[ 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: 256 KB, 681x1024, 1568421254212.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14120221 No.14120221 [Reply] [Original]

So whose metaphysics is correct (or at least makes the most sense)?

>> No.14120222

Mine

>> No.14120225

Mine

>> No.14120228

Mine

>> No.14120230
File: 88 KB, 768x576, 1571322363712.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14120230

>>14120228
>>14120225
>>14120222
mine

>> No.14120234

nobodies

>> No.14120244

the traditionalists are right when they say that Advaita, Taoism, Sufism, and certain other traditions ranging from hermeticism to Vajrayana to a greater or lesser degree align or all converge towards some sort of non-dual spiritual understanding/bliss/etc. The school that is the most precise in describing it is probably Advaita.

>> No.14120268

>>14120230
>>14120244
I personally go for Aquinas for the exoteric and Shankara for the esoteric, so when I talk to normies I give the usual scholastic bread and butter (lê five proofs), but what I’m actually thinking is Advaita.

>> No.14120283

>>14120244
>>14120268
based

>> No.14120293

>>14120244
Very based anon. I've tended toward this for a while now myself. Do you have any recommendations on books that can help me explore some of these concepts more (especially works on Advaita, Vajrayana, and Hermeticism)?

>> No.14120326

>>14120244
Basically.
Dualism falls apart when you study it.
Christian mystics understand this btw

>> No.14120332

>>14120293
Upanishads should be the core read if you haven't already.

>> No.14120353

>>14120326
Isnt Christianity intrinsically dualistic?

>> No.14120362

>>14120353
Yes the faith has gone down this route.
But one can certainly take a non-daulistic point of view from the bible.

>> No.14120365
File: 29 KB, 400x400, 1572812550874.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14120365

>>14120221
Petersonian metaphysics

>> No.14120372

>>14120221
I only share that kind of information as I’m teeter tottering between coma and sleep, after a few orgasms, soaked in a yellow bed with my whore

>> No.14120379

>>14120332
Should I read them with commentary or without?

>> No.14120385

>>14120379
I'm maybe not the best person to ask but I read them with commentary and I found it helpful.
If you haven't read the vedas you'll miss a lot of shit unless its told to you

>> No.14120389

>>14120353
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05169a.htm

>> No.14120401

>>14120362
Where can I read monist Christian theology

>> No.14120408
File: 26 KB, 321x499, 51reS9qy+AL._SX319_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14120408

>>14120379
>>14120385
I read this translation because it was the only one my school library had, but from looking online people actually claim this is the one of the best available and I can certainly vouch its quality.

>> No.14120413

>>14120401
Gospel of Thomas

>> No.14120415

>>14120413
Oh, is moist Christianity basically Gnosticism?

>> No.14120419

>>14120415
That being a gnostic text is a lie.
There's actually nothing gnostic about it at all

>> No.14120431

>>14120415
No, Gnosticism would be dualist Christianity. The RCC (and probably others) espouse a monist point of view and explicitly reject dualist cosmology and mind-body dualism.

>> No.14120439

>>14120353
Exoterically yes. But esoterically there are a number of Bible verses that can be interpreted in a non-dualistic fashion, like >"ye are gods"
Hard to explain away.
>“Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one”
But
>“you are all one in Christ Jesus”
And
>“I and the father are one”
Which taken literally by the the stupid gave rise to the dogma of the trinity, when it meant was the man Jesus had achieved (rather realized) henosis or unity with the godhead.

>> No.14120446

>>14120332
>>14120379
Sure, but just understand that the Upanishads are a collection of many sages, wihtout much care to having their views match up in any way. In many ways this makes it better, as it truely gives you a strong argument for nearly any perspective you can think of, but realize then that some of the upanishads argue for a dualistic viewpoint.
That said Adviata and basically non-dualism as a whole was born form this book.

>> No.14120455

>>14120439
Isnt John 1:1 the principle verse in support of the trinity and doesnt this verse contradict your last point?

>> No.14120457

>>14120455
Not him but doesn't that verse support non-dualism?

