/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.14381463]

>*retroactively refutes Whitehead*
>*retroactively refutes Deleuze*
>*retroactively refutes Jung*
>*retroactively refutes Marxism*
>*retroactively refutes materialism*
>*retroactively refutes Osho*
>*retroactively refutes Spinoza*
>*retroactively refutes Bergson*
>*retroactively refutes U. G. Krishnamurti*
>*retroactively refutes Kant*
>*retroactively refutes atheism*
>*retroactively refutes democracy*
>*retroactively refutes Theravada Buddhism*
>*retroactively refutes discord trannies*
>*retroactively refutes new-ageism*
>*retroactively refutes rootless cosmopolitans*
>*retroactively refutes Protestantism*
>*retroactively refutes psychoanalysis*
>*retroactively refutes scientism*
>*retroactively refutes dualism*
>*retroactively refutes equality*
>*retroactively refutes Theosophy*
>*retroactively refutes western philosophy*

FLEE BEFORE HIS WRATH, LEST HE RETROACTIVELY REFUTE YOU TOO!!!!!

[Anonymous No.14381477]

>>14381463
>>*retroactively refutes dualism*
No.

[Anonymous No.14381492]

>>14381463
Try refuting my dick out of your ass

[Anonymous No.14381513]

Most Hindus throughout Indian history have thought Shankara was a "crypto-Buddhist"

Most mainstream scholars think Shankara was a "crypto-Buddhist"

The only people who think otherwise are
(1) Guenonfag
(2) The neovedantist and theosophical sources Guenonfag relies on

[Anonymous No.14381529]

>>14381463
here you go buddy

[Anonymous No.14381571]

>>14381477
For the moment we would like to insist on one point only: That the quarrel of spiritualism and materialism, around which almost all the philosophical thought since Descartes revolves, is of no interest at all for pure metaphysics; this is besides an example of those one-time questions[1], to which we shall return at once. Indeed the duality of "soul-matter" has never been posed as absolutely und unsurmountably before the Cartesian conception; the Ancients, notably the Greek, did not even possess a notion of "matter" in the modern sense of the word, not more than in our time [2] (for) most of the Orientals: in Sanskrit there is no word corresponding to this notion, not even close.

The concept of this kind of duality has its sole merit to rather well represent the outer appearance of things; but - precisely because it stays with appearances it is wholly superficial, and by taking up a special point of view which is purely individual, it becomes negative of the whole of metaphysics, [especially] as soon as one wants to ascribe to it an absolute value by affirming the unsurmountability[3] of its two terms [soul and matter], an affirmation in which abides the actual duality. ...

In a very general fashion [one can say that], the distinctive character dualism is to halt at an opposition between two more or less particular terms, an opposition which without doubt really exists from a certain point of view.[This certain point of view] corresponds to the part of dualism which is real, but [the problem starts where] by declaring this opposition as unsurmountable and absolute, instead of [it being] entirely relative and dependant, it becomes impossible[4] to proceed beyond those terms, which have been posited against each other. ...

[Anonymous No.14381615]

>>14381513
OBSESSED

[Anonymous No.14381665]

>>14381571
I kind of doubt Guenog's claim the Ancients did not possess a notion of matter. For example, in Avestan, it's called gētīg (material) in contrast to mēnōg (mental).
>[the problem starts where] by declaring this opposition as unsurmountable and absolute, instead of [it being] entirely relative and dependant, it becomes impossible[4] to proceed beyond those terms, which have been posited against each other. ...
This is a frequent criticism of dualistic cosmology or even substance dualism, which is what Guenon is speaking of. However, such a criticism doesn't really work because one can easily conceive the oppositions as meeting or intersecting in this world, which we can metaphorically call a "emergent battleground". The duality can be treated as unsurmountable and absolute when one frames it in terms of a multiplicity of conflicting souls. Likewise, each pole becomes a monomial in itself, meaning one doesn't need relativity or dependency.
Think about how the Cosmological Argument works. If you acknowledge an impossible to bridge gap between two diametrically opposed intentions, qualia, or whatever, wouldn't that lead to the "bottom turtle" being two and not one? Why make them one at the end?

