Quantcast
[ 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: 115 KB, 269x400, Picture 1.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
14570322 No.14570322 [Reply] [Original]

>yfw you realize Parmenides was never really refuted

>> No.14570329

>>14570322
neither was Callicles

>> No.14570331

neither have I

>> No.14570341

About these two little words?
Everything is in constant flux, so I guess you’re just joking.

>> No.14570352

>>14570341
and yet it's always 'now', how amusing

>> No.14570364

>>14570352
How does that facilitate things not changing?

>> No.14570397
File: 285 KB, 1000x800, 1567353811646.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
14570397

>>14570364
change is merely an illusion of the senses

>> No.14570419

>>14570397
Cringe. Read zeno and Aristotle

>> No.14570429

>>14570419
not a refutation of his argument, retard

>> No.14570432

>Now is all there is...
>until it disappears into then

>> No.14570436

>>14570429
Movement itself refutes you. Sorry pal

>> No.14570497

>>14570419
Read Zeno to refute Parmenides? What?

>> No.14570582

>>14570497
>Change is merely an illusion
>We experience time and movement Constantly
Where's this """fake""" experience coming from?

>> No.14570613

>>14570432
This and most posts is what happens when rational brainlet acooooomaltors try to understand profound truths without having spiritual foundation of experiencing them therefore being able to understand them on first hand basis

>> No.14570622

>>14570582
Where's this """fake""" experience coming from?
God's power of māyā

>> No.14570629
File: 34 KB, 465x344, E214FF99-1EB6-448C-97C3-B0409B3D3E88.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
14570629

>>14570582
I guess this is a spiritualists thing again.
I can never tell if they’re trolling or actually this stupid anymore

>> No.14570655

>>14570322
Whitehead tried his best but he was subsequently retroactively refuted. He simply couldn't contend with the Eleatic doctrine of the coincidence of thought and being.

>> No.14570703

Philosophers aren’t refuted all that often it tends to be more a case of people no longer paying much attention to them as people find other thinkers more relevant.

Also OP what do you consider that the real world implications for Parmenides being correct ?

>> No.14570713
File: 53 KB, 420x751, REH_Drinking.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
14570713

>>14570322
>Parmenides was never really refuted
Yes, he was

>> No.14570780

>>14570713
How could he go from being unrefuted to being refuted if there's no change?

>> No.14570785

>>14570629
Not an argument
>>14570622
Filtered

>> No.14570808

>>14570780
because there is change.

>> No.14570812

>>14570322
Has anyone really been refuted?

>> No.14570816

>>14570808
You have to refute him before I accept that, yet you can't refute him because my belief in his argument would go from being to non being which is impossible.

>> No.14570821

>>14570322
N

>> No.14571344

Parmenides completed the world that follows from the logic of language. If you are commited towards not carrying false belief, Parmenides is the best option. He may be refuted, but not from within language or logic.

>> No.14571480

>>14570582
The more shit changes the more it stays the same.

>> No.14571679

>>14570397
So, the illusion is changing?

>> No.14571777
File: 99 KB, 960x960, THAT MAN IS I AND I AM THAT MAN.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
14571777

The quip that the more things change the more they stay the same is grammatically close to the truth. The more change is exerted upon something, the more it not so much STAYS the same but the more it IS the same. That is to say, it actively refines and reveals the quality of its being, rather than passively maintaining itself. This is NOT an "essence" moving through a series of "existences", consecutively consecrating each one as the one that IS before discarding it, a light turning turning on and off through a series of adjacent rooms, both the light and the rooms only being and changing relative to each other. NOT AT ALL. Rather, any particular one immanently is, like THE One, not even like it per se, but IS the One. Change itself being likewise a one, a Monad, look no further than the awesome idea that change NEVER CHANGES, which is not at all "outside" the ones, exerting itself onto them "Newtonianlly", but is fully inside of them as well, or rather fully inside of them first and foremost, like any and all ones are already, and prominently, inside each other, Dialectically.

