/lit/ - Literature

>>14609892
why kant and husserl?

Witty? Isn't he an analytic autist?

>>14609926
Both are transcendental idealists.
>>14609935
Less so than the other autists. I chose him for On Certainty.

jesus these threads are zoomercore, why don't you actually post something of substance instead of this "My Favorite Philosophers" facebook profile shit you faggot

>>14609953
>NO FUN ALLOWED
You could have discussed something of substance about these people but you chose to whine. Why?

>>14609892
>Plato
>Buddha

>>14610016
If you can't see how they are related, you really need to read Schopenhauer.

>>14609892
>constant truths
can I get a quick rundown

>>14610032
Form is emptiness; emptiness is form.

>>14610016
>schopenhauer
big yikes

can at least tl;dr?

>>14610038
I think I read a japanese version of this somewhere

>>14610077
>Schopenhauer
>tl;dr
you mean zl;ng right

>>14610016
This, Plato is rolling over in his grave
>>14610026
Schopenhauer is notorious for having many misconceptions about eastern philosophy. Plato was an Absolutist who believed in the eternal reality of the forms and a transcendent God. Buddha was a non-essentialist who would throw a fit when people used the word "exists", they would have disagreed on almost everything.

oops
>>14610077 meant to >>14610026

>>14610129
Yes, agreed on Schopenhauer. Regarding Buddha I think it is very complicated. I don't care about the buddhist sects, but if he wasn't a very radical apophaticist and by anatta he meant Not-Self (or Not-That) then he was indeed a nihilist.

>>14610193
>and by anatta he meant Not-Self (or Not-That).
and by anatta he didn't mean* Not-Self (or Not-That).

>>14610178
I didn't mean to imply they are saying exactly the same thing, but that they are complimentary and this is shown in Schopenhauer. The world of appearances is transient and illusory, but behind the appearances lies the Will. And this Will is objectified into different Platonic Ideas which are outside time and space and are the patterns of everything that we could ever experience (hence Plato). But again, if we are to renounce the Will as both the Buddhists and Plato tell us to, Schopenhauer argues that:
>"to those in whom the will to live has turned and has denied itself, this very real world of ours, with all its suns and Milky Ways, is — nothing. This is also the Prajna–Paramita of the Buddhists, the 'beyond all knowledge,' in other words, the point where subject and object no longer exist."

>>14610241
But in Plato the ''Will'' is the natural impulse in every thing toward the Cause/Source of all, a plant in its plantness is being driven toward its own ''Ideal Monad''. So the Platonic ''Will'' is more personal and different from Schopenhauer's, which seems to be impersonal and indifferent, isn't it?
Platonic renunciation isn't the same as the renunciation of buddhists in my opinion; it is a renunciation from diversions of purification and likeness to God; or you could say it is a renunciation of the individual will since there will be only the Will, that is, the natural goodness that leads to the Good.

>>14610354
>But in Plato the ''Will'' is the natural impulse in every thing toward the Cause/Source of all
I think you are confusing Schopenhauer's cosmic Will with something else. The similarity with Plato that I meant to point out was the objectification of the Will to these Platonic ideas. Meaning that Schopenhauer's Will is objectified into a set of Platonic forms that everything in the world of experience gets their likeness from.
>platonic renunciation is a renunciation from diversions of purification and likeness to God
I think different Buddhist branches have different ideas on this. Doesn't some of them believe that we should renounce the world by imitating the Buddha? Which sounds like exactly as you say is a renunciation from diversions.

Again, I appreciate the effort to be precise, but my goal wasn't to say they are logically equivalent. Obviously I have people like Goethe and Wittgenstein and Jung on the same picture and obviously they aren't logically equivalent. What I meant to say these people in many ways reinforce each other and in some cases not exactly directly.

>>14609892
Plato, Goethe and Steiner don't deserve this debasement at all. At least you've heard of Steiner so I'll give you that, but you didn't even bother to check what Truth and Knowledge was saying.

>>14610468
Seems like what Kant and Schopenhauer and Husserl were trying to say but less rigorous. Could you explain more?

