[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

/vt/ is now archived.Become a Patron!

/lit/ - Literature

View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 566 KB, 2280x920, great debate.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
14549121 No.14549121 [Reply] [Original]

The great debate

>> No.14549152
File: 77 KB, 800x600, Shankaracharya.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

How is this even a debate? The shining faces of Shankaracharya (pbuh) and Plato (pbuh), combined with their purified intellect and their superior semblance, would make their opponents bow.

>> No.14549154

/k/ here who are all these neckbeards?

>> No.14549203

The right made the western civilization

The left destroyed the western civilization through postmodern cultural neomarxist jewish subversive trickery

>> No.14549218

>Implying someone could win a debate against a avatara of Vishnu.

>> No.14549230

What's the connection? These are a bunch of random faces slapped on a chart.

>> No.14549249

postmodern neomarxists vs traditionalists

>> No.14549271

And Spinoza would surely recognize the truth and be on Plato's side. Perhaps Nietzsche too, crying, in a state of catharsis from the mere glimpse of the Philosopher's face, beg Plato's pardon for his errors. Redemption at last!

>> No.14549281

hitler belongs to the left side

>> No.14549284

>Spinoza and Nietzsche

>> No.14549292

Plato and Shankara are child's play

>> No.14549510


>> No.14549542


>> No.14549662


>> No.14549977

Guenon and Evola ended philosophy

>> No.14549987

can people stop forcing this wikipedia page influences meme?

>> No.14550380


>> No.14550397

unironically true. everything that comes after (post structuralism and kaczynski) are just there to further bring down this false metanarrative we call liberalism.

read "the antichrist" by nietzsche. he sounds exactly like evola.

>> No.14550524

literally this

>> No.14550531

>nietzsche is like evola

This is how I know you have read neither

>> No.14550546

you failed to post an argument.

also, both authors wished to tear down the current metanarrative and return to intuition.

>> No.14550554

Evola was just an ideologue nothing of value

>> No.14550565

>Evola was just an ideologue
how so? do you have anything to point to in assertion of that claim? in "meditations on the peaks," evola is very clear that he wants to do away with ideology.

>> No.14550594

Could of fooled me being the chief ideologue of Italy's reactionary right.

>> No.14550639

so do you want to point to something that makes him an ideologue or are you going to just spew garbage continuously?

>> No.14550643

>spiritual racism and mystic fascism
>not ideology

>> No.14550661

all of that is just fancy ways of saying "a return to intuition." he literally advocated mountain climbing so that people can get back in touch with their physical senses.

>> No.14550675


>> No.14550789

Based, these people have only barely touched his work before fawning into a bosom while clutching their humanistic pearls. His intro to magic series from the ur group especially shows his wonderings on what ancient religions used to contemplate at the top orders, such as in the Indian Aryas and even some Christian mysticism.
Nor do they know about his critique and sympathy towards Nietzsche written in ride the tiger, which is one of the best critiques of Nietzsche that I have ever found.

Quite obviously he found that his ideas led to logical conclusions in which the masses of the unleashed third estate could never understand, so he had to ride the tiger.

>> No.14550802
File: 75 KB, 704x720, 1570628947076.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Even Ken has agreed that their is worth to Evola.

>> No.14550826

How the fuck do you even compile a list like this

Sticking to the subject, though, I think Plato alone would fuck up the half of scrawny faggots on the right in a fair brawl.

>> No.14550918

Which doesn't really mean anything. The conclusions of his thought are hack spiritualism. His nonsense that we must go past materialism doesn't mean anything at all and is just ideology. His whining that dude dude democracy bad materialism bad modernity bad hack spiritualism good are essentially nothing of value it is all just the rhetoric of a reactionary nothing more. He was the boomer of his time and the only reason he has not been totally forgotten is because of underage /pol/ children with undeserved arrogance.

>> No.14550921


>> No.14550937

One long emotional post. Boohoo.

>> No.14550959
File: 5 KB, 250x174, Cringe.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

you sir, just posted cringe

>> No.14551009

All Evola is is reactionary politics dressed up in pseudomysticsm. Read a good book once in your life and stop indulging in ideology. You aren't riding the tiger, you are no aristocrat of the soul, that is just childish arrogance and masturbation. You are as fragile as anyone else.

>> No.14551070
File: 93 KB, 800x964, King David.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

try again please. evola's philosophy is fully compatible with post-structuralism; something that is clearly evident if you were to just read meditations on the peaks.

ie metanarratives that are founded upon a falsehood, such as liberalism, end up eliminating intuition from people's lives, as they make the populace recognize falsehoods as reality, thus the populace descends into hyper reality (as baudrillard put it) and that is the kali yuga/dark ages.

traditionalism to evola meant intuition.

>> No.14551078

>B-but his critique was j-just a reaction. So it means nothing right?
Retard, you have only read critiques of him without honestly approaching him. Calling him a reactionary does not invalidate his critiques. A reactionary merely chooses the opposite of his enemy like a conservative, evola transcended the political dualities of his time and ours. Hell he critiques many on the right.

>You are as fragile as anyone else.
Yea you're fragile, but jeez is that your virtue?


>> No.14551087
File: 83 KB, 601x960, worldaspower-1-e1505814318271.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Have you read the world as power by woodroffe? Evola quotes him quite often, its a wonderful book.

>> No.14551111

so how is evola compatible with guenon and by extension all traditional wirters (not as in traditionalism but christian and islamic theologians, advaitins and other orthodox hindus, etc)?

out of curiosity, what are good books to read?

>> No.14551114

i haven't heard of it before. i'll look into it. thanks fren.

>> No.14551133

the symbols behind these religions correspond to certain truths that have been warped and forgotten. in "simulation and simulacra" by baudrillard (a french post-structuralist), he tells of how symbols get disconnected from their originally meaning and begin to take on a false new meaning. the traditionalists are there to rediscover what those meanings originally were.

>> No.14551157

>A guy posted the first 3x3
>I told him that his 3x3 is cringe
>He says "then tell me what is a non-cringe 3x3" >After that, a random anon goes and posts the second 3x3 that is absolutely based

>> No.14551162

yes i fully agree (the same apply to language and its symbols, terms losing their own original connotation like the word philosopher); and i also think that modern theorists like baudrillard, debord, make acute critiques to the current state of things but the problem is that they end up confined within the same structure, they don't go beyond materialism, they return to the very problem they critique reification of metaphysics and human intuition

>> No.14551183
File: 18 KB, 326x294, 1573940548942.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>they don't go beyond materialism
>the symbols behind these religions correspond to certain truths that have been warped and forgotten. in "simulation and simulacra" by baudrillard (a french post-structuralist), he tells of how symbols get disconnected from their originally meaning and begin to take on a false new meaning. the traditionalists are there to rediscover what those meanings originally were.

>> No.14551198
File: 33 KB, 680x544, Apu Thumbs Up.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>but the problem is that they end up confined within the same structure, they don't go beyond materialism, they return to the very problem they critique reification of metaphysics and human intuition
well put. they themselves are trapped within the metanarrative they are critiquing. this is why people like evola and guenon are extremely important in seeing the whole picture.

>> No.14551199

you quoted us and posted a pic of yourself, and? be clearer as to what you want to convey

>> No.14551207

all symbols are arbitrary there are no truths behind them. hogwash.
>the whole picture
so you yourself are making a metanarrative

>> No.14551213

Why is Spinoza on the left? Because he doesn’t autistically follow religious dogma in favour of a greater understanding of the divine?

