this god is 1) not free and 2) not a thinking being/substance.

>Spinoza's 'gaps' refect the imperfection of our own thinking
So he wrote a completely flawed system on purpose? Come up with a better excuse.

Spinoza claims that finite modes can only be caused by other finite modes,
>Prop. 28. Every individual thing, or everything which is finite and has a conditioned existence, cannot exist or be conditioned to act, unless it be conditioned for existence and action by a cause other than itself, which also is finite, and has a conditioned existence; and likewise this cause cannot in its turn exist, or be conditioned to act, unless it be conditioned for existence and action by another cause, which also is finite, and has a conditioned existence, and so on to infinity.
Can you really not see how this is ridiculous? The gap between the finite and infinite modes is blatant. There is also the obvious infinite chain of one thing producing the other (regardles of being restricted to the finite or infinite modes, and even, if it were the case, in a continuity from finite and infinite modes). A continuity would deprive finite and infinite modes from their distinctions and still the infinite chain of causality would be the same.

>> No.16929524

>>16929063
>>16929467
Not to say that his god's apprehension (in case his god is even conscious) of all things necessarily produced by his necessary productive nature is confined within time, within succession and thus his god has no more than a time-space bound mind, because the remotest modes of his being can only be ''apprehended'' with their emergence since these modes are the mediate finite modes. Unless he speaks of an apprehension of his god's mind in a sort of platonic eide, which will lead to an ontological transcendence and undermine his purely immanentist '''''philosophy'''''. But can you even find something like this in his Ethics or any of his works?

also
>personal
oh you have never read spinoza.

>> No.16929799

>>16929467
>Thinking is a process of Will
Will is an entity of thought, rather: proof: its function, freedom, etc. can be debated, whereas thought or thinking per se is *never* mooted. So how can an entity of thought dictate thought's progression? It cannot (not that it isn't a useful by-product of thinking or hasn't uses in other respects). Also, I think you mistake capriciousness for 'freedom' (a common error) in deference to the obvious: if necessity is an expression of God's freedom (in which as modes we're bound) and if in some *small measure* detectable, which in some instances it is, then what we can know of it jointly serves as revelation. God can be no other way than He is, anon, and why? Because He's perfect, i.e. God. There's plenty of room for theology side by side with Spinoza's philosophical system btw, as he himself makes plain over and over again. If you want to consider 'gaps' consider God's infinite attributes of which (we) can know nothing, not that it'll get you anywhere. You're problem is that you expect far more from philosophy than Spinoza did: grow up.

>> No.16929971

>>16929799
>Will is an entity of thought
Nonsensical. There can only be a thought because of a will or power to think and to think what is thought. To think is a verb which is an action, duh.

>So how can an entity of thought dictate thought's progression?
It is not in thought, dumbus. The very process of thinking demands a power-will. Just read above it is succint and clear.

>if necessity is an expression of God's freedom
I know you haven't read Spinoza, but can you at least read the propositions I posted here: >>16929467?
Just like our own ''being'' is determined (it is necessary) and its acts are likewise determined (necessitated) it follows that it is no different from the very ''infinite being we call god or nature''. In spinoza's pseudo-metaphysics god is as bound by necessity as finite modes, there is no difference between their own ''mode'' of being and agency.

>God can be no other way than He is, anon, and why? Because He's perfect, i.e. God.
Nice way to disregard everything your interlocutor argues:
>do you know why I am right? Because the axioms of this theory I support are perfect!

>There's plenty of room for theology side by side with Spinoza's philosophical system btw, as he himself makes plain over and over again.
Just no. Dude stop, seriously. Try opening his Theological-Political Treatise. It is the most retarded and superficial interpretation of a sacred text: ''uhhh this thing here in the bible? actually this means a natural cause is operating!''. Ridiculous.

>if you want to consider 'gaps' consider God's infinite attributes of which (we) can know nothing, not that it'll get you anywhere
Are you retarded? Genuinely asking.