>> No.14120468

>>14120457
I dont think it contradicts substance dualism or mind body dualism, but it definitely says that Jesus is God

>> No.14120474
File: 314 KB, 930x1268, Ghandaran_Vishnu.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14120474

>>14120293
For Advaita, the best recommendation I have would be to begin with Shankara's Upanishad commentaries, in particular the shorter ones linked to below. If you are having trouble understanding them than take a break and read a quick overview book on Advaita and then it will become clear, some good intro books are Deustch's 'Advaita Vedānta: a philosophical reconstruction' (on lib-gen), Guenon's 'Man and His Becoming According to the Vedanta' (on archive.org and lib-gen) and just the chapters on Vedanta in Sharma's 'Advaita Tradition in Indian Philosophy (also on archive.org and lib-gen)

https://estudantedavedanta.net/Eight-Upanisads-Vol-1.pdf
https://estudantedavedanta.net/Eight-Upanisads-vol2.pdf

Vajrayana combines a lot of Mahayana thought with Tantric influence. Some of the more valuable and in-depth writings by Vajrayana thinkers include those by Longchenpa, Dolpopa and Kukai. You can skip right away to reading them if you want to but if you really want to fully understand the context of them and get most of the references in their writings you should have already read selections from the Pali Canon, have a working knowledge of Madhyamaka, and have read the works of Asanga, some of the Tathagatagarbha Sutras and the early Buddhist Tantras. The major Vajaryana thinkers cite and combine the ideas of all of the above in addition to other material. I'm not really into Hermeticism and don't have any good advice but I would like to read it eventually.

>> No.14120483

>>14120468
So yeah?
If Jesus is God how can you have a trinity.
That's literally non-dualism.
God and the word are the same.
If the word was his creation, and also God.
Well I don't need to say any more

>> No.14120493

>>14120455
There is not a single verse in support of the trinity. It’s a latter dogma read into the texts. I interpret the word was made flesh as a statement of god’s self alienation from himself and into otherness (which, being of himself, is not a second principle). It stands for Jesus as the archetypal man/initiate, but can also stand for humanity and the cosmos as whole as these are also god made flesh

>> No.14120513

>>14120483
Well it's interesting that john 1:1 says that word was with God AND the Word was God. I dont really understand it. I think Christian theology just said it's divine revelation and not understandable by natural means.
>>14120493
I'm sure the trinity is well biblically founded if not ever explicitly stated. The New Testament does tell us that there is a Father, a Son, and a Holy Spirit, and it affirms the divinity of all three.
But I am interested in your point of view. It sounds kind of Vedic. Is there more scripture that you have to suggest this? Can you explain God's alienation from Himself?

>> No.14120515

>>14120513
>the word is a divine revelation and not understandable by natural means
sounds like hinduism

>> No.14120674
File: 325 KB, 702x993, 1551521286817.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14120674

>>14120221

a sort of plural dualism

i guess advaita vedanta counts

nondual christianity could fit the bill i guess (not gnosticism but closer to the german mystics - swedenborg, bohme, eckhart)

>> No.14120702

>>14120493

What a trash take. Pagan self-flattery abstracts the unique union of God in Christ so they can claim credit for their own salvation- so that the pale shadow of being in them can claim to have been the original. The non-dualist's arrogance is to claim that creation never took place, just so he can claim to have been God all along.

In the incarnate Christ God takes up our individuality so as to perfect it, and is therefore not all men, but a single man. We cannot claim to have been Christ all along, but are revealed by our contrast to Christ to have been inadequate and destined to destruction. Only thus confirmed in our destruction and alienation from man and God, is redemption of all that we are, possible. In the Crucifixion Christ turns our alienation from him into the final manifestation of sin, which exhausts that very alienation.

In his resurrection is a whole new possibility for humanity, which is only available in Christ's perfect, individual union with God. Our perfected relation to God is thus definitively through him, and no ourselves. On our part, only by humble faith, in response to grace, which comes entirely outside ourselves, can we truly be saved. Only thus do we avoid confusing an idol of our own making for salvation.

>> No.14120911

>>14120702
>unique union of God in Christ
There isn't anything particularly unique about it, all sorts of avatars and incarnations of Gods as people and everything inbetween are found in Hindu myths and writings.
>so that the pale shadow of being in them
As if you would know yourself what sort of 'being' they were talking about and weren't just strawmanning their position lmao, the same could be said of the rest of your post

>> No.14120929

>>14120221
None. All metaphysics like theology is imagination.