>> No.14551232

what have you read from evola? i really want to read ride the tiger but haven't read anything by him; i have revolt against the modern world here and would probably start with it; what do you think?

>god is like so infinite wow.... but he's still conditioned by supra-natural necessity haha ;)
200 pages of this in vapid uninspiring logicism

>> No.14551239

hello butterfly, forgot your trip

>> No.14551244

The people on the left are actual thinkers. It is embarrassing to compare them with the charlatans on the right. Please don't make this thread again.

>> No.14551252

have fun twiddling around with ideology and your hack spiritualism

>> No.14551253

The thing is, while Evola seems similiar to Nietzche, he used the "vibe" of mysticism/intuition in his writing to make people feel as there can be something more (ie mystical) in (meta-)reality which follows in that nature.
Nietzche on the other hand, used the vibe of this "beyond" as a tool, in order to make the ideas on his writing more effective.

So Evola is but a fancier but more shallow and less useful version of Nietzche.

>> No.14551254

How could the people on the left be actual thinkers if all of them were retroactively refuted by Guenon (pbuh)?

Pro-tip: they aren't

>> No.14551264

Oops wrong reference. anyways thats the idea. These people promise something "beyond fake liberalism" but at the same time esoteric, traditionalist or whatever, but problem is these things dont mix well together now that technology keeps developing at a very fast rate.

>> No.14551266
File: 689 KB, 923x1280, Boyd Rice Kowala.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

"the whole picture" is just a phrase that means to see everything clearly.

>so you yourself are making a metanarrative
no; on the contrary, abolishing metanarratives and returning fully to intuition. i believe this is what nietzsche meant by the "superman." a man that who longer gets lost in metanarratives and functions solely on intuition.

so far, i've read "meditations on the peaks" (which is the best place to start), "metaphysics of war," some of revolt, some of "love and eros", and a bunch of various essays (in particular the ones on america.) i tried reading revolt when i was 19 (22 now). i had difficulty understanding it, but if you start with meditations then go to revolt, you should be fine. its probably also worth reading "sun and steel" by mishima after meditations, just to really hammer the point home, and it's also a short and amazing read.


>> No.14551279

literally no one important gives a shit about them, only you larping fash retards on here. take a shower and read Deleuze

>> No.14551281

When you say there is truth behind symbols and the tradcucks are putting the pieces together it sounds a whole lot like a metanarrative lol

>> No.14551298
File: 328 KB, 534x780, Amman Woman.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

the "truth behind symbols" correspond to different psychological and physical realities that got lost in the weeds. literally just read the introduction to "simulation and simulacra," it'll explain it better than i can. he actually argues that when you try to symbolize these truths, you begin to obscure them from that very moment, which is an interesting point.

nonetheless, the reason we must work with these symbols is because man has become so detached from his intuition that we require reference points.

>> No.14551334
File: 77 KB, 645x729, 1563321160095.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>God is an Albanian

>> No.14551365

you forgot the (pbuh)

>> No.14551370

its not pbuh, its SAW

>Allah (SAW) isn't an Albanoid

>> No.14551373

I can no longer tell the difference between trolling and sincere zoomer beliefs

>> No.14551379

actually you use SWT for Allah, and SAW for honorable people

>Allah (SWT)
>Whitehead (SAW)

>> No.14551574

Sounds interesting, can you please tell me more about it?

>> No.14552523


>> No.14552530
File: 825 KB, 1199x1066, smash that early life button.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

based and redpilled

>> No.14552555

Great fucking argument.

>> No.14553594

Imagine believing this.

>> No.14553661
File: 62 KB, 940x1024, Thinking retard pepe.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

James and Spinoza would obviously switch, maybe Whitehead. But Nietzsche would be neither, or at best right.

It's also quite possible that Adorno might prostrate himself to the right in some weird power fantasy stemming from his desire to redeem his homosexuality in the consummation of it, to the "fathers look".

Definitely Right.

>> No.14553666

>ie metanarratives that are founded upon a falsehood
What about founded on truth with intuition? Like Kierkegaard.

>> No.14553767
File: 9 KB, 200x155, Pepe wondering.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

What is (pbuh)?

>> No.14554092


>> No.14554212

None of them would switch

>> No.14554290
File: 58 KB, 525x300, plotinus.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

The absolute state of leftists. Philosophy is everything that Evola was. You cannot be a materialist/atheist/nihilist (all the same btw) and call yourself A) a philosopher or B) someone interested in philosophy. Philosophy is just a wing of the West's mystery tradition, and is inherently a religious exercize and practise. Everything went downhill after Christianity arose, and the university system gradually bastardized it by scholastizing it. There was a time when science, religion, magic, 'philosophy' and so on, were all one.

People like Marx or Rand are the antithesis of philosophy. They want to lock you in the cave for all eternity, forever chasing the shadow of matter.

>> No.14554309

Based. Although, I'd add that Evola was a sour fruit, compared to the true Philosophers.

>> No.14554352

Oh look another brain dead post from a hack spiritualist

>> No.14554359
File: 8 KB, 225x225, 1234214.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>Oh look another brain dead post from a hack spiritualist

>> No.14554364

Also if you are not a materialist in the current year, expect to be pointed and laughed at by anyone that isn't an underage contrarian (half this board).

>> No.14554367

It's not my fault you didn't understand the Greeks, fren. Here's an upboat

>> No.14554381

Praised Bestowed Upon Him

>> No.14554394

I have moved far past the Greeks and so has everyone else. Why are you stuck 2000+ years in the past?

>> No.14554425

>I have moved past philosophy, now I'm into my political ideology
Maybe you'd fare better back at r/socialism, reddit-kun?

>> No.14554460

A kid amongst us! Do go back into from where you shouldn't have left: the maternity ward. For your intellect is close to non-existent.

>> No.14554487

Maybe you'd fare better reading more?
Read more. The Greeks are a meme.

>> No.14554499
File: 30 KB, 366x475, 1579192802161.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Anyone read this?
>Many of the great thinkers of Western modernity define their goal as a therapeutic one. Spinoza, Nietzsche, Freud, and Wittgenstein all present themselves as diagnosticians and clinicians. They examine symptoms, discern the conditions of our metaphysical malaise, and propose remedies to free us from our enslavement to “passive emotions” (Spinoza), to ressentiment (Nietzsche), to traumatic recollections (Freud), or to the “bewitchment of our intelligence by means of language” (Wittgenstein). Therapy in this sense is the modern, secularized and demystified, form of ethics. One of the striking things about Whitehead is that he does not make any such therapeutic or ethical claims. He does not say that his metaphysics will cure me, or that it will make me a better person. At best, philosophy and art may awaken me from my torpor, and allow me to subsume the painful experience of a “clash in affective tones” within a wider sense of purpose. Such broadening “increases the dimensions of the experient subject, adds to its ambit.”. But this is still a rather modest and limited result. At best, philosophy and poetry “seek to express that ultimate good sense which we term civilization". Granted, Whitehead displays none of Nietzsche’s or Freud’s justified suspicion regarding the value of “good sense,” or of what we call “civilization.” But even from the perspective of Whitehead’s entirely laudatory use of these terms, he is still only making a deliberately muted and minor claim. We are far from any “exaggerated” promises of a Great Health, of self-transcendence, or of cathartic transformation.