>You're problem is that you expect far more from philosophy than Spinoza did: grow up.
Try reading books, anon. I mean not even skimming over Spinoza's wikipedia page would produce such a incoherent, nonsensical and pathetic defense as yours. It literally adresses none of the flaws in his system pointed by me, it simply repeats all over again the same things: ''it is perfect'', ''it is infinite'', ''that is because we can't understand since we are just human beings!''.

>> No.16930037

>>16929971
>Nonsensical
Disprove the proferred proof, anon. Answer: you can't. All your thinking's subject to some Baconian idol or other: you make no sense. Learn to read.

>> No.16930081

>>16930037
Who is thinking for you? Are your thoughts being thought by thought itself or is there a subject thinking the thoughts in your head? Is this an excuse to dismiss the responsibility of being a literal retard? The source of thought is beyond thought and the source of will is beyond will. Every action predicates a subject acting.

>> No.16930110

>>16922000
>>16924734
>>16926530
>>16929063
If a god does not give, create, freely, but does so only according to a necessary impulse, it is not good. End of story.

>> No.16930141

>>16930081
>beyond...beyond
You're finally right: the ultimate source is the living God. Ditch biology for a second; it has no philosophical place anyway

>> No.16930179

>>16930110
Ironically (perhaps) it's the source for human freedom (of thought) which I think is a good thing
>impulse
There's your problem: you want God to be a man

>> No.16930354

>>16930141
>necessity, causality, will, agency and thought
>biology
I wonder how reading spinoza made you clueless about metaphysical discussions.

>>16930179
>''In the Mind there is no absolute, or free, will, but the Mind is determined to will this or that by a cause that is also determined by another, and this again by another, and so to infinity” (IIp48).
You're trying to assume what I think and want in every post and you lack argumentation against any point I made because you simply haven't read spinoza nor his wikipedia page.
Keep worshipping this imagined spurious god.

>> No.16930477

>>16924734
>althusser
gtfo with that sophist

>> No.16930792
File: 1.19 MB, 1280x1280, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16930792

>> No.16931171

>>16930792
Based but why Freud instead of Jung? You know Jung is much more compatible with Schop, Goethe, Plotinus and others

>> No.16931279
File: 704 KB, 920x920, 89656754.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16931279

>> No.16931286

>>16930792
PUTTING HEGEL AND SCHOPIE TOGETHER, YOU MADMAN!

>> No.16931292

>>16931286
... there is no H*gel there?

>> No.16931319

>>16930792
>>16931171
he got jung filtered o no

>> No.16931355

>>16931292
Oh yeah I'm retarded

>> No.16931440

>>16922597
>Carlyle
>the nigger question
Hahaha unironically a good choice

>> No.16931654

>>16931171
I found Freud's works on dreams to be much more valuable to me personally, however I will concede that Jung is more valuable and would match better.

>> No.16931662

>>16931279
>spengler
>gramsci
>spinoza
>schmitt
Based

>> No.16931926
File: 501 KB, 1112x1562, 492F0012-93FF-4F89-A076-DC633732B67F.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16931926

>> No.16933074

>>16930354
You're an idiot, you make no points, you don't 'get' what 'arguing metaphysically' even is. I'm simply able to understand Spinoza on his own terms, and if you're not even able to perceive that thinking itself is prior to what you call 'will' (and *personally* insist upon as if you're making some 'point') then you will never understand Spinoza. Again, you're not able to refute that initial submitted proof because there's no refuting it: thinking is itself prior to *anything* you can 'think up' be it will, knowledge, art, biology, religion, self, or even God- though this latter term is unbound, and therefore the source of thought's eternal mode, manner, or style. You're junk is not what we're attempting to discuss, but Spinoza, and you're just not capable of reading him.