>> No.14571787

>>14571679
It is in the nature of an illusion to present something different than the real. The illusion isn't »changing» because it isn't a thing that could change (it has no being of its own, and to change you need first to be) it's simply a faulty representation of the permanence (which is that which is; that which has being).

>> No.14571838
File: 26 KB, 768x399, 1579017254768.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
14571838

If there's no change, how is calculus possible?

>> No.14571848

>>14571787
>(it has no being of its own, and to change you need first to be)
You put the most important part in brackets. Yet you do not support this statement, that it has no being.
If illusion presents something, that means that the presentation exists. (Just as when a man runs, running exists.) Therefore, change also has to exist - in the presentation, and therefore also in our senses, or only in our senses.

>> No.14571849

>>14571838
calculus is an illusion

>> No.14571854

>>14570322
>tfw you're the only one on /lit/ who knows Parmenides was preemptively refuted by Heraclitus

>> No.14571863

>>14571854
Extrapolate

>> No.14571873

>>14571854
>tfw you know that Herakleitos and Parmenides are in agreement. The way there, and the way back, are the same.

>> No.14571880

>>14571863
Heraclitus came first and said there is change. Parmesan of Elea came later and said there is no change. Parmesan then died and his body decayed, proving that there was change after all. Therefore Heraclitus preemptively refuted Chicken Parmigiana of Elea. The End.

QED.

>> No.14571892
File: 105 KB, 220x306, 1579164980489.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
14571892

Anyone else see the similarities between pre-PI Wittgenstein and Parmenides?

>> No.14571899
File: 2.97 MB, 500x421, 99f62481-f08e-4b54-bdc2-509288f1ef01.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
14571899

>>14571880

>> No.14571911

>>14571892
Funny you say that. Guy Davenport wrote a short essay on Wittgenstein in which he says that Wittgenstein is pre-Socratic, so you may be on the right track. Though Davenport compares him not to Parmenides but to Heraclitus.

>> No.14571944

>>14571848

See:

>>14571777

>> No.14572032

>>14570322
Parmenides was Mahayana Buddhist

>> No.14572042

>>14571911
I don’t think Wittgenstein denied change (I think) but his TLP maxim ‘whereof one cannot speak thereof one must be silent’ is eerily similar to Parmenides’ ‘whatever is is, whatever is not cannot be’.

>> No.14572055

>>14572042
Yea early Wittgenstein was more Parmenidian but later Wittgenstein resembled Heraclitus.

>> No.14572060

>>14572055
He was actually more akin to Nagarjuna in both his philosophies.

>> No.14572153
File: 359 KB, 1297x2377, IMG_5305.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
14572153

>>14570812
Nagarjuna

>> No.14572170

>>14571344
Can you elaborate?

>> No.14572196

>>14570322
Recently read Zeno (what little there is) and he made me less inclined to believe Parmenides.
I mean what was his goal, to show that the illusion is somehow flawed? Because now that Isaac Newton has BTFOd Zeno, showing that it wasn't the illusion that was flawed but simply our ability at the time to describe it, that in fact makes it more likely that eventually through developments in mathematics and logic we will be able to explain Parmenides' arguments as well

>> No.14572335

>>14572153
Robinson was a buddhist lol

>> No.14572339

>>14570322
Refuted by Alfred North Whitehead.

>> No.14572509

>>14572335
Many Buddhists disagree with Nagarjuna, that just makes his destruction of Nagarjuna's logic more serious because you can't try to discredit the person making the critique like you normally would

>> No.14572516

>>14572509
>Many Buddhists disagree with Nagarjuna
and much more Hindus disagree with Shankara

>> No.14572538

>>14572509
w8 why would he destroy a tradition he's part of? Nagarjuna was the most influential Mahayana buddhist and Robinson was part of a Mahayanan sect.

>> No.14572545

>>14572516
Damn...

>> No.14572569
File: 2.52 MB, 4200x1800, DSC_0095.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
14572569

>>14570364
Change implies rest.
If there's nothing but change then there's never something actual, if there are no things, then there are no things to move, if nothing moves there is no change, all is rest. Parmenides and Heraclitus say the same thing—two sides of the same coin.
Plato solves both.

