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

Become a Patron!

/lit/ - Literature

View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 135 KB, 500x480, 1579665180051.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
14583173 No.14583173 [Reply] [Original]

The first and last redpill.

>> No.14583178

but that's like a mental fabrication dude

>> No.14583239

Ah yes, the No-Doctrine doctrine. Very profound.

>> No.14583244

Self refuting
By his own logic, his philosophy and this satement as well is wrong.

>> No.14583261

true... but that’s non-duality i suppose

>> No.14583273

Sure but I can make doctrines that approximate pretty well and do stuff with it

>> No.14583276

But how does that prove his claim wrong?
If every philosophy is a fabrication, his is too. Therefore he's right in being wrong.

>> No.14583313

>muh law of non-contradiction
All it does is presuppose that language paradox necessarily contains a proof. But why is the logic of language a finality? If not, all this would mean is that there are things which language cannot express. And is this necessarily wrong? Is language's power necessarily infinite? Is the world made of language, logic, or cause and effect? Or are they illusory, are they just a dream of the weakness of the senses?

>> No.14583436
File: 193 KB, 500x480, QUOTE.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

There, fixed it for you picky faggots. Refute it now

>> No.14583476


>> No.14583499

I'll take your word for it, my nagar.

>> No.14583503

>Everyone is wrong and I am right .
Wow great thinking there

>> No.14583509


>> No.14583524

>haha dude what's wrong with being self contradictory lmao
so this is the power of Eastern Wisdom...

>> No.14583537
File: 19 KB, 220x306, 1560794671367.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>t. don't know what Wittgenstein's ladder is
there is nothing paradoxical or contradictory about elucidating the absurdity of philosophy by demonstrating its absurdity. Nagarjuna (and W) was simply restating the Buddha's raft parable.

jesus I didn't know there were this many brainlets here, thought this was a high IQ board...

>> No.14583545

>no actually self contradiction is fine because a famous guy said so

>> No.14583553
File: 77 KB, 645x729, 1553264724070.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>no actually self contradiction is fine because a famous guy said so >based

>> No.14583558

Lol nah they're non mental fabrications that can't ever be less wrong

Fucking idiots

>> No.14583580
File: 94 KB, 602x717, 1566558680735.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

nagarjuna is low iq and a philsopher

>> No.14583597
File: 36 KB, 300x295, 123RF_40352296_s.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>he doesn't "get" dialectics

>> No.14583615


He actually took it from Sextus Empiricus who describes skeptical propositions as that of abandoning a ladder once it was been used. Zhuangzi also used a similar metaphor with his fishnet parable.

>> No.14583621
File: 28 KB, 546x549, 1567253787498.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>no actually self contradiction is fine because a famous guy said so

>> No.14583644

I agree with most of the posts here but there is a feeling when in the depths of healthy meditation that transcends all of the mental bullshit you've built for yourself. It really is an experience like no other. Where spiritual faggots fail is to think that's the only state of consciousness worth cultivating, as if that's going to help you survive, or build a community, or relate to people.

>> No.14583835

I doubt that it is. Don't know much about Buddhism but I know they love their jargon and I imagine "true essence of things" likely refers to a technical term in Sanskrit, or whatever language, relating to a specific attainable state of being rather than just plain syllogistic consistency.

Maybe a Buddhist familiar with the text could step in and help clarify the language.

>> No.14583885

>But why is the logic of language a finality?

Claiming that it IS NOT is a categorically Philosophical statement.

>> No.14583907


If taken for his word, he has no authority to say it and no one has any reason to consider it. In fact, the argument would be worse, not better, than "all Philosophies" combined.

>> No.14583940
File: 359 KB, 1297x2377, download.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>> No.14583955
File: 14 KB, 692x208, 1553213679930.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

that pic was refuted, next.

>> No.14583962

Bump and Amen
Luke 11:52

>> No.14584095

subjectivity is the truth because of subjectivity. Poor bastard got taken down by linguistics. I'll be over here as a materialist predicting things, tell yourself it's only to my imaginary friends way over there across the internet.

>> No.14584102
File: 40 KB, 1293x127, refute.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

that pic was refuted, next.

>> No.14584103


>> No.14584137
File: 27 KB, 1087x373, 1572204701562.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

that pic was refuted, next.

>> No.14584141

No it isn't. It's an observation. You are conflating definitions.

>> No.14584146

>dude dont even try just give up
This is just nihilism wrapped in a "muh esoteric eastern philosophy" package

>> No.14584147

Prediction isn't a philosophy. Nice try. Materialism doesn't funnel to accurate predictions.

>> No.14584200


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