/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.14549121]

The great debate

[Anonymous No.14549152]

>>14549121
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.

[Anonymous No.14549154]

/k/ here who are all these neckbeards?

[Anonymous No.14549203]

The right made the western civilization

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

[Anonymous No.14549218]

>>14549121
>Implying someone could win a debate against a avatara of Vishnu.

[Anonymous No.14549230]

>>14549121
What's the connection? These are a bunch of random faces slapped on a chart.

[Anonymous No.14549249]

>>14549230
postmodern neomarxists vs traditionalists

[Anonymous No.14549271]

>>14549121
>>14549152
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!

[Anonymous No.14549281]

>>14549121
hitler belongs to the left side

[Anonymous No.14549284]

>>14549249
>Spinoza and Nietzsche
>neomarxists
>Plato
>traditionalist

[Anonymous No.14549292]

>>14549152
Plato and Shankara are child's play

[Anonymous No.14549510]

>>14549152
this
>>14549292
cope

[Anonymous No.14549542]

>>14549510
seething

[Anonymous No.14549662]

>>14549510
Based.
>>14549542
Cope.

[Anonymous No.14549977]

Guenon and Evola ended philosophy

[Anonymous No.14549987]

>>14549121
can people stop forcing this wikipedia page influences meme?

[Anonymous No.14550380]

>>14549510
cringe
>>14549542
this
>>14549662
yikes

[GOD IS AN ALBANAIN No.14550397]

>>14549977
unironically true. everything that comes after (post structuralism and kaczynski) are just there to further bring down this false metanarrative we call liberalism.

>>14549121
read "the antichrist" by nietzsche. he sounds exactly like evola.

[Anonymous No.14550524]

>>14549203
literally this

[Anonymous No.14550531]

>>14550397
>nietzsche is like evola

This is how I know you have read neither

[GOD IS AN ALBANAIN No.14550546]

>>14550531
you failed to post an argument.

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

[Anonymous No.14550554]

>>14550546
Evola was just an ideologue nothing of value

[GOD IS AN ALBANAIN No.14550565]

>>14550554
>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.

[Anonymous No.14550594]

>>14550565
Could of fooled me being the chief ideologue of Italy's reactionary right.

[GOD IS AN ALBANAIN No.14550639]

>>14550594
so do you want to point to something that makes him an ideologue or are you going to just spew garbage continuously?

[Anonymous No.14550643]

>>14550565
>spiritual racism and mystic fascism
>not ideology

[GOD IS AN ALBANAIN No.14550661]

>>14550643
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.

[Anonymous No.14550675]

>>14550380
yikes
>>14549542
cringe
>>14549510
this
>>14549662
cope

[Anonymous No.14550789]

>>14550661
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.

[Anonymous No.14550802]

>>14550789
Even Ken has agreed that their is worth to Evola.

[Anonymous 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.

[Anonymous No.14550918]

>>14550661
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.

[Anonymous No.14550921]

>>14550531
Dumbass.

[Anonymous No.14550937]

>>14550918
One long emotional post. Boohoo.

[GOD IS AN ALBANAIN No.14550959]

>>14550918
you sir, just posted cringe

[Anonymous No.14551009]

>>14550937
>>14550959
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.

[GOD IS AN ALBANAIN No.14551070]

>>14551009
>reactionary
>evola
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.

[Anonymous 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?

>>14551009

[Anonymous No.14551087]

>>14551070
Have you read the world as power by woodroffe? Evola quotes him quite often, its a wonderful book.

[Anonymous No.14551111]

>>14551070
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)?

>>14551009
out of curiosity, what are good books to read?

[GOD IS AN ALBANAIN No.14551114]

>>14551087
i haven't heard of it before. i'll look into it. thanks fren.

[GOD IS AN ALBANAIN No.14551133]

>>14551111
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.

[Anonymous No.14551157]

>>14549230
>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

[Anonymous No.14551162]

>>14551133
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

[Anonymous No.14551183]

>>14551162
>they don't go beyond materialism
>>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.

[GOD IS AN ALBANAIN No.14551198]

>>14551162
>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.

