/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.11573754]

This guy gets it. The Philosophy of Redemption is literally one of the most underrated works in philosophy in general. It is a vivid and more clear synthesis of Kant, Schopenhauer and Nietzsche. Nietzsche also got a lot of his own thoughts from this book.

[Anonymous No.11574023]

what is it with /lit/'s obsession with these 19th century incels?

[Anonymous No.11574283]

>>11573754
>literally a mentally-ill failed soldier who killed himself

wow, impressive

[Anonymous No.11574300]

>>11574023
Likely that they can relate.

[Anonymous No.11574305]

>>11574023
Why do you throw that term around so easily? "Hey look this introverted guy" "INCEEEL"

[Anonymous No.11574332]

>>11574023
*Chads

[Anonymous No.11574349]

Look up a YouTube channel called 'Burden'.

[Anonymous No.11574540]

Fun fact: the University of Brisbane is currently working on an english translation of his work

[Anonymous No.11574650]

>>11574540
I read it in Spanish, I can't believe he's not in English yet.

[Anonymous No.11574709]

>>11574650
>Spanish
Do you have a digital edition? I'ts hard to get a physical copy of this book

[Anonymous No.11576106]

He says his philosophy is entirely immanent but then claims that a will-less God willed his own death, and this tremendous assertion is the basis for his whole idea of the direction of the universe. And this rests on the basic notion that multiplicity, bound by a dynamical community as he says, cannot coexist with trascendent willlessness. But how do we know that in the transcendent domain (which he wants to avoid speculating about) even has this distinction? Furthermore, for him, we find God by the thread of existence, so-called, which he believes he can extend to things themselves, based on his deduction that they have motion and extension independent of observer, which makes him a kind of Lockean-Kantian hybrid, and yet, we entirely lose the ground from beneath us as we are not talking about existence vs. non-existence in the immanent domain, and that this ground, whatever it is, also held good between God and the world! What kind of sophistry is this? What was he so desperate to prove to himself by these maddening wiles? And finally, to me, he severely misunderstands Schopenhauer's argument against suicide, since he calls the death-by-fasting of the ascetic a suicide, which it is not, since it does not require the violation of one's own body, which every method of suicide does, furthermore, the ascetic does not intentionlly end his own life -- his practice aims entirely at the transformation of consciousness, and death in this case does not require a violent restraint of the body. Self-inflicted suffering has always been regarded as a kind of perversion of religious discipline, which really ought to be joyful as it can only effectively happen when the will feels itself expanding into a greater sphere of knowledge, as Mainlander himself points out. He does not really seem to solve the problem he finds in Schopenhauer, namely, the seeming contradiction between the individuality of wills vs the one transcendent Will as thing-in-itself. etc etc.

Mainlander reminds me of Weininger. Both regarded Christ as the greatest individual, both essentially leaned towards solipsism, both committed suicide. They are like overeager disciples who did not fully give their thinking time to mature.

[Anonymous No.11576112]

>>11576106
>He says his philosophy is entirely immanent but then claims that a will-less God willed his own death, and this tremendous assertion is the basis for his whole idea of the direction of the universe. And this rests on the basic notion that multiplicity, bound by a dynamical community as he says, cannot coexist with trascendent willlessness. But how do we know that in the transcendent domain (which he wants to avoid speculating about) even has this distinction? Furthermore, for him, we find God by the thread of existence, so-called, which he believes he can extend to things themselves, based on his deduction that they have motion and extension independent of observer, which makes him a kind of Lockean-Kantian hybrid, and yet, we entirely lose the ground from beneath us as we are not talking about existence vs. non-existence in the immanent domain, and that this ground, whatever it is, also held good between God and the world! What kind of sophistry is this? What was he so desperate to prove to himself by these maddening wiles? And finally, to me, he severely misunderstands Schopenhauer's argument against suicide, since he calls the death-by-fasting of the ascetic a suicide, which it is not, since it does not require the violation of one's own body, which every method of suicide does, furthermore, the ascetic does not intentionlly end his own life -- his practice aims entirely at the transformation of consciousness, and death in this case does not require a violent restraint of the body. Self-inflicted suffering has always been regarded as a kind of perversion of religious discipline, which really ought to be joyful as it can only effectively happen when the will feels itself expanding into a greater sphere of knowledge, as Mainlander himself points out. He does not really seem to solve the problem he finds in Schopenhauer, namely, the seeming contradiction between the individuality of wills vs the one transcendent Will as thing-in-itself. etc etc.
>Mainlander reminds me of Weininger. Both regarded Christ as the greatest individual, both essentially leaned towards solipsism, both committed suicide. They are like overeager disciples who did not fully give their thinking time to mature.
r u sure u didnt misread him

[Anonymous No.11576121]

>>11576112
What is the point of this post? Is this supposed to be some sort of joke? What are you doing in a mainlander thread posting in infantile vernacular after reading through my post in less than a minute and saying something so uninteresting and idiotic?

[Anonymous No.11576140]

>>11576112
>>He says his philosophy is entirely immanent but then claims that a will-less God willed his own death, and this tremendous assertion is the basis for his whole idea of the direction of the universe. And this rests on the basic notion that multiplicity, bound by a dynamical community as he says, cannot coexist with trascendent willlessness. But how do we know that in the transcendent domain (which he wants to avoid speculating about) even has this distinction? Furthermore, for him, we find God by the thread of existence, so-called, which he believes he can extend to things themselves, based on his deduction that they have motion and extension independent of observer, which makes him a kind of Lockean-Kantian hybrid, and yet, we entirely lose the ground from beneath us as we are not talking about existence vs. non-existence in the immanent domain, and that this ground, whatever it is, also held good between God and the world! What kind of sophistry is this? What was he so desperate to prove to himself by these maddening wiles? And finally, to me, he severely misunderstands Schopenhauer's argument against suicide, since he calls the death-by-fasting of the ascetic a suicide, which it is not, since it does not require the violation of one's own body, which every method of suicide does, furthermore, the ascetic does not intentionlly end his own life -- his practice aims entirely at the transformation of consciousness, and death in this case does not require a violent restraint of the body. Self-inflicted suffering has always been regarded as a kind of perversion of religious discipline, which really ought to be joyful as it can only effectively happen when the will feels itself expanding into a greater sphere of knowledge, as Mainlander himself points out. He does not really seem to solve the problem he finds in Schopenhauer, namely, the seeming contradiction between the individuality of wills vs the one transcendent Will as thing-in-itself. etc etc.
>>Mainlander reminds me of Weininger. Both regarded Christ as the greatest individual, both essentially leaned towards solipsism, both committed suicide. They are like overeager disciples who did not fully give their thinking time to mature.
>r u sure u didnt misread him
>>>
> Anonymous 08/06/18(Mon)01:10:14 No.11576121▶
>>>11576112
>What is the point of this post? Is this supposed to be some sort of joke? What are you doing in a mainlander thread posting in infantile vernacular after reading through my post in less than a minute and saying something so uninteresting and idiotic?
ya but im sayin tho

[Anonymous No.11576152]

>>11576140
Can't you go do this in a Hegel thread? It would actually be a great way for someone with your IQ to make a positive contribution to philosophy.