>Even in his hyperbolic evocation of “God and the World,” in the fifth and final Part of Process and Reality, Whitehead does not offer us any prospect to match the “intellectual love of God” exalted by Spinoza in the fifth and final part of the Ethics. Whitehead’s God, in sharp contrast with Spinoza’s, does not know the world sub specie aeternitatis. Rather, Whitehead’s God is “the poet of the world.” This means that he knows the world, not in terms of its first causes, but only through its effects, and only in retrospect. God “saves” the world precisely to the extent, but only to the extent, that he aestheticizes and memorializes it. He remembers the world in each and every detail, incorporating all these memories into an overarching “conceptual harmonization”. But if God remembers every experience of every last entity, he does not produce and provide these experiences and memories themselves. That is something that is left for us to do, contingently and unpredictably. Where Spinoza’s book ends with the “spiritual contentment” that arises from the comprehension of “eternal necessity,” Whitehead’s book rather ends by justifying, and throwing us back upon, our “insistent craving” for novelty and adventure. That is what it means to write an aesthetics, rather than an ethics.

>> No.14554512

>Spinoza wouldn't switch away from postmodernism

>> No.14554521

Deleuze was a Spinozist

>> No.14554524

cringe, embarassing post

>> No.14554525

>Everything went downhill after Christianity arose
Hello retard alert?

>> No.14554532

>>14554381 (pbuh)

>> No.14554533

Read a book once in your life

>> No.14554534

op's picture makes no sense

>> No.14554542

>t. christcuck brainlet

The Jews were the first materialists, unironically. They had no knowledge of metaphysics before Hellenization, the only good Christianity has is that it was GREEKed hard.

>> No.14554543


>> No.14554560

He was also valuable to Nietzsche, Foucault, and Whitehead.

>> No.14554569

Read Levi-Strauss The Savage Mind. This is literally totemism vs. caste societies.

>> No.14554632

Deleuze was a neoplatonist catholic reactionary

>> No.14554650

>The Jews were the first materialists,
You better not be serious anon.

This somehow redeems the previous statement.

>They had no knowledge of metaphysics before Hellenization
The Jews have never had a true culture, and that is because they are a rootless people. No ground from which they grow, and so they must resort to the adaptation of others cultural habits. This is what Jung said, however, he also stated Christianity to be the greatest of religions. So did Wagner. And as do I.

>the only good Christianity has is that it was GREEKed hard.
Incorrect, without Plato it wouldn't be, true, but there exist core differences which are also of great value. I'm not sure I want to say too much as I've written something quite worth publishing but one such difference would be the centralisation of compassion for the suffering of the world, and thereby a further development in the moral through greater self consciousness. This Christian spirit, that has created the greatest works of art and culture the world has ever seen.

>"But that picture of Raphael's shews us the final consummation of the miracle, the virgin mother transfigured and ascending with the new-born son: here we are taken by a beauty which the ancient world, for all its gifts, could not so much as dream of; for here is not the ice of chastity that made an Artemis seem unapproachable, but Love divine beyond all knowledge of unchastity, Love which of innermost denial of the world has born the affirmation of redemption. And this unspeakable wonder we see with our eyes, distinct and tangible, in sweetest concord with the noblest truths of our own inner being, yet lifted high above conceivable experience. If the Greek statue held to Nature her unattained ideal, the painter now unveiled the unseizable and therefore indefinable mystery of the religious dogmas, no longer to the plodding reason, but to enraptured sight."

- Richard Wagner

>He was also valuable to Nietzsche, Foucault, and Whitehead.

>> No.14554656

This is how I know you have never read Evola

>> No.14554657
File: 525 KB, 900x785, base of the world.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

No that was Heidegger:
>"God lets the oppositional will of the ground operate in order that might be which love unifies and subordinates itself to for the glorification of the Absolute. The will of love stands about the will of the ground and this predominance, this eternal decidedness, the love for itself as the essence of being in general, this decidedness is the innermost core of absolute freedom."

>"Only a god can save us. The sole possibility that is left for us is to prepare a sort of readiness, through thinking and poetizing, for the appearance of the god or for the absence of the god in the time of foundering; for in the face of the god who is absent we founder"
>"For us contemporaries the greatness of what is to be thought is too great. Perhaps we might bring ourselves to build a narrow and not far reaching footpath as a passageway."

>> No.14554658

Sure if you never read a single word from him and only know about him through underage retards memeing

>> No.14554661

This is how I know you have never read

>> No.14554671

So he fits with what everyone else is doing

>> No.14554681


>> No.14554726 [DELETED] 

Their philosophies of immanence and their approaches to power and causality

>> No.14554742

Their philosophies of immanence and their approaches to power and causality and how they apply Spinoza to modern biopolitics

>> No.14555128

Hitler and Shankaracharya together are unstoppable!

>> No.14555137

it would just devolve into everybody laughing at Nietzsche as he spergs out towards Plato and possibly Hitler (bc of Wagner)

>> No.14555150

Sorry for the late response, hope you get this.
It is a systematic study cross comparing different Indian metaphysics and showing the continuity between the superficial differences.
Arguments to ground reality and perception in an emperical reality while emphasising that the forces that act upon us are not by chance alone, but rather of the same quality. Like attracts to like. While at the same time it argues that their are deceptions and illusions. Also arguments on space and time.
The text argues against some false ideas in the west within sience and ideas of evolution.
I summed it up terribly, I have only read it once and too quickly for my taste.

>> No.14555177

If you would like to see a passage (since it can be a bit pricey) I will gladly take a picture.

>> No.14555181

the whole thing is on archive.org


>> No.14555271

Ah good deal, I forgot I had it digital too.

>> No.14555287

Emphasis on applying.

>> No.14555392
File: 37 KB, 750x766, kala2_1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>nietzsche, marx and foucault on the same side
Kill yourself

>> No.14555479

>Philosophy is just a wing of the West's mystery tradition, and is inherently a religious exercize and practise.
Even though the part about atheists being incompatible with philosophy was completely retarded (and i'll explain why) this is a fantastic little anecdote, i must grant you that. Now, i don't believe that western philosophy is an inherently mystical practice, it is a tradition of formulating models to describe reality without the tools to adequately study reality. As such, atheists couldn't be considered philosophers only if you're willing to exclude anyone who bases his beliefs on scientific study from the label of "philosopher". Given the goal of philosophy, that is, to think of the nature of the world, i think that would be absurd and unfair, and would require atheists to be labeled as scientists, as they would have more in common with a man of science than an anchorite. I don't think you'd like that very much.

Still, a very interesting anecdote which to consider philosophy through.

>> No.14556583


Both Marx and Hitler tried to destroy Western civilization.

>> No.14556625

Hitler tried to save it

>> No.14556648

dugin and plato belong nowhere near hitler

>> No.14556668

terrible historical mistake

>> No.14556671


>> No.14556680

you'd be right in general but nietzsche's criticisms of christianity in the antichrist are not particularly conflicting with evola's except maybe in Nietzsche's critique of asceticism

>> No.14556692

who are the thinkers who cannot be dismissively reduced to ideologues
this is rhetoric, not criticism

>> No.14556707

The ones on the left chart

>> No.14556747

marx: scientism

>> No.14556783

how was Hitler not a Germanic traditionalist? he is often described as Guenon with tanks

>> No.14557628

Deleuze on his own can beat all of them with just one finger. He read 1000 books for each of their 1. There is no competition here. Everyone on the right is like a child to him.