>> No.14121937

>>14120929
cringe bro

>> No.14121947

>>14120674
HAHA this image has to be the most retarded thing I’ve ever seen, thanks for the laugh anon

>> No.14121962

>>14120221
If by metaphysics you mean supernaturalism then none, it''s fundamentally irrational.

>> No.14121987

>>14120929
This. The only good thing communists ever did was killing off the clerics.

>> No.14122019

>>14120439
This is an absolutely brainlet post. Stop talking.

>> No.14122032

Non-dualism is a joke and for low IQ jeets

Oh wow another milquetoast monism, oh I'm sorry I meant neutral monism, no I meant dual-aspect monism, no I meant zzzzzzzzzzzz

>> No.14122036

>>14120513
There are three divine personhoods who are all one God. They share the same essence and that essnence is unique only to them, nothing else that has ever existed or will ever exist can take part in that essence. Also btw the son is eternally begotten (not created lmao) and the spirit eternally proceeds (not created lmao).
The Trinity is not easy to wrestle with, but it is based totally on Scripture and perhaps the best unification of the various God-related “contradictions” in the Bible

>> No.14122044

>>14120326
Sorry for the pleb question but what dualism are you guys always talking about when you mention it on this board? is it God-humans, body-soul, good-evil, or something else? What duality(or false duality) are you arguing over?

>> No.14122350

None posting neoplatonism. Disappointing.

>> No.14122486

>>14122032
imagine thinking that non-dualism is the same as monism, you played yourself anon

>> No.14122546

>>14122044
You have to figure out based on the context that people use it in, in this case here it would be God-man but I see people talking about mind-body dualism all the time in other contexts like in threads about Kant, phenomenology, perception etc

>> No.14122582

>>14120268
>>14120326
Christian mysticism might understand it but Christianity doesn't. Which is why the German mystics were all either deemed heretics or was about to be. This to any thinking man should lead to the conclusion that Christianity ought to be rejected in full instead of some half-baked notion of keeping muh exoteric Christianity while holding to an esoteric non-dualism.

The realization that that the Christian mystics was grasping at Truth shouldn't make one wanting to continue their absurd attempted cramming of the square peg of non-dualism into the round hole of Christianity. Rather the ultimate redpill is the complete wholesale rejection of everything Christian(including their mystics) and the adoption of authentic non-dual metaphysics.

>> No.14122680

>>14120268
How is Aquinas similar to Advaita?

>> No.14122693

>>14120221
Humanists

>> No.14122707

>>14122693
Physically cringed and said yikes out loud

>> No.14122712

Materialism

>> No.14122729

What are some pitfalls of dualism? and how do you embrace non-dualism without becoming emotionless. Doesn’t love demand nondualism?

>> No.14122785

>>14122729
Realize that all beings are ultimate part of the same and that same is deserving of every bit of love that exist in ones being.
Then you no longer have to fake this idea of love, where you love some and hate others but can equally love all beings with the utmost perfection.

>> No.14122972

>>14122582
Any book recs on Germanic Christian mysticism?

>> No.14122979

>>14122712
>resident tripfag materialist
Shiggy

>> No.14123100
File: 11 KB, 263x292, smiling-jesus.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14123100

>>14120221

>> No.14123107

>>14120353

No.

>> No.14123145

>>14120353
Yes.

>> No.14124015

bump

>> No.14124030

Polytheistic metaphysics make much more sense than monotheistic metaphysics ever could

>> No.14124035

>>14124030

No, they don't.

>> No.14124103

>>14124035

Yes, they do. In a world of order and chaos, you need at least two opposing forces to coexist together. Monotheism simply makes no sense in the world we find ourselves in. This is what's at the root of something like the problem of evil. By denying that evil is an intrinsic property of reality, monotheism simply finds itself in a constant state of self denial, where it has to deny that any action by their omnipotent God can be anything but good, even if the opposite is painfully obvious. This is resolved by accepting both order and chaos, and accepting that both good and evil are features of this world. Polytheism is the resolution to the problems of monotheism, not the other way around

>> No.14124117

>>14120221
>whose metaphysics
? metaphysics are supra-individual

>>14120244
this

>> No.14124241

>>14122044
Monism- Any and every dualism is reducible to God/ perfect unity. In kantian terms, dualisms are perceptual phenomenon, monism is the numenous.