[Anonymous No.14551199]

>>14551183
you quoted us and posted a pic of yourself, and? be clearer as to what you want to convey

[Anonymous No.14551207]

>>14551133
all symbols are arbitrary there are no truths behind them. hogwash.
>>14551198
>the whole picture
so you yourself are making a metanarrative

[Anonymous No.14551213]

>>14549121
Why is Spinoza on the left? Because he doesn’t autistically follow religious dogma in favour of a greater understanding of the divine?

[Anonymous No.14551232]

>>14551198
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?

>>14551213
>god is like so infinite wow.... but he's still conditioned by supra-natural necessity haha ;)
200 pages of this in vapid uninspiring logicism

[Anonymous No.14551239]

>>14551207
hello butterfly, forgot your trip

[Anonymous 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.

[Anonymous No.14551252]

>>14551239
have fun twiddling around with ideology and your hack spiritualism

[Hi fellow albanian No.14551253]

>>14550918
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.

[Anonymous No.14551254]

>>14551244
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

[Hi fellow albanian No.14551264]

>>14551253
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.

[GOD IS AN ALBANAIN No.14551266]

>>14551207
"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.

>>14551232
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.

>>14551254
based

[Anonymous No.14551279]

>>14549977
literally no one important gives a shit about them, only you larping fash retards on here. take a shower and read Deleuze

[Anonymous No.14551281]

>>14551266
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

[GOD IS AN ALBANAIN No.14551298]

>>14551281
>>14551279
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.

[Anonymous No.14551334]

>God is an Albanian

[Anonymous No.14551365]

>>14551334
you forgot the (pbuh)

[Anonymous No.14551370]

>>14551365
its not pbuh, its SAW

>Allah (SAW) isn't an Albanoid

[Anonymous No.14551373]

>>14549249
I can no longer tell the difference between trolling and sincere zoomer beliefs

[Anonymous No.14551379]

>>14551370
actually you use SWT for Allah, and SAW for honorable people

>Allah (SWT)
>Whitehead (SAW)

[Anonymous No.14551574]

>>14551087
Sounds interesting, can you please tell me more about it?

[Anonymous No.14552523]

bump

[Anonymous No.14552530]

>>14549203
based and redpilled

[Anonymous No.14552555]

>>14550921
Great fucking argument.

[Anonymous No.14553594]

>>14549203
Imagine believing this.

[Anonymous No.14553661]

>>14549121
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.

[Anonymous No.14553666]

>>14551070
>ie metanarratives that are founded upon a falsehood
What about founded on truth with intuition? Like Kierkegaard.

[Anonymous No.14553767]

What is (pbuh)?

[Anonymous No.14554092]

>>14549203
this

[Anonymous No.14554212]

>>14553661
None of them would switch

[Anonymous No.14554290]

>>14550554
>>14550594
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.

[Anonymous No.14554309]

>>14554290
Based. Although, I'd add that Evola was a sour fruit, compared to the true Philosophers.

[Anonymous No.14554352]

>>14554290
Oh look another brain dead post from a hack spiritualist

[Anonymous No.14554359]

>>14554352
>Oh look another brain dead post from a hack spiritualist

[Anonymous No.14554364]

>>14554290
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).

[Anonymous No.14554367]

>>14554352
It's not my fault you didn't understand the Greeks, fren. Here's an upboat

[Anonymous No.14554381]

>>14553767
Praised Bestowed Upon Him

[Anonymous No.14554394]

>>14554367
I have moved far past the Greeks and so has everyone else. Why are you stuck 2000+ years in the past?

[Anonymous No.14554425]

>>14554394
>I have moved past philosophy, now I'm into my political ideology
Maybe you'd fare better back at r/socialism, reddit-kun?

[Anonymous No.14554460]

>>14554352
>>14554394
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.

[Anonymous No.14554487]

>>14554425
Maybe you'd fare better reading more?
>>14554460
Read more. The Greeks are a meme.

[Anonymous No.14554499]

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.