>> No.14572576

>>14572170
no

>> No.14572577
File: 1.09 MB, 1800x2915, DSC_0095.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
14572577

>>14572569
Ffs

>> No.14572585

>>14572538
>why would he destroy a tradition he's part of?
You'll have to travel back in time and ask him why, in any case none of that changes the fact that he exposed Nagarjuna's logic as being completely garbage and riddled with holes that render it useless. I have yet to see a serious response posted to the critiques he advanced, only various types of coping involving "uhh well he was a Buddhist too so you should still take Nagarjuna seriously or something even though Robinson destroyed him".

>> No.14572615

>>14572585
>I have yet to see a serious response posted to the critiques he advanced
Probably because you don't read beyond your own posts. Most modern scholars already reject both Robinson and Hayes' interpretation of svabhava
>William Magee strongly disagrees with Hayes, referring to Tsonghkhapa's interpretation of Nagarjuna to argue that Hayes misidentifies Nagarjuna's understanding of the different meanings of the term svabhava.[229] Many recent western scholars (such as Garfield,[230] Napper,[231] Hopkins,[232]) have tended to adopt a Gelug Prāsaṅgika influenced interpretation of Madhyamaka.

>You'll have to travel back in time and ask him why
Nope you don't need to do that. The answer is clear, he thought as other scholars that agreed with him such as Huntington, that a western reading of Nagarjuna doesn't disseminate what Nagarjuna was demonstrating (remember you're the one who sperged out about 'hurr western scholars' when I pointed out that Max Muller refuted you).
>C.W. Huntington meanwhile has been particularly critical of the modern Western attempt to read Nagarjuna "through the lens of modern symbolic logic" and to see him as compatible with analytical philosophy's logical system.[228] He argues that in reading Nagarjuna, a thinker who he sees as "profoundly distrustful of logic", in an overly logical manner, we "prejudice our understanding of Nagarjuna’s insistence that he has no proposition (pratijña)."[228] He puts forth a more literary interpretation that focuses on the effect Nagarjuna was attempting to "conjure" on his readers (i.e. an experience of having no views) instead of asking how it works (or doesn't) in a logical manner.[228]

>only various types of coping involving "uhh well he was a Buddhist too so you should still take Nagarjuna seriously or something even though Robinson destroyed him".
why can't you deal with the fact that Robinson didn't convert to 'based Advaita' even after he supposedly 'DEMOLISHED' and 'DESTROYED' Nagarjuna? I thought Advaita was superior, wouldn't Robinson have been aware of that Mr. Shapiro?

>> No.14572624
File: 11 KB, 225x297, Guenon_(pbuh).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
14572624

>>14572196
>I mean what was his goal, to show that the illusion is somehow flawed?

THE PRECEDING CONSIDERATIONS implicitly contain the solution to all problems of the sort raised by Zeno of Elea in his famous arguments against the possibility of motion, or at least in what appear to be such when one takes the arguments only as they are usually presented; in fact, one might well doubt whether this was really their true significance. Indeed, it is rather unlikely that Zeno really intended to deny motion; what is more probable is that he merely wished to prove the incompatibility of the latter with the supposition, accepted notably by the atomists, of a real, irreducible multiplicity existing in the nature of things. It was therefore originally against this very multiplicity so conceived that these arguments originally must have been directed; we do not say against all multiplicity, for it goes without saying that multiplicity also exists within its order as does motion, which, moreover, like every kind of change, necessarily supposes multiplicity. But just as motion, by reason of its character of transitory and momentary modification, is not self-sufficient and would be purely illusory were it not linked to a higher principle transcendent with respect to it, such as the 'unmoved mover' of Aristotle, so multiplicity would truly be nonexistent were it to be reduced to itself alone, and did it not proceed from unity, as is reflected mathematically in the formation of the sequence of numbers, as we have seen.