>> No.14124377
File: 41 KB, 657x527, 1573000878206.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14124377

>>14123107
>>14123145

>> No.14124466

>>14120244
that's basic platonism and it is called . . . Platonism

>> No.14124509

>>14124466
Neoplatonism

>> No.14124583

>>14122486
Not who you were talking to, but I do want to know how they are both different.

>> No.14124635

>>14122972
Meister Eckhart and Jacob Boehme

>> No.14124700

>>14120702
Fuck off christard

>> No.14124816

>>14120911

>>unique union of God in Christ
>There isn't anything particularly unique about it, all sorts of avatars and incarnations of Gods as people and everything inbetween are found in Hindu myths and writings.

That's exactly the kind of abstraction from the uniqueness of the Incarnation that I was talking about. In the Hindu fables creatureliness is just a coat the 'divine' takes on and off, and is thus incapable of providing the unqualified presence of God himself. If human nature can be shed after it is taken up, then it was never really unified to God in the first place. In the Christian Incarnation, the divine definitively assumes a human nature in addition to the divine being, and human nature is in the process not then to be shed like the husk of a grain, but made one with the divine person in an unqualified way.

>As if you would know yourself what sort of 'being' they were talking about

Sure I do. Better than they, probably, since after all they are only vainly projecting the faintest flicker of ultimate being necessarily reflected in themselves, where I (and even the crudest Christian) are infused by grace from the true God himself.

>> No.14124882

>>14124466
>>14124509
The tiring and mistaken claim that certain people like to trot out about eastern metaphysics being reducible to (neo)platonism is rendered incoherent by Plotinus's seeming unwillingness to come down fully either on the side of dualism or non-dualism. In the Enneads in some passages he imples that the highest aim for the soul is to return to the realm of Ideas and the divine intellect, and remain there forever as something different than the One in some sort of dualistic scheme resembling the Abrahamic heaven, yet in other Ennead passages Plotinus writes about a complete henosis or union with the One to the point of there being nothing left other than the One. He doesn't clearly state one way or the other which is the absolute truth or highest goal. It's this that has led to a wide range of intepretations of him with people on /lit/ and elsewhere frequently claiming him to be either a dualist or a non-dualist. Until recently it was normal for Christians on /lit/ to try to appropriate him and say that he actually totally agrees with mainstream exoteric Christianity. You'll find no such indecisiveness in the works of Shankara or Ibn Arabi. First come to an agreement on what Plotinus actually held as his views and then maybe we can begin to compare him to eastern thought. If he was a dualist who says that there is forever an unbridgeable gap between the soul and the One then Plotinus is opposed to much of the more influential schools of eastern metaphysics, if he is not a dualist than there are still a bunch of key differences in how the various schools forumulate their respective doctrines, it's not as simple as "x eastern thing is just platonism".

>> No.14125102

>>14124103
Isn't that what the devil is in Christianity? There's verses saying things like this world is the realm of the devil or something like that.

>> No.14125116

lol

>> No.14125159

>>14120234
His

>> No.14125249

Spinoza
Obviously

>> No.14125432

>>14120225
His

>> No.14125743

>>14125102
I think the difference is that Satan is not equal to God. Some interpretations suggest that Satan is even allowed his position by God. Ultimately, God is the only sovereign one.

>> No.14125859

>>14120353
By the definition of god provided in the bible, that is intrinsically impossible.

>> No.14125869

>>14120221
What if I were to pose this question but base the answer solely on aesthetics bros?
>inb4 retard
I just wanna know who would win.

>> No.14125903
File: 439 KB, 492x503, 1569929754530.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14125903

>>14124882
Eastern metaphysics are all nonsense. They aren't reductible to anything because they have a flimsy trash heap as a foundation.
Holy fuck, why can't you just go over to the Chinese side of the great firewall? I miss the old internet.

>> No.14125909

>>14125249
cringe

>> No.14126045

>>14125903
western metaphysics are all nonsense. They aren't reductible to anything because they have a flimsy trash heap as a foundation.