[Anonymous No.14554512]

>>14554212
>Spinoza wouldn't switch away from postmodernism

[Anonymous No.14554521]

>>14554512
Deleuze was a Spinozist

[Anonymous No.14554524]

>>14554394
cringe, embarassing post

[Anonymous No.14554525]

>>14554290
>Everything went downhill after Christianity arose
Hello retard alert?

[Anonymous No.14554532]

>>14554381 (pbuh)

[Anonymous No.14554533]

>>14554524
Read a book once in your life

[Anonymous No.14554534]

op's picture makes no sense

[Anonymous No.14554542]

>>14554525
>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.

[Anonymous No.14554543]

>>14554521
And?

[Anonymous No.14554560]

>>14554543
He was also valuable to Nietzsche, Foucault, and Whitehead.

[Anonymous No.14554569]

>>14549121
Read Levi-Strauss The Savage Mind. This is literally totemism vs. caste societies.

[Anonymous No.14554632]

>>14549249
Deleuze was a neoplatonist catholic reactionary

[Anonymous No.14554650]

>>14554542
>The Jews were the first materialists,
You better not be serious anon.

>unironically.
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

>>14554560
>He was also valuable to Nietzsche, Foucault, and Whitehead.
And?

[Anonymous No.14554656]

>>14550554
This is how I know you have never read Evola

[Anonymous No.14554657]

>>14554632
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."

[Anonymous No.14554658]

>>14554632
Sure if you never read a single word from him and only know about him through underage retards memeing

[Anonymous No.14554661]

>>14554656
This is how I know you have never read

[Anonymous No.14554671]

>>14554650
So he fits with what everyone else is doing

[Anonymous No.14554681]

>>14554671
How?

[Anonymous No.14554726]

>>14554681
Their philosophies of immanence and their approaches to power and causality

[Anonymous No.14554742]

>>14554681
Their philosophies of immanence and their approaches to power and causality and how they apply Spinoza to modern biopolitics

[Anonymous No.14555128]

>>14549121
Hitler and Shankaracharya together are unstoppable!

[Anonymous No.14555137]

>>14549121
it would just devolve into everybody laughing at Nietzsche as he spergs out towards Plato and possibly Hitler (bc of Wagner)

[Anonymous No.14555150]

>>14551574
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.

[Anonymous No.14555177]

>>14555150
If you would like to see a passage (since it can be a bit pricey) I will gladly take a picture.

[Anonymous No.14555181]

>>14555177
the whole thing is on archive.org

https://archive.org/details/worldaspower033188mbp/page/n5

[Anonymous No.14555271]

>>14555181
Ah good deal, I forgot I had it digital too.

[Anonymous No.14555287]

>>14554742
Emphasis on applying.

[Anonymous No.14555392]

>>14549121
>nietzsche, marx and foucault on the same side
Kill yourself

[Anonymous No.14555479]

>>14554290
>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.

[Anonymous No.14556583]

>>14549203

Both Marx and Hitler tried to destroy Western civilization.

[Anonymous No.14556625]

>>14556583
Hitler tried to save it

[Anonymous No.14556648]

>>14549121
dugin and plato belong nowhere near hitler

[Anonymous No.14556668]

>>14549203
terrible historical mistake

[Anonymous No.14556671]

>>14549249
>hitler
>traditionalist

[Anonymous No.14556680]

>>14550531
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

[Anonymous No.14556692]

>>14550554
who are the thinkers who cannot be dismissively reduced to ideologues
this is rhetoric, not criticism

[Anonymous No.14556707]

>>14556692
The ones on the left chart

[Anonymous No.14556747]

>>14556707
marx: scientism

[Anonymous No.14556783]

>>14556671
how was Hitler not a Germanic traditionalist? he is often described as Guenon with tanks

[Anonymous No.14557628]

>>14549121
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.

[Anonymous No.14557740]

>>14555479
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

>>14554290
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

[Anonymous No.14557783]

>>14557740
neoplatonism and christianity have been a cancer on philosophy

[Anonymous No.14557983]

>>14557783
they were the last heirs of philosophy; what started to degenerate it was stoicism, skepticism, atomism and all other anti-philosophical proto-scientism

[Anonymous No.14558348]

>>14557983
Philosophy actually started with Nietzsche. Everything else before other than Spinoza is cringe.