[Anonymous No.14381731]

>>14381665
>For example, in Avestan, it's called gētīg (material) in contrast to mēnōg (mental).
According to iranica online though it's closely bound up with the menog to the point of having spiritual connotations/connections, it's not just plain inert matter without any higher significance or meaning which I think is the point he is making

"Viewed from the point of view of creation and eschatology, mēnōg precedes the gētīg form of being and serves as a model for the latter’s creation. Gētīg is thus sometimes said to be derived from mēnōg, being in a sense dependent on it and secondary in importance to it. Thus it is said: “Gētīg is the fruit of mēnōg, mēnōg is its root” (Škand gumānīg wizār 7.2). However, as mēnōg reflects the changes brought about in gētīg, for example in so far as the moral and religious behavior of individuals affects their mēnōg counterparts, it is not only the source of gētīg but becomes also in a sense dependent on gētīg."
http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/getig-and-menog

[Anonymous No.14381743]

Did Geunon believe that the cast system was still relevant in the modern era, and was it relevant outside of the Indian civilisation?

[Anonymous No.14381747]

>>14381513
Give it a break dude, get help.

[Anonymous No.14381776]

>>14381463
Does he refute Catholicism?

[Anonymous No.14381783]

>>14381743
The caste system is simply a matter of fact, its whatever vocation you settle in which accords to your temprement either by fate or choice so to speak, atleast that is my understanding.

[Anonymous No.14381786]

>>14381743
He thought that the caste system more or less is fit for all time as it reflects the divine hierarchy of the cosmos or planes of existence. It would be inappropriate for outside civilizations to adopt it but things like Sharia law he would have considered to be a similar reflection of the divine order specific to Islamic civilization. Guenon heaps praise upon medieval European civilization, the feudal and manor/serf system that was followed for much of the medieval was practically the western equivalent of the caste system. He would probably have preferred if western civilization would have returned to it, but only if accompanied by the relevant understanding and metaphysics otherwise it would pointless and doomed to unravel.

[Anonymous No.14381788]

>>14381731
You're missing my point. Dependencies could be a consequence of interactions *here*, and thus, it is possible for one side to be seen as having independent, non-relative characteristics apart its opposite. In other words, it becomes a matter of "two coins conflicting" rather than "two sides of a single coin." In short, I take issue with the monist implication of the Taijitu. This idea there is a oneness before duality is simply faith. Since duality is what is experienced via feeling, interpretation, truth vs. lie, and much more, I choose to believe there is a rudimentary dualism at the base of reality rather than a unity. Unity is an illusion created by dualistic struggle.

[Anonymous No.14381803]

>>14381776
No, he is critical of it but doesn't attempt to refute it, he thought Catholicism was one of the last semblances of tradition in the west.

[Anonymous No.14381807]

>>14381747
As long as Guenonfag exists, I will exist. He is like the Nagarjuna, and I am like Shankara. I naturally follow him.

[Anonymous No.14381810]

>>14381788
>, I choose to believe there is a rudimentary dualism at the base of reality rather than a unity.
If there is a rudimentary dualism of two things which are both real than inevitably reality contains both of them but is not limited to either, by the very fact of both being real any pair of dualistic opposites are included into a greater undivided whole which acts as the medium through which they are able to interact

[Anonymous No.14381813]

>>14381803
Based

[Anonymous No.14381814]

>>14381743
The important thing is that the caste system and shitting in the street are intertwined, both being dharma. Pic related.

[Anonymous No.14381817]

>>14381807
Hmm, it's almost like your the alter ego of the same person.

[Anonymous No.14381826]

>>14381817
I can't be Guenonfag. I am not a Theosophist, and Guenonfag used to post links to Theosophists all the time.

[Anonymous No.14381841]

>>14381817
it's some mentally ill Buddhist whose had a non-stop mental breakdown since people started posting this article where a philosophy professor completely destroyed Nagarjuna's logic, ever since then he's lurked /lit/ non-stop and posted the same images obsessing over Shankara and Guenonfag any time he spots a thread remotely related to them

Buddhism, not even once

[Anonymous No.14381851]

>>14381826
>Guenonfag used to post links to Theosophists all the time.
You've never been able to prove this.