What is more, the supposition of an irreducible multiplicity inevitably excludes all real connections between the elements of things, and consequently all continuity as well, for the latter is only a particular case or special
form of such connections. As we have already said above, atomism necessarily implies the discontinuity of all things; ultimately, motion really is incompatible with this discontinuity, and we shall see that this is indeed what the arguments of Zeno show. Take, for example·, the following argument: an object in motion can never pass from one position to another, since between the two there is always an infinity of other positions, however close, that must be successively traversed in the course of the motion, and, however much time is employed to traverse them, this infinity can never be exhausted. Assuredly, this is not a question of an infinity, as is usually said, for such would have no real meaning; but it is no less the case that in every interval one may take into account an indefinite number of positions for the moving object, and these cannot be exhausted in analytic fashion, which would involve each position being occupied one by one, as the terms of a discontinuous sequence are taken one by one.

>> No.14572627

>>14572624
But it is this very conception of motion that is in error, for it amounts in short to regarding the continuous as if it were composed of points, or of final, indivisible elements, like the notion according to which bodies are composed of atoms; and this would amount to saying that in reality there is no continuity, for whether it is a question of points or atoms, these final elements can only be discontinuous; furthermore, it is true that without continuity there would be no possible motion, and this is all that the argument actually proves. The same goes for the argument of the arrow that flies and is nonetheless immobile, since at each instant one sees only a single position, which amounts to supposing that each position can in itself be regarded as fixed and determined, and that the successive positions thus form a sort of discontinuous series.

It is further necessary to observe that it is not in fact true that a moving object is ever viewed as if it occupied a fixed position, and that quite to the contrary, when the motion is fast enough, one will no longer see the moving object distinctly, but only the path of its continuous displacement; thus for example, if a flaming ember is whirled about rapidly, one will no longer see the form of the ember, but only a circle of fire; moreover, whether one explains this by the persistence of retinal impressions, as physiologists do, or in any other way, it matters little, for it is no less obvious that in such cases one grasps the continuity of motion directly, as it were, and in a perceptible manner. What is more, when one uses the expression 'at each instant' in formulating such arguments, one is implying that time is formed from a sequence of indivisible instants, to each of which there corresponds a determined position of the object; but in reality, temporal continuity is no more composed of instants than spatial continuity is of points, and as we have already pointed out, the possibility of motion presupposes the union, or rather the combination, of both temporal and spatial continuity. It is also argued that in order to traverse a given distance, it is first necessary to traverse half this distance, then half of the remaining half, then half of the rest, and so on indefinitely, (1) such that one would always be faced with an indefinitude that, envisaged in this way, is indeed inexhaustible.

(1) This corresponds to the successive terms of the indefinite series 1/1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + ... = 2, used by Leibnitz as an example in a passage already cited above.

>> No.14572630

>>14572516
kek

>> No.14572631
File: 12 KB, 251x242, 1548593852331.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
14572631

>>14572516

>> No.14572634

>>14572627
Another almost equivalent argument is as follows: if one supposes two moving objects to be separated by a certain distance, then one of them, even if traveling faster than the other, will never be able to overtake the other, for, when it arrives at the point where it would have met the one in the lead, the latter will be in a second position, separated from the first by a smaller distance than the initial one; when it arrives at this new position, the other will be in yet a third position, separated from the second by a still smaller distance, and so on indefinitely, in such a way that, despite the fact that the distance between the two objects is always decreasing, it'.will never disappear altogether. The essential problem with these two arguments, as well as with the preceding, consists in the fact that they all suppose that in order to reach a certain endpoint, all the intermediate degrees must be traversed distinctly and successively. Now, we are led to one of two conclusions: either the motion in question is indeed continuous, and therefore cannot be broken down in this way, since the continuous has no irreducible elements; or the motion is composed, or at least may be considered to be composed, of a discontinuous succession of intervals, each with a determined magnitude, as with the steps taken by a man walking,(2) in which case the consideration of these intervals would obviously rule out that of all the various intermediate positions possible, which would not actually have to be traversed as so many distinct steps. Besides, in the first case, which is really that of a continuous variation, the end-point, assumed by definition to be fixed, cannot be reached within the variation itself, and the fact that it actually is reached demands the introduction of a qualitative heterogeneity, which this time does constitute a true discontinuity, and which is represented here by the passage from the state of motion to that of rest; this brings us to the question of 'passage to the limit', the true meaning of which still remains to be explained. (in the next chapter of his book on calculus)