>> No.16933092

>>16930792
based

>> No.16933218
File: 1.89 MB, 1736x1750, D31E4071-1F96-46D6-A01C-D785EF3E1EF6.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16933218

i am the supreme pokemaster

>> No.16933264

>>16933218
you are supremely cringe

>> No.16933335

>>16933264
disqualified opinion unless you show me your grid

>> No.16933854

>>16931926
Based

>> No.16933865 [DELETED] 

>Deleuze AND Freud
what did anon mean by this?

>> No.16933869

>>16931926
>Deleuze AND Freud
what did anon mean by this?

>> No.16934024

>>16927434
>THE REVOL AND
>INDUS UTION ITS
>TRIAL
>CONSE HAVE A DISA
>QUEN BEEN STER
>CES
>FOR HUMA RACE
>THE N

>> No.16934098

>>16933074
you proved you dont even know what i was talking about and you made it explicit that you never read a page of spinoza lol you are proud of being a retard

>> No.16934170

>>16934098
>posts little snippets of Ethics and then entirely out of context infuses with them with evidences of his own moronitude
You sure are obsessed with 'wikipedia' and retard accusations of my not having read what you're incapable of understanding, anon. Note that I don't make similar accusations? It's because I neither know nor care what you've read: I only know that you're an imperfect reader of Spinoza with a mind full of junk that you falsely consider 'adequate tools' for penetrating what you're incapable of understanding. What's ironic is that I do have problems with Spinoza's philosophy in general, but you're just not capable of reaching the place where they can be adequately discussed.

>> No.16934291

>>16934170
>propositions
>out of context
every post you make you prove your retardation is limitless

>you're an imperfect reader of Spinoza
If I apply basic logic to his propositions and infer they are stupid I'm not suited to read Spinoza's ethics? Thank you for making manifest that in order to read spinoza and like it you must be stupid!

> I do have problems with Spinoza's philosophy in general.
I'm really curious.

>you're just not capable of reaching the place where they can be adequately discussed
Why not? You simply dismiss everything I said with: ''all of this you wrote is because you cant understand him''. Make a single argument for fuck's sake.

>> No.16934549

>>16934291
I'm not interested in your understanding 'me,' anon; what I'm interested in is a mutual understanding of Spinoza. Before anything else you have to grant that WHATEVER opinion you or I may hold concerning him, this fellow who died almost 350 years ago has had an enormous impact on Occidental thinking, and a very persuasive manner of exposition that for instance transformed Leibniz's entire philosophy (to the point that Leibniz publicly denied having ever met him--a lie), that Goethe did not miss, that Hegel, Fichte, Schelling, Lessing, Lichtenberg, etc. certainly did not miss, and that Nietzsche all but worshipped? Are you really going to be able to convince anyone at all that your implementation of what you call 'simple logic' will exert the power to expose some falseness that these other thinkers somehow missed? No. I don't mean to be offensive, I don't LIKE to be offensive, but you're just not challenging yourself to attempt to understand him on his own terms, which are far stronger than I feel you want to think.
If you want to cancel him, then cancel him and move on. He just isn't the simpleton you suppose. I mean really, how can he be?

>> No.16934632

>>16927434
>The industrial consequences for the revolution have been human and it's a disaster race.
hmm

>> No.16934679

>>16934549
Hegel, Kant, Jacobi criticized heavily him. Schelling criticized him as well. Leibniz's philosophy goes against it, how could he ground it on spinoza's? In any case all this is peripheral to the discussion here. I am obviously not the first to find all these problems. Schelling raised some of the point I did. Modern scholars face the aporias too.
I don't like to be offensive either, but you haven't presented a single argument in the thread and every defense of yours is pure dogmatism. Kant was right in his assertion.

>> No.16934762

>>16934549
Finally, why would anyone subject himself to such a humiliation? Why subscribe to flawed, crass systems when we have Platonism? Why read bastard philosophies when the real Philosophy was presented and completed by Plato and his interpreters? I’m not being figurative here. What intrigues me is this deliberation in choosing garbage, falsity instead of what is true and pure. People indeed choose to damn themselves.