/lit/ - Literature

>>17902373
If you want to know god, read Aquinas, he builds on aristotle.

>>17902373
Your just drunk on literature.
You want to know God?
Go read the Talmud.
First thing you'll learn from that is God is not real and the whole thing was a meta survival strategy.

>>17902386
but aren't the scholastics uncritically realist? Were they aware or did they properly address the issue of the mind corresponding to reality as such?

reminder there's a sea of medieval/renaissance text that we havent translated or uncovered

>>17902399
Kant never properly addressed the "issue" of why "uncritical" realism is supposedly such a big deal. There's no real reason why perceptions cannot be real beyond a mere interpretative faculty of the mind. Kant basically claimed this wasn't possible because it would be impossible for us to tell whether things are real or not, while still allowing for a priori knowledge (for example, the a priori construction of the concept of causality would mean that it's impossible for us to tell whether causality resides in nature itself or just in our concept. This does not necessarily RULE OUT the application of causality to real things, beyond "mere perceptions", which we perceive). So, what this means is that Kant never refuted "uncritical" realism, he just constructed his arguments such that his quasi-idealism seems like the metaphysically safer alternative.

>>17902373
just go the usua route, start at plato, maybe a few presocratics first, move on to aristotle, peruse the later classical antiquity lifestyle schools like stoicism, epicureanism, etc, then neoplatonists and bible and ausustine and stuff, etc etc.

>>17902426
The problematic Kant uncovered of finite human mind trying to make claims of infinite spheres and speres/beings/states beyond (either vertically or horizontally) causality is a big deal to me. Plotinus speculating on a One or Aristotle ontologically deriving a prime mover, ... trying to determine the infinite, the absolute, the unconditionally NOT-relative through a mind confined to thinking in a causal framework, seems problematic to me.

>>17902484
There's nothing problematic about determining the mere necessity of a prime mover by means of causality, because that does not suggest the prime mover is itself conditioned (it is still unconditioned, albeit the conditioner of the conditioned which we use to determine its mere existence). As for the idea of holding these concepts, like the Absolute or Unconditioned, in intuition, I believe Plato claimed that it was only possible through pure intellectual intuition, which Kant couldn't fathom the possibility of. This doesn't really detract from the possibility of making transcendent inferences according to logical rules, it just means they cannot be intuitively thought or verified by intuition. The use of logic has to be flawless.

>>17902426
>>17902484
I was trying to say that if the crux of eg. scholasticism or platonism (the mind corresponding to reality) is shown to be a dogma, some sort of axiom or a matter of faith, how far are you removed from plain fideism?

>>17902390

>>17902390
>>17902564
>read the Talmud

>>17902426
Well it's possible that the categories of understanding happen to also be the categories of reality, but we don't really have any reason to make that assumption.

>I started studying philosophy because I wanted to know God, to unify my intellect with the absolute.

Why do godcucks insist on using philosophy to keep their cope alive? Do they know that you in philosophy, you’re allowed to disagree with ideas, which is the deathblow to pretty much any dogma?

>>17902588
God is the meta-narrative at the heart of every civilization. He's not real like a table is real, he's real like the number 2 is real.

>>17902373
>Not stopping at Pseudo-Dionysius
There's your problem.

>>17902414
what are some untranslated texts?

>>17902600
Then the next question is obviously which god

>>17902621
http://www.ancientcommentators.org.uk/

>>17902373
>I started studying philosophy because I wanted to know God, to unify my intellect with the absolute
Stopped reading there. I have no interest in talking with a 17 y.o. pretentious douchebag.

>>17902839
>I have no interest in talking with a 17 y.o. pretentious douchebag
Obviously this is a lie, or you'd not use /lit/.