>> No.14126333

>>14120702
>claim that creation never took place
Creation cannot take place and never did. Relation is neither internal nor external. If it inheres in one of the two terms, it would not relate it with the other term; the same relation cannot inhere in both the terms as it is indivisible; and if it falls outside both the terms, it becomes a third term which requires another relation to relate it with the first two terms and so on ad infinitum. And without a real relation there is no causation and hence no creation.

>> No.14126336

>>14120221
Nick Land may not be 100% correct.

But he is the closest and therefore 110% correct.

>> No.14126341

>>14124882
Cringe and brainvaxxed.

>> No.14127238

>>14120353
lol no
In fact christianity's main beef with manicheans was the dualism of manicheanism

>> No.14127248

>>14120483
>God and the word are the same.
Unity =\= sameness

>> No.14127276

>>14122712
>materialist openly admits that materialism is a metaphysical claim
wow

>> No.14127920
File: 551 KB, 2400x1800, krishna.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14127920

>>14122680
They both give similar theological arguments about how only an all-powerful, eternal and immutable entity viz. God is a coherent explanation for the cause of the world's existence and all the pre-established harmony in it, however Advaita differs in that they take the position that when you get down to analyzing the metaphysics of how creation happened that one finds that it's too logically incoherent and paradoxical, leading them to conclude that creation is only apparent but not real and that really God alone exists, effortlessly projecting this vast illusion of creation within Himself like the sun effortlessly emits light; this is already heavily implied in the Upanishads to begin with although Shankara and other advaitins like Gaudapada provide a logical argument for it as well.

>> No.14127945

>>14120221
Why are statues so sexy?

>> No.14127959
File: 9 KB, 369x311, 61b.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14127959

>>14124103
>evil is an intrinsic property of reality,

>> No.14127961

Hindu and Daoist ones, imo

>> No.14128088

Ayn Rand

>> No.14128632

>>14124103
>This is what's at the root of something like the problem of evil. By denying that evil is an intrinsic property of reality

I'm not denying it.

>> No.14128638

>>14120221
What is this sculpture ? and where is it ? It's chock full of Masonic symbolism.

>> No.14129790

>>14120221
bump

>> No.14130506

>>14127276
Literally every materialist accepts that

>> No.14130609

>>14120221
Vajrayana, Deleuze and Spinoza

>> No.14130624

>>14125869
Probably Taoism

>> No.14130627

>>14130506
I thought positivism says all metaphysical claims are meaningless

>> No.14130642

>>14124103
And what if evil is just the absence of God, like shadow being the absence of light. Theres no reason why it can't make sense. Everything else is just special pleading that what is evil is just "obvious"

>> No.14130652

>>14130642
>what if evil is just the absence of God
What if evil is just the presence of God?

>> No.14130687

>>14130627
Certain versions of positivism yes, but not all materialists are positivists of this type, or even positivists at all

>> No.14130706

>>14127945
its the robes. if i had a gf, i would make her wear robes every day.

>> No.14130775

>>14130652
Doesn't work. The whole point of monotheism is to affirm a universal coherent truth. What you're saying is like saying "What if the truth was false?". To suggest God could be evil is just a contradiction.

>> No.14130933
File: 37 KB, 620x350, culture.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14130933

>>14130706
A woman without clothes is wine without a chalice. Even nudity is missing something when a woman takes off the last of her clothes. It becomes a sterile nakedness. A hint of what lies under, a tasteful choice to reveal, a gap in the neck and a smile of acknowledgment, now that's real eroticism.
I like women in armor for the same reason. Beauty is cryptic.

>> No.14130945

>>14120222
>>14120225
>>14120228
>>14120230
YOUR DAIRY DESU LOLOLOL

>> No.14131577

>>14130775
the doctrine of maya solves the problem of evil

>> No.14131632

>>14127238
The good evil dualism.
Christanity absoultely pushes a god man dualism

>> No.14132558

>>14120929
and imagination is literally the only "real" thing, so in this case you're based even if you didn't mean to be

>> No.14133236

>>14131632
Doesn't Christianity push a good/evil dualism too?

>> No.14133937

>>14120225
His

definitely not this one
>>14120228