[Anonymous No.14381852]

>>14381810
I wrote an essay that goes more into the philosophical assumptions of what you're arguing. I can share it if interested. Regardless, in the mean time I will respond to some of your point. I have a bit of a headache, so please ignore if I lack clarity:
>If there is a rudimentary dualism of two things which are both real than inevitably reality contains both of them but is not limited to either,
I didn't say our reality "contains" both, but that it is produced, emergently, from the interactions of both, much like two fundamentally different waves conflicting with one another.
>, by the very fact of both being real any pair of dualistic opposites are included into a greater undivided whole which acts as the medium through which they are able to interact
They are not included in an undivided whole. They are wholes onto themselves.
The issue with your system is it assumes all dualities or pluralities must join together in an undivided whole. This is an assumption. The point I am making is there are many conceivable mediums by which they could interact whereby they do not come together as an undivided whole.

[Anonymous No.14381855]

>>14381841
We're mentally ill together, Guenonfag.

Just know that you will never, ever post a thread here without me being in it. I will remind everyone that Shankara is a crypto-Buddhist, and about all the times you posted Theosophy and Schuon (the kid-fucker). I have been on /lit/ since 2012 and I will be here until 3012. I am on /lit/ 24 hours a day. We will be together forever.

Forever.

[Anonymous No.14381890]

>>14381855
>Shankara is a crypto-Buddhist
According to the logic of Guenon, and by extension Guenonfag, all the religions share the same source, so what the fuck it matter if they have similarities? This fight seems utterly pointless.

[Anonymous No.14381903]

>>14381855
do i hear wedding bells

[Anonymous No.14381905]

>>14381852
>The point I am making is there are many conceivable mediums by which they could interact whereby they do not come together as an undivided whole.
I'm not talking about there being some expanse of space-time in which they are both floating or something, I mean on a more subtle level, out of the infinite possibilities of existence, there has to be a certain set of possibilities being true in order for both forces to be both existent, and that very determination of the infinite possibilities of existence itself which makes them both real constitutes a reality in which both are included

[Anonymous No.14381933]

>>14381890
Guenon is an interesting scholar for sure, but what you've stated isn't really what's at issue. What is at issue is whether Shankara (living around 800AD) essentially coopted the discourses of Buddhist idealism ca. 200-600AD, taped some Upanishad references to the end, and called it Hinduism. In reality he was founding a new religion that was effectively a Buddhized and Brahmanized Vedism. This is similar to what happened to the Upanishads themselves actually, since they came more out of the dissident brahmanic traditions like Aranyakas and the non-brahmanic sramanas, and only later were reabsorbed into a brahmanic hegemony.

Centuries later, brahmanic religiosity had broken down yet again and was extremely weak, and Buddhism was doing much more vigorous philosophy, for a span of about half a millennium. It was in response to this crisis that Shankara "saved" Hinduism by stealing the much more advanced philosophy of the Buddhist schools and appending ".... but it's ATMAN!" at the end.

None of this is controversial, either. Not only scholars in the West and in India agree that Shankara basically "saved Hinduism from Buddhism by making Hinduism into Buddhism," but this was the common opinion of Hindus themselves, including contemporaries. Shankara was seen as a dangerous heretic.

I'm not a Buddhist myself, I just think it's funny that Guenonfag knows so little about his own traditions and history. I also think it's funny that everyone can plainly see how stupid he is. Every time he tries to post misinformation, he gets humiliated by someone smarter, or by actual sources. His response is always to post more quotes from Theosophy books and Western theosophical authors. Or to post child-fucking cult leaders like Schuon, which he did a few hours ago.

I just like that every time he posts, everyone knows who he is and how stupid he is. He tried to post his bullshit about the early Upanishads again yesterday and some guy effortlessly humiliated him.

>>14381903
If only. Pic related: When Guenonfag got banned the other day, all his posts were deleted, and this was one of them. So we know he's desperate.

[Anonymous No.14381936]

>>14381905
>there has to be a certain set of possibilities being true in order for both forces to be both existent
But why does there have to be? Couldn't they have preexisted, or couldn't the possibilities of existence been more constrained in a more complex manner?
>that very determination of the infinite possibilities of existence itself which makes them both real constitutes a reality in which both are included
They could very well be included with the unbridgeable separation.

[Anonymous No.14381967]

>>14381933
>I'm not a Buddhist myself,
sure, you just obsessively lurk /lit/ waiting for anyone to mock Buddhism or to talk about Guenon/Hinduism so you can pounce and spam your copypastas and write these endless paragraphs whining about muh guenonfag and muh neovedanta. For no reason at all, certainly not because you have some sort of dog in the fight, definitely not!