>> No.14557740

the plotinus anon is right and a lot of people is blinded by intellectual, linguistic, cultural corruption; you don't understand what philosophy was in its original meaning lol, try reading some pythagoras

not sure about scholasticism but come on, christianity has a lot of valuable mystical insights worth of being pared with neoplatonic ones; neoplatonism and christianity should have merged completely

>> No.14557783

neoplatonism and christianity have been a cancer on philosophy

>> No.14557983

they were the last heirs of philosophy; what started to degenerate it was stoicism, skepticism, atomism and all other anti-philosophical proto-scientism

>> No.14558348

Philosophy actually started with Nietzsche. Everything else before other than Spinoza is cringe.

>> No.14558670

daily reminder that adorno is compatible with most of the right and evola is compatible with most of the left

>> No.14558710

Sure if you never read a single word from them and only know about them through underage retards memeing

>> No.14558735

Thrasymchus was just Nietzsche but in ancient Greece.

>> No.14558741

Who often describes him as that? Name one person.

>> No.14558763


I ended philosophy. That’s right.


>> No.14558920


No, he actually tried to destroy it and probably wanted to replace it with nothing but Nazi German stuff.

>> No.14558924

While you guys argue which side is better, I creampied my girlfriend.

>> No.14558964

Nagarjuna & Whitehead > Shankara & Plato

>> No.14558968

Buddy, out of all the people with girlfriends on /lit/ you were the one who chose to post about it on 4chan.

You are the biggest loser of all the losers :3

>> No.14559054

no meme I agree

>> No.14559116
File: 359 KB, 1297x2377, IMG_5305.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Nagarjuna was refuted by Richard Robinson, who showed how Nagarjuna's logic was full of inexcusable holes (pic related). Shankara was never refuted and so he is vastly superior to Nagarjuna. Whitehead was refuted by Guenon's critique of process philosophy in 'Crisis of the Modern World'.

>> No.14559128

>Whitehead was refuted by Guenon's critique of process philosophy in 'Crisis of the Modern World'.
where ? i dont see where guenon talks about whitehead

>> No.14559193

It's directed at Bergson but also applies to Whitehead:

The same trend is noticeable in the scientific realm: research here is for its own sake far more than for the partial and fragmentary results it achieves; here we see an ever more rapid succession of unfounded theories and hypotheses, no sooner set up than crumbling to give way to others that will have an even shorter life— a veritable chaos amid which one would search in vain for anything definitive, unless it be a monstrous accumulation of facts and details incapable of proving or signifying anything. We refer here of course to speculative science, insofar as this still exists; in applied science there are on the contrary undeniable results, and this is easily understandable since these results bear directly on the domain of matter, the only domain in which modern man can boast any real superiority. It is therefore to be expected that discoveries, or rather mechanical and industrial inventions, will go on developing and multiplying more and more rapidly until the end of the present age; and who knows if, given the dangers of destruction they bear in themselves, they will not be one of the chief agents in the ultimate catastrophe, if things reach a point at which this cannot be averted?

Be that as it may, one has the general impression that, in the present state of things, there is no longer any stability; but while there are some who sense the danger and try to react to it, most of our contemporaries are quite at ease amid this confusion, in which they see a kind of exteriorized image of their own mentality. Indeed there is an exact correspondence between a world where everything seems to be in a state of mere ‘becoming’, leaving no place for the changeless and the permanent, and the state of mind of men who find all reality in this ‘becoming’, thus implicitly denying true knowledge as well as the object of that knowledge, namely transcendent and universal principles. One can go even further and say that it amounts to the negation of all real knowledge whatsoever, even of a relative order, since, as we have shown above, the relative is unintelligible and impossible without the absolute, the contingent without the necessary, change without the unchanging, and multiplicity without unity; ‘relativism’ is self-contradictory, for, in seeking to reduce everything to change, one logically arrives at a denial of the very existence of change; this was fundamentally the meaning of the famous arguments of Zeno of Elea.

>> No.14559195

However, we have no wish to exaggerate and must add that theories such as these are not exclusively encountered in modern times; examples are to be found in Greek philosophy also, the ‘universal flux’ of Heraclitus being the best known; indeed, it was this that led the school of Elea to combat his conceptions, as well as those of the atomists, by a sort of reductio ad absurdum. Even in India, something comparable can be found, though, of course, considered from a different point of view from that of philosophy, for Buddhism also developed a similar character, one of its essential theses being the ‘dissolubility of all things ’. These theories, however, were then no more than exceptions, and such revolts against the traditional outlook, which may well have occurred from time to time throughout the whole of the Kali-Yuga, were, when all is said and done, without wider influence; what is new is the general acceptance of such conceptions that we see in the West today.

It should be noted too that under the influence of the very recent idea of ‘progress’, ‘philosophies of becoming’ have, in modern times, taken on a special form that theories of the same type never had among the ancients: this form, although it may have multiple varieties, can be covered in general by the name ‘evolutionism’. We need not repeat here what we have already said elsewhere on this subject; we will merely recall the point that any conception allowing for nothing other than ‘becoming’ is thereby necessarily a ‘naturalistic’ conception, and, as such, implies a formal denial of whatever lies beyond nature, in other words the realm of metaphysics— which is the realm of immutable and eternal principles. We may point out also, in speaking of these anti-metaphysical theories, that the Bergonian idea of pure duration’ corresponds exactly with that dispersion in instantaneity to which we alluded above; a pretended intuition modeled on the ceaseless flux of the things of the senses, far from being able to serve as an instrument for obtaining true knowledge, represents in reality the dissolution of all possible knowledge.

>> No.14559202

This leads us to repeat an essential point on which not the slightist ambiguity must be allowed to persist: intellectual intuition, by which alone metaphysical knowledge is to be obtained, has absolutely nothing in common with this other ‘intuition’ of which certain contemporary philosophers speak: the latter pertains to the sensible realm and in fact is sub-rational, whereas the former, which is pure intelligence, is on the contrary supra-rational. But the moderns, knowing nothing higher than reason in the order of intelligence, do not even conceive of the possibility of intellectual intuition, whereas the doctrines of the ancient world and of the Middle Ages, even when they were no more than philosophical in character, and therefore incapable of effectively calling this intuition into play, nevertheless explicitly recognized its existence and its supremacy over all the other faculties. This is why there was no rationalism before Descartes, for rationalism is a specifically modern phenomenon, one that is closely connected with individualism, being nothing other than the negation of any faculty of a supra- individual order. As long as Westerners persist in ignoring or denying intellectual intuition, they can have no tradition in the true sense of the word, nor can they reach any understanding with the authentic representatives of the Eastern civilizations, in which everything, so to speak, derives from this intuition, which is immutable and infallible in itself, and the only starting-point for any development in conformity with traditional norms

>> No.14559288

You just got btfo'd.

>> No.14559313

your image does not respond to the criticism of the very idea of substance

Thank you, I'm French so I have access to all of Guenon's corpus, even his letters, and yet I haven't read this book yet, I have no excuse.

>> No.14559320





>> No.14559342

shut up cucky leftist

>> No.14559347

Not a leftist or a rightist retard. They are labels with no meaning outside of a subjective interpretation by the one who uses them.

>> No.14559356


t. has probabaly read one Nietzsche book and it wasn't The Antichrist

True and post-narrative pilled, I actually like people from both sides of that meme. Heidegger should be there to

>> No.14559363
File: 906 KB, 280x163, Wat0.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

The Good is beyond Being and Becoming.
Being and everything is at rest and in motion.