>>17902539
There is actually a problem with it deriving from Aristotle's analogical doctrine of being. If "being" is not a single mode that applies to both wordly entities and the divine the argument from motion rests on an equivocation ("A being whose essence includes existence" is not a being in the sense wordly beings are)

>want to know God
the church is waiting for you when you're ready

>>17902373
If you want to know God why would you read Kant?
Read Kierkegaard and Dostoevsky

>>17902921
And for your sweet, supple young kids

>>17902484
>problematic
Humans dont have access to the truth. We are saved and we know God through faith. God will not show Himself to you through investigation, He'll show the awesome power of His work and creativity, but not Himself. You look for God through faith with the heart and devotion and choice, not through reason, analysis and intellect.
Take me for instance why do I believe in God, ultimately because I choose to. Not because of what Ive understood. People will say: uh its because your weak, in denial, what have you. They can think what they want. I have peace, love and grace through God's sacrifice of His only son so that I might learn to love others as He so loves me and might believe in a life of everlasting goodness. Man's intellect is his greatest arrogance. And we both know pride comes before the fall.

>For the wisdom of this world is foolishness to God. As the Scriptures say, “He traps the wise in the snare of their own cleverness.”
- 1 Corinthians 3:19, quoting Job 5:13.

>>17902548
Fidism is the correct position. Yes. Humans cannot know the truth, imo. We can really only believe.

>>17903176
>Humans dont have access to the truth.
>except the humans who wrote this holy book, because gawd

>>17903188
>Fidism is the correct position.
Not when fideism leads to mindless obedience, then it certainly isn’t correct

>>17903191
I didn't claim that they were true, I claim that I believe them to be worthy of consideration if one choses to believe in God.
>>17903196
>Mindlessly obedient
to the command that we should love one another...
Peace anon.

>>17903196
..nor to mindless decadence. The whole prospect about renaissance humanism is that you try to get closer to God or the Noumena by studying the texts yourself with self control: These were considered elitist attitudes.

>>17903226
>I didn't claim that they were true
No, but your holy book does

>to the command that we should love one another...
Yes, but only when that other shows the behavior which you prefer, which is just a hippy dippy version of mind control, typically used by cults, and is known as love-bombing

>>17903240
>..nor to mindless decadence.
Which can be prevented by never assuming you’re absolutely right on everything, so that you can change. Which monotheism does assume, does making even necessary change completely impossible

>>17903251
Which monotheism are we talking about anyways?

>>17903273
I guess in this case Christianity, though this applies to all forms of monotheism

>>17903273
How tf is that relevant? Go back to r/atheism

>>17903276
Well, the idea that we get what we need and throw the rest into the dung heap wasn't conceive outside of Europe, but by none other than your pious Christian Martin Luther.

>>17903292
Because there's different Churches with different ideas? Btw what the fuck is this thread

>>17903191
Read Girard. This is all I can say to someone like you.

>>17902373
>>17902484
I think reading Plato (and the platonists, Aristotle included) and Husserl would suffice to understand how preposterous is Kantian epistemological dualism. That the thing in itself is the transcendent numen not accessible to us, it is not accessible through sense-perception, but in ideality. But the very quality as “transcendent” or ideal already bestows its own givenness. To claim a separation between the thing in itself and its appearance is the same as separating the forms from their instances. One could not be related to the other.

>>17904024
Could you explain in more detail how Husserl defends realism or metaphysics? I've gotten through some of Heidegger but still fail to see how any of what I'm reading is relevant. He is trying to introduce a new paradigm into philosophy I know, and maybe I'm biased against this paradigm, but I feel like I've had my wheels spinning round in a ditch for quite some time.

>To claim a separation between the thing in itself and its appearance is the same as separating the forms from their instances. One could not be related to the other.
Indeed, if the so-called reality we "superimpose" on the thing itself did not run analogous to that thing-itself, our perception would be chaotic and unpredictable. The problem with metaphysics is not so much this, as it is making claims on phenomena, processes or states which are by definition beyond perception. What says our categories should be valid where we cannot apply them?

>>17905107
Husserl is not a realist in the common sense of taking into account mind-independent objects or world itself.

>as it is making claims on phenomena, processes or states which are by definition beyond perception.
They are beyond sense-perception but not beyond consciousness/intellect. Here is how both Plato and Husserl acknowledge the same thing: consciousness/subjectivity is necessary to constitute the world (Husserl) in the same way the intellect is necessary to apprehend any thing (being) (Plato), Without these there is no intelligibility at all, no being, and not even phenomena, sense-perception.

>>17902373
Hegel BTFOs Kant (respectfully) in the footnotes of Science of Logic