[Anonymous No.14381988]

>>14381967
Correct. Except the part about mocking Buddhism. I only wait for you to do this:
>>14381855
>>14381807

Guenonfag:
>claims to be hindu
>doesn't live in india
>only posts neovedanta sources
>only speaks english
>dangerously heterodox by hindu standards
>claims to be traditionalist hindu, justifies caste system, but traditionalist hindus would literally murder him for being a heterodox westernized "traditionalist" who worships white islamists
>learns everything he knows about hinduism from books written by white guys

I really wish I could see what Indian forums you got laughed out of. Was it because you don't even know your own language anymore? What did they say to you? Did they all laugh?

[Anonymous No.14381998]

so this is the power of the perennial wisdom huh

[Anonymous No.14382012]

>>14381967
Anti-guenonfag is a d&c shill psyop archon of yaldobaoth.

[Anonymous No.14382015]

>>14381988
>>14381933

I appreciate you actually explaining your position for once instead of sperging out as usual. I notice you're often raging about the caste system. Do you care to explain exactly why it's bad? The only arguments I ever hear against it are modern ones which implicitly are biased against spirituality so I don't know exactly how useful this perspective is when considering the situation.

[Anonymous No.14382031]

>>14382015
>sperging out

This is a Guenonfag post:
>It's been 24 hours and none of you ming-mongs have replied to this. All the more embarrassing considering YoU CaN't HaVe Up WiThOuT dOwN mY dUdEz loooooollzzlz lmafaooo :DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD!1!111! was intended to be the epic GOTCHA retort. Writhing animals.

This is also a Guenonfag post (actually a copypasta he tried to force):
>Guenon is a mathematician and taught western philosophy for years kek. Open any of his books and he dismantles western philosophy with actual arguments, examples, quotes etc... what more do you want? Oh, you've never read him. Far worse, you started reading philosophy late/ after high school so you feel to need to clinge to 'notorious' philosophers because of your own lack of experience in philosophy. you need intellectual credit; you are a pseud. Contrary to myself, I've been reading the canon since I'm 8 so I can read Kant then Guenon then whomever I wish because I actually read according to my own intellectual inclinations, not for external factors. Too bad you are dumb.
>>/lit/image/Wtbs7KNoYk1OWc3qjuJX-g

This is another Guenonfag post:
>The dumb pieces of shit who think guénon is some kind of pseud. LMAO. He's a brilliant mathematician, knows his western philosophy better than anyone on this board. He also learned arabic, chinese and sanskrit. That puts him above pretty much anyone in the western world. But that would require you braindead morons to open one of his books. The state of pseuds makes me want to vomit. I don't even larp as an orientalist or a metaphysicist or whatever.. But I actually read shit and buzzwords like "traditionalism" and other nonsensical terms don't have the slightest effect on me. I won't even dwelve into his life as a sufi muslim.

Let's not "dwelve" into sperging, Guenonfag.

[Anonymous No.14382067]

>>14381803
How does he define tradition and modernity? Why did tradition end?

[Anonymous No.14382097]

>>14382031
No, don't do this. i know you can respond to me normally, you did it just before. Focus! Answer the question! Why is the caste system bad?

[Anonymous No.14382128]

Is anti-guenonfag also whiteheadfag?

[Anonymous No.14382129]

>>14381786
I like how the implication here is that white people are so profoundly mentally disabled that they are completely and utterly brainwashed by the sound of this hypothetical nigger music.

[Anonymous No.14382147]

>>14382128
No. Guenon is boring so I don't bother. Just look at these threads for the autism.

[Anonymous No.14382150]

>>14382147
You got btfo by piercefag the other day

[Anonymous No.14382156]

>>14382128
Yes, I am both a Whitehead fan and a Buddhist. I hate Guenon because I'm jealous of high caste Indians and their superior metaphysical insight. Whitehead is the only philosopher a brainlet like me can understand

[Anonymous No.14382164]

>>14382128
No, anti-guenonfag is a mentally ill buddhist who lurks 24/7 (he probably has bad aspergers or something else that gives him neetbucks) who always spams the anti-shankara/guenon images and who is always very rude and hostile

whiteheadfag is the leftist guy who is always promoting process philosophy and making 10 different 'what did whitehead mean by this' and 'what is a body without organs' threads everyday, he is the one who made the 'guenon is a pseudointellectual rhetorician with a bad reading in conparative religion' copypasta as well as the one about ignoring rhetoricians and instead read the list of 40 authors

they both hate guenon, the latter isn't severely mentally ill like the first is though, both were retroactively refuted by Guenon

[Anonymous No.14382168]

>>14382150
Must be thinking of someone else I never talked to peircefag (e goes before the i). Link to thread?