>> No.14559372

Fuck so many people in this thread who havent read any Julius Evola other than a few lines of a Wikipedia page that says he was a Fascist Reactionary

>> No.14559378

t. cucky leftist

>> No.14559383

holy shit so redpilled

>> No.14559389

t. libcuck

>> No.14559501

>your image does not respond to the criticism of the very idea of substance
Such as? None of Nagarjuna's criticisms really apply to Vedanta, they are all directed instead against atomists, other Buddhists and the metaphysics of Nyaya and Samkhya. I'm not denying that some of his criticisms of those systems may have been correct but if you'd like to post some of his criticisms of substance I could explain to you how they fall short of offering any challenge to the metaphysics of Advaita Vedanta.

>> No.14559530


The best definition of substance was given by Spinoza, who wrote :

‘By ‘substance’ I understand : what is in itself and is conceived through itself, i.e., that whose concept doesn’t have to be formed out of the concept of something else.’ – Spinoza :Ethics, Part I, definition III.
‘By God, I mean the absolutely infinite Being – that is, a substance consisting in infinite attributes, of which each expresses for itself eternal and infinite essentiality.’ – Spinoza : Ethics, Part I, definition VI.
‘That thing is called “free,” which exists solely by the necessity of its own nature, and of which the action is determined by itself alone. That thing is inevitable, compelled, necessary, or rather constrained, which is determined by something external to itself to a fixed and definite method of existence or action.’ – Spinoza : Ethics, Part I, definition VII.

A substance exists from its own side, and hence (as Leibniz said) has no "windows". It is self-contained, as Spinoza defined it. Given this ontological feature, one cannot consistently think such a substance to move outside itself and interact with anything other than itself.
That's why in Spinoza's system there is only God, only Nature as sole substance. If a substance would interact, it would no longer be depending on itself alone and hence it would no longer be a substance.
This we see the flawed version of interactionism as advanced by Descartes. How can a substantial brain (a res extensa) interact with a substantial mind (a res cogitans). As Geulincx (and also Nagarjuna) argue, given a substance, there is no movement, no production, no causality, no creativity. Hence, a substantial God cannot create.

If God is a substance, in casu the "substance of substances", then God is self-contained, and if so, there can be no creation of anything 'outside' such a substantial God. As existence (something outside this God) is an experiential fact of relativity, becoming, in short : not absolute, it follows it cannot be the outcome of the creative act of this substantial God for such a God, being substantial and closed-up, is unable to create anything. To posit such a God in light of the fact of existence is positing something that cannot exist to explain what apparently does exist.

There is no substance, only processes that interact (Whitehead). Even primordial consciousness (dharmakaya) is not substantial (process theology). All what exists is a process and there can not be found such a thing as something existing from its own side, self-powered and independent of other things.

The Atman exists from its own side, self-powered, permanent, independent, isolated from the world, etc. Buddha-nature does not exist from its own side, is other-powered, impermanent but continuous, depending on the factors of enlightenment, and not ontologically divided from the world. Buddha desubstantalized the atman. (1/2)

>> No.14559533

This makes it a process, not a substance. A crucial but subtle distinction, no doubt. Most do not understand it properly and then compare Buddhism with Nondual Vedanta, a grave error of eternalism. On the opposite side, the rejection of existence per se, is also flawed. The Buddha's position is the Middle Way between the concept affirming substance (eternalism) and the concept rejecting existing has some structure (nihilism, not in the Nietzschean sense of course). This means things exist, but not in a substantial, nor in an existence-rejecting sense. They exist as interconnected processes (pratitya samutpada).

There is a PROFOUND metaphysical difference : the Hindu substantializes nonduality (in nondual Shaiva ontology Shiva is called "emptiness", but this is a self-referential, self-existing "emptiness", i.e. one "empty" of the world, not "empty" of substance, as in Buddhism). Buddhism dereifies nonduality. The nondual in Buddhism is process-based. All the other systems are substance-based and so incorporate a fundamental contradiction. That's why I reject them all.

Aa substance a forteriori CAN NEVER interact, never. I am not the first to say this. Classical Occasionalism, first propounded by the 10th-century Muslim thinker al-Ash'ari and found in the writings of Cartesians Johannes Clauberg (1622 – 1665), Arnold Geulincx (1624 – 1669) and Nicolas Malebranche (1638 – 1715), rejects substances to entertain any kind of relation. Earlier, in his Fundamental Treatise on the Middle Way (Mūlamadhyamakakārikā, chapter XIV), the Buddhist Nāgārjuna (2th- century CE) had come to the same conclusion. When analyzing ‘connection,’ denoting the relation between components in any compounded phenomenon, as well as the relation among their conditions and determinations, he had found these as non-substantial. (2/2)

>> No.14559555

The world is an illusion, not something that "existe en lui". The core idea about the world as seen by Advaita Vedanta is maya. This is the same trick as found in Spinoza. First one advances a supreme substantial transcendence and then one realizes that by doing so the world cannot be explained, hence, it becomes a Platonic shadow, and illusion, something not really there. I find this idealist turning the tables. You know the story about the Buddhist who said to Shankara that he saw him running away from a wild elephant and wondered why (if the elephant is maya anyway). The guy answered : it was an illusionary Shankara running away from an illusionary elephant. Sorry, but this kind of sophistery I no longer wish to entertain. Of course the atman is ontologically different than the world, just like Plato's world of ideas is RADICALLY different than the world of becoming, reduced to shadows and dust. No, such ontological idealism is flawed to the core and ... contradictory. In the mind of a Buddha the absolute and the relative appear simultaneously. This is not One Truth, but Two Truth united (a nondual dual-union).


>> No.14559575

This but destroying Western civilization would be a net positive

>> No.14559992


desu Nietzsche is cringe; a Spinoza with smaller brains, balls and boldness - but with a bigger ego and greater appeal to brainlets who wants to feel smart.

>> No.14560001

>As Geulincx (and also Nagarjuna) argue, given a substance, there is no movement, no production, no causality, no creativity. Hence, a substantial God cannot create.
Brahman is not considered to be a substance in Advaita Vedanta, so this criticism is wholly irrelevant, or at least from the perspective of Advaita. Brahman is taught by Advaita to be formless whereas substances have form, mass, particles etc. A formless substance is an oxymoron. Brahman is infinite formless Consciousness. It is correct that a truly infinite X precludes anything else (Y) from existing on the same level of reality as X as something other then X, because if something exists which is not included in X then X becomes non-infinite, however this doesn't preclude Y from 'existing' conditionally as an unreality or illusion within the infinite X (because in reality there is only X), there only becomes a contradiction if one holds Y to be real in the same sense that X is. Advaita agrees that Brahman's immutableness and infiniteness precludes there being any real movement, production, causality etc, as there is nothing else other then Brahman that It could interact with, there being nothing that can be produced out of a formless X which is without parts. There appears to be a world of multiplicity because of Brahman's power of Maya, which it is the svabhava or self-nature of Brahman to effortlessly express like it is the nature of the sun to emit light. All of the rest of your criticisms on Advaita are based on your misunderstanding of Brahman as a substance and the implications that follow from that, so I won't bother addressing the rest of your post.

>All the other systems are substance-based and so incorporate a fundamental contradiction.
There is no contradiction unless one insists on misunderstanding the Brahman to be a substance with form, but when one properly understands Advaita there is no contradiction left; and Advaita has the additional benefit of having a coherent explanation for what is responsible for causing the universe (or it's appearance); whereas Buddhism either has incoherent explanations which don't stand up to critical scrutiny (dependent-origination), or no explanation at all (the schools like Madhyamaka that reject dependent-origination as a cause of the universe).