[Anonymous No.14558670]

>>14549121
daily reminder that adorno is compatible with most of the right and evola is compatible with most of the left

[Anonymous No.14558710]

>>14558670
Sure if you never read a single word from them and only know about them through underage retards memeing

[Anonymous No.14558735]

>>14558348
Thrasymchus was just Nietzsche but in ancient Greece.

[Anonymous No.14558741]

>>14556783
Who often describes him as that? Name one person.

[Anonymous No.14558763]

>>14549977
Nope.

I ended philosophy. That’s right.

Me.

[Anonymous No.14558920]

>>14556625

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

[Anonymous No.14558924]

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

[Anonymous No.14558964]

>>14549152
Nagarjuna & Whitehead > Shankara & Plato

[Anonymous No.14558968]

>>14558924
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

[Anonymous No.14559054]

>>14549203
no meme I agree

[Anonymous No.14559116]

>>14558964
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'.

[Anonymous No.14559128]

>>14559116
>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

[Anonymous No.14559193]

>>14559128
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.

[Anonymous No.14559195]

>>14559193
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.

[Anonymous No.14559202]

>>14559195
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

[Anonymous No.14559288]

>>14554542
You just got btfo'd.

[Anonymous No.14559313]

>>14559116
your image does not respond to the criticism of the very idea of substance

>>14559193
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.

[Anonymous No.14559320]

>>14549121
REMINDER THAT THIS IS A REACTIONARY MEME DESIGNED TO SUBVERT POSTMODERNISM.

THIS MEME PRESENTS A META NARRATIVE OF "X" VS "Y" AND IS NOT COMPATIBLE WITH ANY POSTMODERN PHILOSOPHY LIKE NIETZSCHE, FOCAULT AND DELEUZE

POSTMODERNISTS OPPOSE MARX AND THE OTHER METANARRATIVISTS ON THE LEFT SIDE

REPORT AND SAGE

[Anonymous No.14559342]

>>14559320
shut up cucky leftist

[Anonymous No.14559347]

>>14559342
Not a leftist or a rightist retard. They are labels with no meaning outside of a subjective interpretation by the one who uses them.

[Anonymous No.14559356]

>>14550397
true

>>14550531
t. has probabaly read one Nietzsche book and it wasn't The Antichrist

>>14559347
>>14559320
True and post-narrative pilled, I actually like people from both sides of that meme. Heidegger should be there to

[Anonymous No.14559363]

The Good is beyond Being and Becoming.
Being and everything is at rest and in motion.
A PICTURE OF FOOTNOTES TO PLATO

[Anonymous No.14559372]

>>14550531
>>14550554
>>14550594
>>14550643
>>14550918
>>14551009
>>14551207
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

[Anonymous No.14559378]

>>14559347
t. cucky leftist

[Anonymous No.14559383]

>>14549203
holy shit so redpilled

[Anonymous No.14559389]

>>14559378
t. libcuck

[Anonymous No.14559501]

>>14559313
>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.

[Anonymous No.14559530]

>>14559501
>>14559501

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)

[Anonymous No.14559533]

>>14559530
>>14559501
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)

[Anonymous No.14559555]

>>14559501
>>14559530
>>14559533
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).

(3/3)

[Anonymous No.14559575]

>>14549203
This but destroying Western civilization would be a net positive

[Anonymous No.14559992]

>>14558348

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.

[Anonymous No.14560001]

>>14559555
>>14559533
>>14559530
>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).