[Anonymous No.14382170]

>>14382164
This. Anti-guenonfag is mentally ill and whiteheadfag is a brainlet. Both were retroactively refuted by guenonfag.

[Anonymous No.14382177]

>>14382156
Whitehead is pretty hard. And I'm an atheist. Don't care about buddhism and poo religions.

[Anonymous No.14382186]

Based Sadler is team Whitehead
https://streamable.com/75jbt

[Anonymous No.14382189]

>>14382168
Must've been another acolyte. It was in one of the veganism threads.

[Anonymous No.14382194]

>>14382177
So this is the power of western philosophy... Resorting to racism any time they don't have an argument...

Whitehead is only "hard" if you can't get past 101 concepts like the distinction between being and becoming.

[Anonymous No.14382196]

>>14381463
La based

[Anonymous No.14382199]

>>14381855
lmfao

[Anonymous No.14382214]

>>14382194
Tell me what you think Whitehead thinks about being and becoming and I will then embarrass you. If you are going to say Whitehead denies being in the name of becoming then you are wrong.

[Anonymous No.14382225]

>>14382129
the thot senses virginity in the way your hair moves, the crease of your pants, which part of your shoe touches the ground first. it tingles on her bleached lip.
this is why even the sound of the Superior Black Bull's voice causes her to fuck the hyperreal shadowcock immediately, the pure Tyrone digital pheromones cause her bleached asshole to tingle. and she must submit.

[Anonymous No.14382235]

>>14382225
Imagine the smell

[Anonymous No.14382333]

>>14382225
Why?... What are they trying to accomplish?

[Anonymous No.14382343]

>>14382177
>And I'm an atheist.
do you have nothing better to do?

[Anonymous No.14382351]

>>14382333
BBC summoning ritual

[Anonymous No.14382355]

>>14382225
Describe this scene in your best prose.

[Anonymous No.14382361]

>>14382225
>>14382129
Only white people could be susceptible to this in the first place. It's why their countries are all crumbling while countries with strong traditions are rising. The real aryans were always in the east.

[Anonymous No.14382369]

>>14381933
everything you wrote is incorrect my mentally ill friend

>What is at issue is whether Shankara (living around 800AD) essentially coopted the discourses of Buddhist idealism ca. 200-600AD,
The Upanishads are idealistic and directly say that consciousness is Brahman and that Brahman is the inner awareness etc, Buddhist idealists like Yogachara probably ripped off them but Shankara logically destroyed them (pic related)
>This is similar to what happened to the Upanishads themselves actually, since they came
more out of the dissident brahmanic traditions like Aranyakas and the non-brahmanic sramanas, and only later were reabsorbed into a brahmanic hegemony.
All the parts of the Vedas including the Upanishads are part of the same Sruti revelation, the later parts are just going deeper in depth into the same ideas. Even the mantra portion, the earliest layer of the Vedas talks about the Supreme Self of the Upanishads in lines like "the Solar Self of all that is in motion or at rest" - (Rig-Veda 1.115.1). The Aranyakas and Upanishads are the later stages of this divine revelation.
>It was in response to this crisis that Shankara "saved" Hinduism by stealing the much more advanced philosophy of the Buddhist schools and appending ".... but it's ATMAN!" at the end.
There isn't a single piece of Shankara's thought which he doesn't obtain directly from Upanishadic lines saying as much
>None of this is controversial, either. Not only scholars in the West and in India agree that Shankara basically "saved Hinduism from Buddhism by making Hinduism into Buddhism,"
I've cited mainstream scholars before who disagree but you just lie relentlessly and pretend otherwise. For example this masters thesis examines this exact question and concludes that Shankara's thought is derived from the Upanishads

"Thus, Shankara is best characterized not as a Hindu thinker or a “crypto-Buddhist” but as an Upanishadic Indian philosopher"
https://scholarworks.gsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1003&context=rs_theses

the scholars Sharma and Comans both also take position that Shankara's thought and Advaita writ large is derived from the Upanishads
>I just like that every time he posts, everyone knows who he is and how stupid he is.
everyone knows you as the mentally ill buddhist who constantly lies and spams his schizo images
>He tried to post his bullshit about the early Upanishads again yesterday and some guy effortlessly humiliated him.
in that thread I cited lines from the pre-Buddhist Upanishads that clearly state the ideas that people allege Shankara took from Buddhism and you didn't have any argument in response

[Anonymous No.14382371]

>>14382361
Their time will come.