>> No.14560005
File: 447 KB, 1630x1328, cryptobuddhism.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>> No.14560018
File: 65 KB, 480x360, hqdefault1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

bamping an ebic bread

>> No.14560056

bullshit https://scholarworks.gsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1003&context=rs_theses&sei-redir=1

>> No.14560070

>and Advaita has the additional benefit of having a coherent explanation for what is responsible for causing the universe (or it's appearance); whereas Buddhism either has incoherent explanations which don't stand up to critical scrutiny (dependent-origination), or no explanation at all (the schools like Madhyamaka that reject dependent-origination as a cause of the universe).
please explain

>> No.14560099

>Brahman is not considered to be a substance in Advaita Vedanta

"Learned transcendentalists who know the Absolute Truth call this nondual substance Brahman, Paramātmā or Bhagavān." (Bhagavata Purana 1.2.11)

>In the nondual Advaita Vedānta yoga text, Avadhūta Gītā, Brahman (in the Upanishadic denotation) is the svabhāva.

>> No.14560143

Yo nobody cares about poo philosophy get out of my thread.

>> No.14560147

bougeois socialism

>> No.14560163

says the champagne internationalist kike
it's more like social democracy+guns+cool uniforms-jews, sounds britty good to me

>> No.14560204

Read Marx

>> No.14560218

already have, you should read hitler

>> No.14560224


>> No.14560340

Fuck off and read someone with discernible talent instead of being a contrarian. Nobody cares about pseudomystic garbage.

>> No.14560429

t. Justin Murphy

>> No.14560446


>> No.14560868

The Bhagavata Purana is a smriti text which is neither accepted as an authoritative source of doctrine by Advaitins nor does it belong to the school of Advaita as an Advaitic text. Only the Upanishads are accepted by Advaitins as authoritative and they don't deacribe Brahman as a substance but rather as formless eternal Consciousness-Bliss. The Puranas are all anonymously-assembled texts which don't belong to any school, many different schools including Dvaitins and Hare Krishnas have written commentaries on the Puranas or cited them for the purpose of showing that their interpretation of the Upanishads are backed up by other Hindu texts, but it is completely incorrect to point to a line from a Purana and claim that such line proves Advaita teaches X as you did because Advaitins would reject that. The Avadhuta Gita isn't authoritative either but that line you cited from it doesn't contradict what I wrote anyway.

>> No.14560911

why are whitehead and nietzsche on left

also 4/9 of left is jews. take that as you will

>> No.14560974

Because that's where they belong

>> No.14561084

>please explain
Theravada schools with a few exceptions generally maintain that dependent origination is the cause of the universe/samsara. That there is a beginningless series of causes and effects which causes everything. This notion is full of holes that make it incoherent. Both Vedantists and Mahayana Buddhists have criticized it as illogical.

There is no reason given by Theravadins why dependent origination exists in the first place or how it could proceed in such an orderly manner for an eternity without some superior organizing/maintaining influence like Brahman. There can be no beginningless series of cause and effect between the binary members of a series because then that would result in mutual dependence, the effect producing a cause that would produce an effect which would in turn produce its own cause, like a son giving birth to his own father. One cannot come into existence or be produced because doing so requires the other to exist already which cant happen if the cause of it hasn't been produced.

If you say it's a beginningless series of cause and effect between a non-binary series of elements then it's not a complete explanation unless you explain which of the element is the cause and the other the effect, if you say that they arise simultaneously then neither is really a cause or an effect and there can be no actual relation between them. The cause in a beginningless series of cause and effect has no capability to give rise either to an effect that exists prior to its origination or to an effect that does not exist prior to its production. Nor can it be determined in such a system which is actually the cause and which is the effect which leads to a violation of the order of cause and effect.

Some Mahayana thinkers like Nagarjuna reject dependent origination as the cause of samsara and interpret it more as an explanation for how mental phenomena like delusion, anger etc condition and give rise to one another. However they don't have any explanation for the reason for samsara/existence to substitute for dependent origination, this makes me take their claims of enlightenment or correct views not very seriously. If you don't know what's causing a disease you can only treat the symptoms but not the root cause of the disease itself.

>> No.14561191

what you're describing here is simply Munchhausen's trilemma, the vedanta flees as much in postulate an uncaused root cause, the Buddhists replace that with the universe and an infinite causal sequence, both answers have their flaws and their merits.


and the purpose of Buddhism has never been to answer everything but to end dukkha.

>> No.14561214

I would add that the advaita doesn't explain anything in fine either, hence the "brahman's game" (lila).


>> No.14561224

I'm not sure you can view op's pic as "left v right". it makes no sense

>> No.14561726

>the vedanta flees as much in postulate an uncaused root cause
I'm sorry, what do you think the vedanta is fleeing?
>and the purpose of Buddhism has never been to answer everything but to end dukkha
The problem with this though is the analogy of trying to treat the disease without knowing it's cause that I mentioned earlier
>I would add that the advaita doesn't explain anything in fine either
What's wrong with Advaita's answer? It seems like a coherent and complete answer to me
>hence the "brahman's game" (lila)
Lila is not a teaching of traditional Advaita, in Gaudapada's Karika that Shankara comments on and agrees with Gaudapada points out that to posit that Brahman creates for the purpose of amusement or play cannot be correct because the desire for amusement/play presupposes imperfection and incompleteness, the impulse for entertainment stems from boredom and a lack of satisfaction which cannot be attributed to Brahman who is simply immutable Bliss-Consiousness. Play would have no purpose for an entity who is already of the nature of immutable and eternal bliss. Rather then being because of lila, traditional Advaita says it is simply the svabhava of Brahman to wield maya just as it is the nature of the sun to shine.

>> No.14562172

based and red-pilled

>> No.14562769
File: 2.21 MB, 1450x5947, vedanta.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>> No.14562805


>> No.14563073

Is Ebola actually worth reading or is he just a watered down fascist Nietzsche?

>> No.14563598

He is fascist Nietzsche but with a spiritualist pretense and about 10 times more pretentious

>> No.14563624

Shit tier thinker even for fascist standards

>> No.14563626

He got btfod by his own stupidity.

>> No.14563650

But you posted an image with Shankara...

>> No.14563660
File: 3.72 MB, 2080x1544, Gorgeous Guenon Monkeys Faces Keep from Sleepin.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Lemur boys obliterated forever

>> No.14563675

you're just coping because Nagarjuna and the whole Madhyamaka school got completely destroyed by Richard Robinson >>14559116

>> No.14563721

nagarjuna being "BTFO" or not has nothing to do with pic youre replying to though. actually it would mean shankara has been BTFO too, since shankara is a nagarjuna ripoff

>> No.14563747

So, yes or no?

>> No.14563757
File: 112 KB, 611x548, 687897.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

shankara was influenced by buddhism which was influenced by the upanishads

>> No.14563795

He is shit

>> No.14563800

Not only your argument but the author you are citing there is covered in the image you are replying to.

Sharma himself says Mahayana "innovated" on the Upanishads, lol.