2) In reality, the motions comprising his walking are indeed continuous, like any other motion, but the points where he touches the ground form a discontinuous sequence, such that each step marks a determined interval, and the distance traversed can thus be broken down into such intervals, the ground not being touched at any intermediate points.

>> No.14572636

oh boy here comes the cringey Guenon spam...

>> No.14572676

All philosophy since Parmenides has accepted the Parmenidean principle that nothing can (naturally) come from nothing (theologians believe that God created from nothing, but supernaturally).

The question then remains whether the world is a unity or a plurality. If a unity, as Parmenides asserted, then it's difficult to see how can change can come about. If, however, plurality, as Empedocles believed the world was made of earth, water, air and fire, then change occurs due to the mixture and separation of the elements, without something new ever being created or destroyed.

>> No.14572701
File: 200 KB, 502x501, meme.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
14572701

>>14572615
>illiam Magee strongly disagrees with Hayes
You citation says nothing about Robinson or what he got wrong about Nagarjuna.

>he thought as other scholars that agreed with him such as Huntington, that a western reading of Nagarjuna doesn't disseminate what Nagarjuna was demonstrating
Oh really? Because he is pretty clear in the article that thinks Nagarjuna did not successfully demonstrate the inherent contradictions in the views of other schools and constructive metaphysics in general, earlier in the article he accuses Nagarjuna of having a "shell game" that he uses to hide his flawed logic and he says that Nagarjuna pigeonholes his opponents and argues against strawman versions of their positions which his opponents themselves wouldn't accept. If Robinson doesn't accept that Nagarjuna successfully demonstrated the contradictions in other schools then what exactly is there remaining of value in Nagarjuna's thought that he is supposed to be accepting? Nagarjuna claimed to have no views and justified that by pointing to the alleged contradictions in other schools, but if Nagarjuna failed to demonstrate that as Robinson proves, does this not mean Nagarjuna's position of having no views is without any foundation?

Your whole post seems like one big cope and a desperate smoke-screen that's trying to shift the goal-posts, meanwhile you haven't provided a single reason why or a single citation showing why any critique that Robinson made of Nagarjuna's logic is wrong.

>why can't you deal with the fact that Robinson didn't convert to 'based Advaita'
Completely irrelevant to the fact that he obliterated Nagarjuna, more cope and trying to shift the goal-posts my anguished friend

>> No.14572704
File: 191 KB, 533x594, Lolwut.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
14572704

>>14571911
>Wittgenstein is pre-Socratic

>> No.14572732

>>14572701
>Angl*id
>understanding let alone debuking noble philosophy

>> No.14572748

Aristotle’s refutation is so laughably bad. Uhhhh we uuhhhh we don’t talk as if things are one so uhhhh like they’re not? Also most people don’t think that!!!!

>> No.14572750

>>14572732
I guess that means you are even stupider then Angl*ids for not being able to provide a rebuttal to his points

>> No.14572759

>>14572701
>You citation says nothing about Robinson or what he got wrong about Nagarjuna.
do you not see what I was replying to or do you have dementia?

>Oh really? Because he is pretty clear in the article that thinks Nagarjuna did not successfully demonstrate the inherent contradictions in the views of other schools and constructive metaphysics in general, earlier in the article he accuses Nagarjuna of having a "shell game" that he uses to hide his flawed logic and he says that Nagarjuna pigeonholes his opponents and argues against strawman versions of their positions which his opponents themselves wouldn't accept. If Robinson doesn't accept that Nagarjuna successfully demonstrated the contradictions in other schools then what exactly is there remaining of value in Nagarjuna's thought that he is supposed to be accepting? Nagarjuna claimed to have no views and justified that by pointing to the alleged contradictions in other schools, but if Nagarjuna failed to demonstrate that as Robinson proves, does this not mean Nagarjuna's position of having no views is without any foundation?
Read again what CW Huntington (who agrees with Robinson and Hayes) said, it explains a lot.