>>14610489
He positioned himself explicitly against Kant's epistemology. This article seems to provide a neat enough summary:
https://www.rosejourn.com/index.php/rose/article/viewFile/148/167

>>14610569
He wasn't acquainted with Schopenhauer's correction of Kant so he just outright rejected it. But Schopenhauer's version completely allows for Steiner's esoteric activities.

>>14610611
Wasn't acquainted? He worked to compile the complete editions of Schopenhauer's works in Weimar. I hardly think he just happened to miss Arty's doctoral thesis.

>>14610016
You really dont need to read schopenhauer to understand they are both idealists. Your statement indicates that you rely to much on ethos where a cursory glance at both of them would give you a similar conclusion.

Yes, if you want to point to a specific idea or just name an example, point to a specific philosopher, but with something so simple, it indicates a lack of critical thinking on your part.

>>14610650
I see no other explanation as to why he would discard a system that is better suited for his thought than his own. Regardless, I think Husserl's phenomenological approach does the same but even more rigorously.

>>14609892
based

>>14610652
I see in Plato affirmation of the world an life, after platonic telos obviously. The virtuous knowledge and theoria of platonic tradition exposing the World as anabasic sunthemata, means to understanding and comprehension to reach the incomprehensible (and as means they have fundamental reality).
Indeed I don't have an intimate contact with Buddha's teachings but, apart from all nihilistic faux buddhist doctrines, just like mystical christian contemplation and meditation, gaudapada's ajativada and other advaitist doctrines, they render the World sterile.

>>14611285
>>14610652
to make it clear, of course the World becomes sterile after reaching That. I just think that the platonic tradition comprehends a functional aspect of World and Life as means to That precisely for their common (preserved) essence and procession from That.
I have been trying to reconciliate the apophatic ways I've cited in the other post with the validity and significance of the World to reach It.

bump

>>14609892
have you, uh... actually read Kant?

>Buddha
>Constant Truths

I count maybe four from this dude, but even then if they really were constant then you could attach yourself to them and that's a no from big B.

>>14611978
why are you afraid anon

>>14611978
Yes.

The Battle Royale Continues.
Who will remain standing in the end?

>>14612885
>>14613545
k-kant terrifies me

>>14613811
Only the foolish are not afraid of that giant intellect of him.

>>14609892
Your reality is a constant illusion. Embrace the transitory truths.

>>14610016
Buddha is just Plato on steroids.

>>14609892
>Buddha

Go back to /x/

>>14610090
Yeah it's from the Buddhist Heart sutra.

>>14614087
I feel like i would aquire some weird humiliation fetish by reading him. im scared but so aroused and erect at the same time.

>>14614229
Buddha is just Plato on sedatives.

>>14614816
Buddha = Lobotomized Plato

But what is a constant truth? How do I figure them out? Can I use reality to help me?

>>14614229
"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."

Adi Shankara - Brahma Sutra Bhasya 2.2.32.

>>14615756
>It has, in fact, no foundation whatever to rest upon
Really? What is the foundation of Advaita Vedanta then?

>>14615756
>>14616894
beware! shankara is a cryptobuddhist

>>14616894
>>14616906
Yes, Shankara is a cryptobuddhist since buddhism is based on upanishads.

>>14616925
that is a religious doctrine position of a minority of advaitins themselves, not considered true by scholars. even most advaitins don't believe that, see this image for some major ones

>>14616925
>Yes, Shankara is a cryptobuddhist

Based

this holdover from /mu/ where you clowns make 3x3s for philosophers needs to stop. they aren't Pokemon cards you morons

>>14609892
>Plato and Goethe stand for the philosophy of Becoming, Aristotle and Kant the philosophy of Being... Goethe's notes and verse... must be regarded as the expression of a perfectly definite metaphysical doctrine. I would not have a single word changed of this: "The Godhead is effective in the living and not in the dead, in the becoming and the changing, not in the become and the set-fast; and therefore, similarly, the reason is concerned only to strive towards the divine through the becoming and the living, and the understanding only to make use of the become and the set-fast.(Letter to Eckermann)" This sentence comprises my entire philosophy.

>>14616957

>>14609892
>idealism

>>14616957
>create your own philosophy
>it's just a much better one repackaged