>> No.14563905

Not really though because the great Shankaracharya (pbuh) disagrees with Nagarjuna on just about everything except on that there is such a thing as absolute truth (which the Mundaka Upanishad mentions hundreds of years before Nagarjuna) and that objects and multiplicity are never really created or emerge as real particulars but are only illusions (which the pre-Buddhist Brihadaranyaka and Chandogya Upanishads state unequivocally); but even here they differ fundamentally because Nagarjuna thought that there was no underlying reality but that even the ultimate truth is empty of existence because he was a retard who didn't realize that emptiness cannot give rise to anything even illusions and that illusions can only be witnessed when there is both an existent observer and when there is an existent substratum in which they can inhere; so this latter point is actually completely different because Shankaracharya (pbuh) rightfully maintains that there is an existent ultimate reality with its own stable nature that falsely appears to but never really creates anything while Nagarjuna believes that emptiness (which he has no idea why there is emptiness to begin with) somehow magically out of itself gives rise to an illusory world and creates illusory subjects witnessing illusions and that we are just supposed to NPC ourselves and dissolve into emptiness. So they are actually totally different.

Shankarcharya (pbuh) doesn't accept any of the claims which Nagarjuna makes that Robinson BTFO's Nagarjuna for and so Nagarjuna's claims being exposed as nonsense doesn't damage Shankaracharya (pbuh) in the slightest, he disagreed with all those claims too. It's Nagarjuna who made the fool of himself by claiming to expose the contradictions in all constructive metaphysics but his own circular and flawed reasoning only succeeded in proving that he couldn't into basic logic. When people claim that Robinson's eviscerating of Nagarjuna's logic damages Shankaracharya (pbuh) despite him not accepting those claims of Nagarjuna not only is it an embarrassingly obvious cope but it reveals that the person in question has no understanding at all of the differences between the two thinkers.

The venerable Sri Shankaracharya (pbuh) was infallible so you might as well give up all attempts at criticizing or refuting him because they all inevitably end in failure and disappointment. He was surely blessed by the very Gods themselves.

>> No.14563952

mahayana innovated based on upanishads? i dont understand what you mean

upanishads ''were already advaita'' because advaita is utterly based on upanishads, so there is basically no difference between them; why cant you just accept things that are so obvious?

>> No.14564172

He is worth reading but reading some of Guenon first helps you better discern the good in Evola's writings from the bad, so I would recommend that course

>> No.14564236

The people on the right created the West, with all of its accomplishments and shortcomings.

The people on the left are the inevitable side-effects of the West's shortcomings.

>> No.14564324

Left. Easy choice. If you pick the right you have been memed badly and need to read more.

>> No.14565285

Lmfao parmenides is pure piss. The absolute is pure negativity. The self is its own self cancellation. It is pure betweenness. There is no contadiction between being and nonbeing. Process is utterly perfect. Fucking parmenides is asinine. The absolute is imminent in its development and always complete. If one cannot think process one cannot think anything.

>> No.14565783

The upanishads promote vishishtadvaita actually

>> No.14565786

If you fall for the left/right dichotomy you have been memed even worse and clearly haven't read any of the people in the pic

>> No.14565883

How can that be true though when
the Brihadaranyaka Upanishd verse IV, iv. 19 and the Katha Upanishad verse IV. 10 both say "By the mind alone is Brahman to be realized; then one does not see in It any multiplicity whatsoever. He goes from death to death who sees multiplicity in It."

That amounts to a denial of the multiplicity that Vishishadvaita maintains is real, there are no verses occuring afterwards qualifying this one by saying that it only denies a certain level of multiplicty but it flatly states that there is no multiplicity and that those who see multiplicity go from death to death. Similarly, in the examples of gold, clay, etc and their transformations used as a metaphor from Brahman and His creations/modifications in the Chandogya Upanishad it says that the material basis of clay etc alone is real and not the modifications.

>> No.14565893

Correction, the Katha Upanishad verse says "one does not see multiplicity" although the Brihadaranyaka 4.4.19. directly says "There is no difference whatsoever in It"

>> No.14566847

this, Vishishtadvaita interpretations are much more in accordance with the original upanishads. advaita interpretations rely on casuistry and blind faith, they are philosophically unsatisfying.

>> No.14567049

Unironically this

>> No.14567119
File: 36 KB, 650x659, buddhist_yes.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

read faggot : >>14562769

>> No.14567291

That image doesn't say anything about whether the Upanishads more support Vishishtadvaita or Advaita

>> No.14567323

you got the order mixed up buddy

>> No.14567422
File: 15 KB, 224x300, 0D303DB3-8BE6-42F3-98DD-20EDF1E22F9C.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Why is Whitehead on the left when he views his process philosophy as a modern restatement of Plato?

>> No.14567471

That is a polite way of saying it. He views it as a BTFOing of Plato. He isn't a Platonist.

>> No.14567475

So what? Hillary Clinton is on record as saying The Brothers Karamazov is her favorite book, in neither case does it change anything

>> No.14567570

it does a little bit, it says that they are too varied and contradictory to support any one framework

>> No.14567797

That's not true, there are many dozens of verses in the primary Upanishads which say "Brahman is the Self", "This Self is Brahman", "Brahman is the inner consciousness", "Brahman is the Self of all beings" etc and verses which say "Brahman appears to be manifold because of maya".

There isn't a single verse in all of the primary Upanishads which says "Brahman is not the Self" or which says "this world of multiplicity and objects is real". There is a very consistent theme running throughout.

>> No.14567966

u dont read it

>> No.14568004

yes according to advaita interpretations and there are contrary interpretations, and other verses which are interpreted in contrary ways

how do you not understand this lol

>> No.14568248

Yes I did, the image studiously avoids making discussion of what the Upanishads actually say, because when does so one finds many verses clearly describing all the central ideas of Advaita, including in the pre-Buddhist Upanishads. All the discussion of Buddhist influence becomes practically pointless when it's shown that the pre-Buddhist Upanishads lay out the essentials of Advaita, which is why none of these images ever discuss the actual content of the Upanishads.
The existence of different schools of interpretations of the Upanishads does not in itself prove that the Upanishads are inconsistent and contradictory, and if you would try to claim this then by your own logic Buddha's teachings in the Pali Canon are inconsistent and contradictory because of Madhyamaka and Theravada having different interpretations of the Pali Canon; or Aristotle is inconsistent and contradictory because some Neoplatonists claim he fully agrees with Plato and others disagree etc.

The point is that the Upanishads generally have an Advaitic theme running throughout, which is why Sri Shankaracharya (pbuh) can accept literally or at face value all of the many many verses saying 'Brahman is the Self' and 'multiplicity is because of maya' without having to resort to any mental gymnastics, whereas Dvaitins and to a lesser degree Vishishtadvaitins in order to support their interpretatiosn have to resort to all sorts of mental gymnastics where they interpret verses as having the exact opposite meaning that they do when taken literally and they have to ignore all the verses describing maya and the verses describing multiplicity as unreal.

>> No.14568287

poo philosophy posters/tradcucks have ruined this board

>> No.14568302
File: 441 KB, 812x548, we'll show him.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

cant put it any more succinct than this

>> No.14568453

>The point is that the Upanishads generally have an Advaitic theme running throughout

according to advaitins, not according to other schools who would say just the opposite

again, how do you not understand this lol

>> No.14568526

Most Hindus disagree with you. They say that there is a general Dvaita or Vishishtadvaita "theme" in the Upanishads. If you answer them by citing cherry-picked verses translated and interpreted a certain way, they will do the same back to you.

>> No.14568594
File: 123 KB, 633x758, 14962692741327.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Advaita is just Bhāviveka's take on Nagarjuna's Madhyamaka + the noble lie for the plebians.

Prove me wrong.