>Your whole post seems like one big cope and a desperate smoke-screen that's trying to shift the goal-posts
>HAHA COPE SEETHE XD

>meanwhile you haven't provided a single reason why or a single citation showing why any critique that Robinson made of Nagarjuna's logic is wrong.
I literally gave it to you. Robinson and Hayes misinterpreted svabhava, which is what his equivocation rests on. Repeating yourself won't help you.

>Completely irrelevant to the fact that he obliterated Nagarjuna
It's relevant since he still accepted Nagarjuna as his lord and savior even after he supposedly 'OBLITERATED' him 'LOGICALLY' and 'EPICALLY'.

>more cope and trying to shift the goal-posts my anguished friend
>HAHA COPE SEETHE XD

>> No.14572765

>>14572750
>his
ok guenonfag

>> No.14572780

>>14572615
>remember you're the one who sperged out about 'hurr western scholars' when I pointed out that Max Muller refuted you
Yep, I was in that thread too. Curious how guenonfag never brings this up, he only approves of western scholars when it suits him.

>> No.14572784

>>14572759
>Robinson and Hayes misinterpreted svabhava
In what way did Robinson specifically (and not Hayes) misinterpret svabhava? and how do you think this invalidates Robinson criticism's of Nagarjuna's logic? You still haven't provided any real answers but only unsubstantiated assertions without any explanations

>> No.14572787

>>14572780
what do you except from guenonfag, hypocrisy is in his nature.

>> No.14572841

>>14572784
>"Hayes (Robinson et al) is misidentifying Nagarjuna's intended meaning of svabhava. In contradistinction to Hayes' belief that Nagarjuna speaks equivocably of an identity nature and a causally independent, non-existent nature, Dzong-ka-ba feels that in chapter XV.1-2 Nagarjuna uses the term svabhava to refer to an existent emptiness nature." (Magee, 1999, pp. 126)
Robinson's assertion (a) literally falls apart because of this. Robinson's assertion (b) was refuted by C.W Huntington (who unironically agrees with Robinson's western mode of logical analysis).

Do you even read the things you post?

>>14572787
Yes you're correct. But its funny how he's trying to hide from this accusation as we speak.

>> No.14572848
File: 123 KB, 633x758, 1556595393590.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
14572848

>guenonfag right now

>> No.14572882

>>14572841
>Robinson's assertion (a) literally falls apart because of this. Robinson's assertion (b) was refuted by C.W Huntington
Again, you haven't explained anything at all or why Robinson is wrong, all you did was take a citation saying that Hayes was wrong and claimed it was proof that Robinson's critiques of Nagarjuna's logic were wrong. Which assertion of Robinson's which you label as (a) is wrong and for what reasons? If you keep dodging giving specific answers I'm going to keep calling you out.

In Robinson's article he lists 6 axioms on which Nagarjuna's arguments rest and then he shows that Nagarjuna uses faulty logic to establish them or instead he just assumes them without any justification when they are not accepted by his opponents, and so he doesn't actually refute his opponents using their own logic as people claim Nagarjuna did. There is plenty of material in that article which you can respond to if you want to explain what Robinson was wrong about.

>> No.14572989

>>14572882
>Again, you haven't explained anything at all or why Robinson is wrong, all you did was take a citation saying that Hayes was wrong and claimed it was proof that Robinson's critiques of Nagarjuna's logic were wrong. Which assertion of Robinson's which you label as (a) is wrong and for what reasons? If you keep dodging giving specific answers I'm going to keep calling you out.
Read your own picture lol, he concludes it at the very bottom that Nagarjuna's 'trick' was to equivocate when in reality he wasn't.