[Anonymous No.14560005]

[Anonymous No.14560018]

bamping an ebic bread

[Anonymous No.14560056]

>>14560005
bullshit https://scholarworks.gsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1003&context=rs_theses&sei-redir=1

[Anonymous No.14560070]

>>14560001
>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

[Anonymous No.14560099]

>>14560001
>Brahman is not considered to be a substance in Advaita Vedanta
false

"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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svabhava

[Anonymous No.14560143]

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

[Anonymous No.14560147]

>>14560018
>nazbol
bougeois socialism

[Anonymous No.14560163]

>>14560147
says the champagne internationalist kike
it's more like social democracy+guns+cool uniforms-jews, sounds britty good to me

[Anonymous No.14560204]

>>14560163
Read Marx

[Anonymous No.14560218]

>>14560204
already have, you should read hitler

[Anonymous No.14560224]

>>14560143
brainlet

[Anonymous No.14560340]

>>14560224
Fuck off and read someone with discernible talent instead of being a contrarian. Nobody cares about pseudomystic garbage.

[Anonymous No.14560429]

>>14554632
t. Justin Murphy

[Anonymous No.14560446]

>>14560340
brainlet

[Anonymous No.14560868]

>>14560099
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.

[Anonymous No.14560911]

why are whitehead and nietzsche on left

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

[Anonymous No.14560974]

>>14560911
Because that's where they belong

[Anonymous No.14561084]

>>14560070
>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.

[Anonymous No.14561191]

>>14561084
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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCnchhausen_trilemma

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

[Anonymous No.14561214]

>>14561084
>>14561191
I would add that the advaita doesn't explain anything in fine either, hence the "brahman's game" (lila).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lila_(Hinduism)

[Anonymous No.14561224]

>>14560911
I'm not sure you can view op's pic as "left v right". it makes no sense

[Anonymous No.14561726]

>>14561191
>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
>>14561214
>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.

[Anonymous No.14562172]

>>14549152
based and red-pilled

[Anonymous No.14562769]

>>14561726

[Anonymous No.14562805]

>>14562769
damn

[Anonymous No.14563073]

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

[Anonymous No.14563598]

>>14563073
He is fascist Nietzsche but with a spiritualist pretense and about 10 times more pretentious

[Anonymous No.14563624]

>>14560218
Shit tier thinker even for fascist standards

[Anonymous No.14563626]

>>14559288
He got btfod by his own stupidity.

[Anonymous No.14563650]

>>14560143
But you posted an image with Shankara...

[Anonymous No.14563660]

>>14562769
Lemur boys obliterated forever

[Anonymous No.14563675]

>>14562769
you're just coping because Nagarjuna and the whole Madhyamaka school got completely destroyed by Richard Robinson >>14559116

[Anonymous No.14563721]

>>14563675
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

[Anonymous No.14563747]

>>14563598
So, yes or no?

[Anonymous No.14563757]

>>14562769
shankara was influenced by buddhism which was influenced by the upanishads

[Anonymous No.14563795]

>>14563747
He is shit

[Anonymous No.14563800]

>>14563757
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.

[Anonymous No.14563905]

>>14563721
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.

[Anonymous No.14563952]

>>14563800
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?

[Anonymous No.14564172]

>>14563073
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

[Anonymous No.14564236]

>>14549121
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.

[Anonymous No.14564324]

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

[Anonymous No.14565285]

>>14559195
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.

[Anonymous No.14565783]

>>14563952
The upanishads promote vishishtadvaita actually

[Anonymous No.14565786]

>>14564324
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

[Anonymous No.14565883]

>>14565783
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.

[Anonymous No.14565893]

>>14565883
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"

[Anonymous No.14566847]

>>14565783
this, Vishishtadvaita interpretations are much more in accordance with the original upanishads. advaita interpretations rely on casuistry and blind faith, they are philosophically unsatisfying.

[Anonymous No.14567049]

>>14549203
Unironically this

[Anonymous No.14567119]

>>14565883
read faggot : >>14562769

[Anonymous No.14567291]

>>14567119
That image doesn't say anything about whether the Upanishads more support Vishishtadvaita or Advaita

[Anonymous No.14567323]

>>14564236
you got the order mixed up buddy

[Anonymous No.14567422]

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

[Anonymous No.14567471]

>>14567422
That is a polite way of saying it. He views it as a BTFOing of Plato. He isn't a Platonist.