>> No.14568679

that picture is hilarious

>> No.14569206

The difference is that Brihadaranyaka Upanishad IV, iv. 19 and Katha Upanishad verse IV. 10 which both deny multiplicity and say it leads to further transmigration both contradict Vishishtadvaita (which believes multiplicity is real), and Manduka 1.2 which says that the Self is Brahman contradicts Dvaita (who says the Self is not Brahman), whereas there are not any verses in the primary Upanishads which contradict Advaita, if you want to claim otherwise you'll have to cite them.

>> No.14569213

both dvaita and vishishtadvaita would disagree with you about the interpretation and importance of those verses. you can't prove them wrong by saying "but advaita says their interpretations are wrong". their interpretations say that advaita's are wrong

how are you not getting this lol. starting to think you're actually brain damaged

>> No.14569216

*and say believing in it or seeing it leads to further transmigration

>> No.14569221

but in order to do so they have to read those verses non-literally, whereas Advaita is on the more solid ground because it can read them literally

>> No.14569225

they would disagree with that, too. that's why it's called a disagreement.

it's nice that you think that your argument is better than theirs. that kind of goes without saying since it's YOUR argument. but they think the same for their argument.

how are you not getting this lol

>> No.14569289

They can dispute that it's better to read them literally (although this obviously calls the seriousness of their interpretation into question if they have to avoid the meaning when taken at face value), but it cannot be denied that the interpretation that Advaita takes IS the face value or literal interpretation of the text (regardless of whether this is the right approach), because they are simple and clear verses without any equivocation or ambiguity, to deny this is pure sophistry, you'd either have to be trolling or be a complete brainlet.

>> No.14569314

they would say that you are giving strained interpretations of particular verses to the exclusion of other, even more explicit ones that contradict the advaita position

it's nice that you think the advaita position is self-evidently the correct one, it's your religion and you are entitled to it. but you should understand that other people have their interpretations too. repeatedly saying "yeah but mine are better" doesn't solve the problem because they will just say "no mine are better"

are you getting any closer to understanding how disagreement works yet? let me know lol

>> No.14569321

>of other, even more explicit ones that contradict the advaita position
such as?

>> No.14569330

i'm not defending their positions to you, i'm telling you that their positions exist, which means that they don't find your interpretation to correct

i think both are interesting

>> No.14569361

I'm not asking you to defend their positions but you were the one who asserted that there are verses in the primary Upanishads that contradict the advaita position, I was simply asking you to back up your assertion by citing those verses because I have never heard of them and I'm curious to know what they are, I'm not asking you to defend them

>> No.14569378

i never said there were or were not verses in the upanishads that contradict advaita, i just said that obviously there are people who think there are, because there are anti-advaita positions (like dvaita and vishishtadvaita)

the point isn't to determine whether advaita is right/wrong. i doubt we're going to solve that after a thousand years on an internet forum. the point is just to clarify that it is controversial and much disputed among hindus and sanskrit scholars. you have your opinion on the upanishads, non-advaitans have theirs.

i am familiar with some of the verses and i find the debate between vishishtadvaita and advaita interesting in particular, although i am not an adherent of either. but i hope you understand that i do not particularly want to discuss it with you, as i think you are too devoted to advaita to discuss the issue philosophically and impartially

>> No.14569388

That's not a positive. "The west" is the biggest enemy of Europe right now.

>> No.14569395

There is literally nothing wrong with Jews.

>> No.14569433
File: 194 KB, 640x544, Ritualmord-Legende.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Except that they have a long history of murdering Christian children and draining their blood for ritualistic purposes


>> No.14569439

is that relevant to today or are you trying to play oppression Olympics?

>> No.14569454

>is that relevant to today
Yes, because the same Talmud is still regarded as an important scripture by Jews today and still influenced many of them to treat goyim with hostility and to take advantage of them in callous ways and even undermine the interests of their entire communities and nations as Kevin McDonald documents in his excellent books

>> No.14569473

Name a race that doesn't take advantage of anyone else. Like hitler the brainlet who regarded anything jewish as bad, he lost the war calling it jewish physics when germany had the best technology and the best scientists and could have had a nuke first. You are an idiot.

>> No.14569477

>Name a race that doesn't take advantage of anyone else
moving the goalposts fallacy

>> No.14569488

Care to explain?

>> No.14569500

of course it is according to advaitins since advaita is modeled after the upanishads you brainlet; unlike buddhism who took everything from the upanishads and later claimed that wew upanisahds is just like buddhism

>> No.14569547
File: 42 KB, 1080x353, chrs.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>muh cristkike children nooooo
Ok boomer.

>> No.14569553

Well judging from aesthetics alone, Evola easily beats everybody in that pic.

The physiognomy on the right in general is vastly superior, Evola's monocle and his choice of dynamic lighting clearly shows his superior grasp of beauty, meaning and reality.

Just based on this, only a retard would choose the left. Although it should be noted that the only verified cuckold is also on the right (COOMaraswamy)

>> No.14569561

>The physiognomy on the right in general is vastly superior, Evola's monocle and his choice of dynamic lighting clearly shows his superior grasp of beauty, meaning and reality.

>> No.14569745

of course you think the upanishads are advaitic, you are an advaitin. vishishtadvaitins and dvaitins disagree with you though.

>> No.14570968

Every time you try to describe the nefarious, degenerste forces supposedly working toward the demise of western civilation, you use a recycled assortment of vaguely-defined words that varies just enough for it to be meme-like. I could make a fucking name generator out of it.

“Neostructuralist postmodern judeochristianity”

“Judeomarxist postmodern stucturalism”

“Postchristian neojewish marxism”

>> No.14571222

>hitler and evola
Evola would probably call Hitler a "spiritual nigger". How can they at all be compared?

>> No.14571540

Lmao are you kidding me? Take a minute to think about it and then describe what exactly was "traditional" about National Socialism. Was it the massive social welfare policies? Was it kirchenkampf? Was it the modernist architecture and design? Was it their economic structure? Did Hitler declare himself divine regent and resurrect the empire?

National Socialism was a progressive movement through and through.

>> No.14572241

Neech on the left alongside Marx???

Wtf OP ur retared.

>> No.14572273
File: 13 KB, 350x270, 1578348307736.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

R u jebobó?

>> No.14572822
File: 339 KB, 450x654, 1579074239220.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Based but instead of left/right you should think of it as Jewish/non-Jewish

>> No.14572861
File: 215 KB, 1102x1200, radical fence sitter.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Radical fence sitter

>> No.14572933
File: 243 KB, 800x691, Bundesarchiv_Bild_146-1998-013-20A,_Berlin,_Reichskanzlei.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>Was it the massive social welfare policies?
Very traditional. Concern for your community and kinsmen is peak tradition. Sorry, we're not kikes crying about muh taxes
>Was it kirchenkampf?
Worshipping a Jewish desert god isn't the only tradition
>Was it the modernist architecture and design?
They did make some poor architecture choice but it wasn't all modernist. Pic related, the Reich Chancellery building.
>Was it their economic structure?
>Did Hitler declare himself divine regent and resurrect the empire?
I wish.

>> No.14573143

>Nietzsche on the left

>> No.14573172

I can do with left and learn from Nietzsche while he is lucid. Hitler can keep his supremacy.

>> No.14573622

That doesn't make sense though. Jews made western civilization.

>> No.14574531
File: 1.90 MB, 1914x2420, DVinfernoUbertiAddressesDante_m[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

well, surely, all of those on the left now see the truth of their opponents.

>> No.14575121

how is this still up

Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.