>In Robinson's article he lists 6 axioms on which Nagarjuna's arguments rest and then he shows that Nagarjuna uses faulty logic to establish them or instead he just assumes them without any justification when they are not accepted by his opponents, and so he doesn't actually refute his opponents using their own logic as people claim Nagarjuna did. There is plenty of material in that article which you can respond to if you want to explain what Robinson was wrong about.
There is really no point arguing with you, you just keep repeating the same autistic copy-paste lines of "no you didn't, I have yet to see a detailed response please respond' when I've already disproved the very infrographs you don't even bother to read.

>> No.14573000

Just to summarize in case guenonfag posts the 'Robinson refutation' again
>Modern scholars reject Robinson and Hayes' claims of equivocation (Magee 1999, Garfield 1995, Napper 1989, Hopkins 1986)
>Modern scholars who unironically affirm Robinson's test of formal logic argue that such methods miss Nagarjuna's intent of his dialectic (Siderits 2016, C.W Huntington 2007)
>Robinson remained a Mahayana Buddhist (like Nagarjuna) for the rest of his life
>Guenonfag could not fathom the fact that Robinson did not convert to his precious Advaita Vedanta
>Bonus: Guenonfag hates western scholars except when it suits him

>> No.14573026

>>14573000
trips of truth

>> No.14573032

>>14573000
damn how will guenonfag recover from this? Beaten in his own thread...

>> No.14573063

>>14572989
>at the very bottom that Nagarjuna's 'trick' was to equivocate
He doesn't claim that it was Nagarjuna's 'trick' to equivocate, he says that Nagarjuna presumed to show the inherent contradictions in the views of his opponents using their own logic (i.e. without his arguments relying on axioms which his opponents themselves wouldn't accept) and then Robinson explains how Nagarjuna failed to do this because of him using faulty and circular logic and because of him relying on axioms not accepted by his opponents. Robinson doesn't use the word 'equivocate' or 'equivocation' once in that article. Once again you have completely avoided addressing any of the points that Robinson makes about Nagarjuna's flawed logic. Are you utterly incapable of responding to anything specific that Robinson wrote? You are deliberately misrepresenting Robinson's points so that you don't have to provide a reply to any of them.

>>14573000
>Modern scholars reject Robinson and Hayes' claims of equivocation
Robinson doesn't claim Nagarjuna was equivocating you moron, he says that Nagarjuna used flawed logic and relies on axioms not accepted by his opponents. You have not responded to or addressed any of the points Robinson makes about Nagarjuna's shitty logic. For anyone reading this thread they can easily look at the image >>14572153 and see that you haven't addressed any of it, you aren't fooling anyone.

>> No.14573073

>>14570780
lol

>> No.14573124

>>14572848
Buddhists have clearly reconquered /lit/. Guenonfag needs new copypastas in order to fight back. Posting the same old pictures/pastas are no longer enough.

>> No.14573217

>>14573124
>clearly reconquered /lit/
>unable to refute any of Robinson's BTFOing of the thinker /lit/ Buddhists worship as their best representative

>> No.14573314
File: 27 KB, 458x669, 91A13FCA-533A-444A-9B2F-5B3D574F17B7.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
14573314

>>14573124
>Buddhists have clearly reconquered /lit/

>> No.14573363

>>14571344
what is the value of not carrying false beliefs, and how can any beliefs carried really be false, since if they are carried they certainly are, and what is is only what is true, no?