[Anonymous No.14382374]

>>14382371
>>14382369
>>14382361
based

b*ddhists seething and on suicide watch

[Anonymous No.14382396]

>>14382374
based antiguenonfag

[Anonymous No.14382397]

>>14382189
Then I was there. That wasn't the other day that was a couple of months ago. I don't know much about Peirce but I took that guy as some sort of Kantian solipsist. He didn't btfo anyone. All the guy simply said was you can't do metaphysics because it is always underlied by human symbols and representation. And then he just gave ontological priority to human cognition. And all this is a bad position to have and gets you nowhere. Whitehead's position is that our metaphysical understanding is always "slight, superficial, incomplete" however he subversively does metaphysics anyway seeing metaphysics as a speculative task embarking on an adventure of ideas. As seen in pic related. He also sees giving ontological priority to the human mind is folly. As he puts it, the transcendental facts of cognition are not enough to "authorize" cognition as the author of nature. The mind is emergent within a larger totality: nature. More to the point, it's an extremely complex output of that field, but again, just one output out of many, human consciousness doesn't have ontological priority over the "prehensive centers" of simpler organisms. The human mind is simply just one type of funnel.

[Anonymous No.14382419]

>>14382397
Forgot pic
>>14382343
>do you have nothing better to do?
Not sure what you are talking about. I don't care for religion and focus on other things. It is the religious that are dogmatic and go autismo and ruin this board. I come here to talk about books but I can't because it is full of garbage off topic threads most of the time.

[Anonymous No.14382432]

>>14382419
You seem like the biggest dogmatist here given how stubborn you are and how you refuse to engage anyone except with reposting the same sophistries day after day.

[Anonymous No.14382438]

>>14382432
It may not look like it but I mostly talk about fiction here. Most philosophy is boring.

[Anonymous No.14382491]

>>14382438
Philosophy can only be boring if you have no metaphysical understanding to base it in. Perhaps your atheism is what is holding you back.

[Anonymous No.14382499]

>>14382438
>Most philosophy is boring.
Most philosophy is fiction. Perhaps it's your atheist mind that's stopping you from realizing this.

[Anonymous No.14382537]

>>14382491
Some philosophy is good like Whitehead, Delouse, Benjamin, Nietzsche, and Montaigne. Most of it is a BORE though. Not sure why start with the greeks is a meme on here do people here actually have fun reading Plato's dialogues? lol.
It's just that fiction and poetry are better desu. You just have no taste for aesthetics ^_^.
>>14382499
Then most of it is bad fiction.

[Anonymous No.14382566]

>>14382537
>Whitehead, Delouse, Benjamin, Nietzsche, and Montaigne.
all of them were retroactively refuted by Guenon, Parmenides and Shankara you poor fool

[Anonymous No.14382567]

>>14382566
post something of substance for once ffs

[Anonymous No.14382635]

>>14382537
>do people here actually have fun reading Plato's dialogues?

Are you trying to be provocative?

[Anonymous No.14382713]

>>14382537
Do you think philosophy is useless?

[Anonymous No.14382717]

>>14381463
He refuted Zizek as well

[Anonymous No.14382751]

>>14382713
I don't think philosophy is useless. Dude I literally posted these two posts. >>14382419 >>14382397
It's just that most of the approaches taken in philosophy are retarded and boring. That's why I like Delouse and Whitehead they are refreshing. Reading Whitehead is the first time I ever felt a sense of wonder reading philosophy.
>>14382635
Plato sucks. Plato is that guy on 4chan that argues with himself using strawman arguments through different IPs. Throw your copy of the complete works of Plato in the garbo and get the complete works of Shakespeare instead.
When Whitehead said philosophy is a footnote to Plato, he really meant that philosophy is a continuous 2000+ year BTFOing of Plato.