[Anonymous No.14567475]

>>14567422
So what? Hillary Clinton is on record as saying The Brothers Karamazov is her favorite book, in neither case does it change anything

[Anonymous No.14567570]

>>14567291
it does a little bit, it says that they are too varied and contradictory to support any one framework

[Anonymous No.14567797]

>>14567570
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.

[Anonymous No.14567966]

>>14567291
u dont read it

[Anonymous No.14568004]

>>14567797
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

[Anonymous No.14568248]

>>14567966
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.
>>14568004
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.

[Anonymous No.14568287]

poo philosophy posters/tradcucks have ruined this board

[Anonymous No.14568302]

>>14549203
cant put it any more succinct than this

[Anonymous No.14568453]

>>14568248
>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

[Anonymous No.14568526]

>>14568248
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.

[Anonymous No.14568594]

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

Prove me wrong.

[Anonymous No.14568679]

>>14568594
that picture is hilarious

[Anonymous No.14569206]

>>14568453
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.

[Anonymous No.14569213]

>>14569206
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

[Anonymous No.14569216]

>>14569206
*and say believing in it or seeing it leads to further transmigration

[Anonymous No.14569221]

>>14569213
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

[Anonymous No.14569225]

>>14569221
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

[Anonymous No.14569289]

>>14569225
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.

[Anonymous No.14569314]

>>14569289
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

[Anonymous No.14569321]

>>14569314
>of other, even more explicit ones that contradict the advaita position
such as?

[Anonymous No.14569330]

>>14569321
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

[Anonymous No.14569361]

>>14569330
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

[Anonymous No.14569378]

>>14569361
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

[Anonymous No.14569388]

>>14549203
That's not a positive. "The west" is the biggest enemy of Europe right now.

[Anonymous No.14569395]

>>14549203
There is literally nothing wrong with Jews.

[Anonymous No.14569433]

>>14569395
Except that they have a long history of murdering Christian children and draining their blood for ritualistic purposes

https://www.medievalists.net/2009/01/ariel-toaff/
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1540-5923.2008.00257.x

[Anonymous No.14569439]

>>14569433
is that relevant to today or are you trying to play oppression Olympics?

[Anonymous No.14569454]

>>14569439
>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

[Anonymous No.14569473]

>>14569454
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.

[Anonymous No.14569477]

>>14569473
>Name a race that doesn't take advantage of anyone else
moving the goalposts fallacy

[Anonymous No.14569488]

>>14567471
Care to explain?

[Anonymous No.14569500]

>>14568453
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

[Anonymous No.14569547]

>>14569433
>muh cristkike children nooooo
Ok boomer.

[Anonymous No.14569553]

>>14549121
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)

[Anonymous No.14569561]

>>14569553
>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.
Saved.

[Anonymous No.14569745]

>>14569500
of course you think the upanishads are advaitic, you are an advaitin. vishishtadvaitins and dvaitins disagree with you though.

[Anonymous No.14570968]

>>14549203
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”

[Anonymous No.14571222]

>>14549121
>hitler and evola
Evola would probably call Hitler a "spiritual nigger". How can they at all be compared?

[Anonymous No.14571540]

>>14556783
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.

[Anonymous No.14572241]

>>14549121
Neech on the left alongside Marx???

Wtf OP ur retared.

[Anonymous No.14572273]

>>14549121
>Dugin
R u jebobó?

[Anonymous No.14572822]

>>14549203
Based but instead of left/right you should think of it as Jewish/non-Jewish

[Anonymous No.14572861]

>>14559347
Radical fence sitter

[Anonymous No.14572933]

>>14571540
>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?
Yes.
>Did Hitler declare himself divine regent and resurrect the empire?
I wish.

[Anonymous No.14573143]

>>14549121
>Nietzsche on the left

[None !!toyzDfGl0vW No.14573172]

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

[Anonymous No.14573622]

>>14572822
That doesn't make sense though. Jews made western civilization.

[Anonymous No.14574531]

>>14549271
well, surely, all of those on the left now see the truth of their opponents.

[Anonymous No.14575121]

how is this still up