>> No.14573415
File: 1.54 MB, 1900x1564, Heraclitus.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
14573415

>>14570322
>in direct contradiction with literally every greek philosopher of his time
>Becoming as opposed to beta Being
>Doing Pessimism before it was cool
>Already subscribed to Stoicism before the term was even coined only cause the environment forced the conditions that made it necessary
>Actually looks like a built chad as opposed to nerd looking Parmenides
>Composed his work, thoroughly and properly, meanwhile the only thing that remains of Parmenides is a singular faggot ass poem that largely has only a few fragments saved

>> No.14573428
File: 148 KB, 480x480, 1572944251900.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
14573428

>>14571880

>> No.14573452

>>14573124
Careful, you'll trigger his autism and we'll be buried under another cascade of empty rhetoric

>> No.14573471

>>14573314
>t. conquered

>> No.14573518

>>14572569
>Change implies rest.
It certainly doesn’t
>then there's never something actual
Pretty correct. Subatomic particles change their positions to change the composition of all else, so even the things that may not change are changing
>if there are no things,
Not what was said. There are no “actuals”
>Plato
And you give us worse than nothing. You put forward childish nonsense and then tell us Plato said something layer that you prefer.
Epicurus solved it.

>> No.14573543

>>14573471
>t. still unable to rescue his traditions most important thinker from refutation by Robinson

>> No.14573553

>>14573543
>anglo criticism
>valid criticism
pick one

>> No.14573566
File: 53 KB, 1777x997, MV5BYTkwMGU3NDY[email protected]@._V1_SX1777_CR0,0,1777,997_AL_.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
14573566

>>14573553
>saying that Robinson's BTFOing of Nagarjuna is invalid because he is an Anglo
>having a real argument
pick one

>> No.14573578

>>14570322
>yfw you realize Parmenides was never really refuted
This realization has changed my life!
Oh wait...

>> No.14573630
File: 36 KB, 650x659, EMo3lMzXUAEgGNo.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
14573630

>>14573566
>saying that Robinson's "BTFOing" of Nagarjuna is invalid because he is an Anglo

>> No.14573683

>>14572624
>>14572627
>>14572634

I agree but he doesn't seem to go far enough.

See:

>>14571777

>> No.14573742
File: 177 KB, 647x656, whiteheadmeme.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
14573742

>>14570341
>>14570352
It's almost as if our perception of change is comprised of two interdependent reference frames of relational change: instantaneous change in an ever-present and cumulative change through time, and that this dynamic precisely corresponds to calculus integration and differentiation as inverse operations of the same process.
https://www.religion-online.org/article/influence-as-confluence-bergson-and-whitehead/
https://imgur.com/a/ZtLDYJT

>> No.14573840
File: 65 KB, 266x273, 3082784105.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
14573840

>>14573630
And so you admit your inability to defend Nagarjuna's flawed logic. Sri Shankaracharya (pbuh) truly exposed the utter foundationlessness and incoherence of Buddhism when he wrote:

"From whatever new points of view the Buddha's system is tested with reference to its probability, it gives way on all sides, like the walls of a well, dug in sandy soil. It has, in fact, no foundation whatever to rest upon and hence the attempts to use it as a guide in the practical concerns of life are mere folly. Moreover Buddha, by propounding the three mutually contradicting systems, teaching respectively the reality of the external world, the reality of ideas only and general nothingness, has himself made it clear that he was a man given to make incoherent assertions or else that hatred of all beings induced him to propound absurd doctrines by accepting which they would become thoroughly confused…Buddha’s doctrine has to be entirely disregarded by all those who have a regard for their own happiness."

Brahma Sutra Bhasya 2.2.32.

>> No.14574478

>>14573742
>obscurantism

>> No.14574504
File: 11 KB, 244x295, downloadfile-16.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
14574504

>>14573518
Being particular implies rest, otherwise 'it' wouldn't be, something rests and stays the same across time.
If there is no resr then there are no things, if there are no things there's nothing that moves, since movement requires that something moves, ergo all is rest.

>> No.14575546
File: 54 KB, 282x370, gl5qjnc7kvmy.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
14575546

>>14574478
>My attention span is so low that I'm functionally illiterate.

>> No.14575846

>>14574504
This is all stupid and wrong. ‘right?

>> No.14575869

>>14575846
It's derived from a geocentric model of the universe, where Earth is the object that is in the state of eternal rest. It's the metaphysical equivalent of young Earth creationism and just as retarded in the context of the present.

>>
Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Name
E-mail
Subject
Comment
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.
Captcha
Action