/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.15771109]

300 IQ philosophy

[Anonymous No.15771129]

>>15771109
M*taphysics was a mistake.

[Anonymous No.15771174]

>>15771109
the negation of the negation is an old and tired paradox in philosophy. in mathematics it's buried deep in set theory, and it wasn't until fields like topology were developed that holes started to appear in the axioms. the problem today has been transposed into artificial intelligence research, which should is an extension of the fundamental problem of

how do you get a finite from an infinite, what is this mechanism of pruning, and can it be improved. what does it mean to speak of possibilities when reality is always deterministically observed, and why is gravity so difficult to integrate with the other forces when the unification of electricity and magnetism was so easy and nuclear forces are experimentally verifiable.


it's the question of 'why', with the unsatisfactory answer why not.

[Anonymous No.15771187]

Just because he trancedents temporal beeing and our version of beein does not mean he is not. It's just that he is a higherm

[Anonymous No.15771195]

>>15771109
>bald
>fat
>thinks he knows what God is about

[Anonymous No.15771215]

>>15771195
It's easier to speak about God because no one knows what he is - Parmenides

[Anonymous No.15771239]

>>15771195
He's not bald, it's a monks tonsure. There's no actual portraits of Eriugena, he lived during the Carologian Renaissance, which is still a relative dark age that little art was made or survives from. From everything we know about Charlemagne's court, where Eriugena was employed, it is likely that he was a well trained athlete who could easily bench 2x body weight for reps.

[Anonymous No.15771243]

>>15771239
>He's not bald, it's a monks tonsure

[Anonymous No.15771252]

>>15771174
>unsatisfactory answer why not
They would argue a necessary answer, that God necessarily arises out of nothing and from him is produced every something. From what other ground could any thing arise other than no-thing?

[Anonymous No.15771259]

>>15771243
Don't be ignorant of history. Every monk wore a tonsure until Vatican 2 to protect their fellow bald monks feelings.

[Anonymous No.15771276]

>>15771109
He's literally just saying that God doesn't see himself the same way a created being can because God is Being, not being. That's also why we spn't know of God, because we are thinking of God as created beings, which is impossible.

[Anonymous No.15771278]

>>15771276
*can't know of God in the same way God can,

[Anonymous No.15771279]

>>15771109
Logically speaking, wouldn't it make more sense to say "the property of an object being or not being is inapplicable to God" as he transcends being? Claiming "God is not" is just too similar to saying that the predicate of existence applied to God is negative.

[Anonymous No.15771287]

>>15771109
There's an American theologian whose name I forget that said something similar to this. God doesn't EXIST, he SUBSISTS.

[Anonymous No.15771293]

Oh my fucking God

[Anonymous No.15771297]

>>15771287
he just ist

[Anonymous No.15771299]

Language was a mistake

[Anonymous No.15771300]

Eriugena on the Nature of ‘Nothing’ (Nihil) and the Modes of ‘Non-Being’ (non esse)
Dermot Moran, Boston College
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESjUVpovBzo&t=30m07s

Starts @30m

[Anonymous No.15771306]

>>15771276
Eriugena goes further than that. Because God is beyond being, God can not know himself in his essence, because God's essence is neither being or non-being.

[Anonymous No.15771307]

>>15771297
And ist not. And is beyond both.

[Anonymous No.15771311]

>>15771109
So, does every philosopher essentially parrots Plato?
Is there even a reason to read anything past Aristotle?

[Anonymous No.15771313]

>>15771311
No for philosophy, yes for life advices

[Anonymous No.15771322]

>>15771306
Wouldn't that be a case of a being projecting their lack of knowledge onto God and thus just proving and disproving this quip? Did this potatonigger just make this shit up and BTFO himself?

[Anonymous No.15771327]

What level of frustrated bitter dishonest midwit do you need to be to be doing metaphysics?

[Anonymous No.15771333]

>>15771109
God is the prime, umcreated being. Neoplatonists are fucking gay.

[Anonymous No.15771335]

>>15771252
yeah that epistemological ground was eroded by the understanding of time as a separate 'no-thing' from objective reality, eg. time has relativistic properties and isn't some monolithic one way arrow that creates the substructure of structure.

einstein tried to reimagine eternity as spacetime (no-thing and no-place) the fabric of reality being bent by extra-real gravity, and then you can slot in mass as all the things. while a lot of his predictions saw experimental verification in his lifetime, this left us with a large gap in understanding about the interaction between mass and gravity - 20th century physics rejects the notion of things and has replaced everything with fields. gravitational waves or gravity fields was an important recent discovery which largely supports this new framework of fields making up everything, but just discovering it is a step. the real goal is to control all of the force fields in order to control the spacetime manifold.

physics is as lost and rudderless as it was at the end of the 1800s, there is no holistic understanding of what is going on because technology has built machines which perceive deeper and greater than human senses, and those perceptions have inverted our folk understanding of what is going on.

so your 'nothing' became spacetime, and what occurs before spacetime is a misguided question since spacetime is time itself, it's the cause of all the effect we see, with no well defined prior cause, but the failure of explaining how gravity works in this framework led to extra-universal gravitation, which means 'God' is 'Gravity', both existing outside of existence, and mediating contact through the essence of reality, which is spacetime.

this information has not penetrated the other arts or sciences very well and has largely been ignored in fiction and culture, so no sufficient artifacts exist to support this world view. this is why the art of the 20th century is so alienating and weird and focuses so much on destruction and avoids constructing newness. in my mind the issue is rather clear, you can use mathematics to show sufficient explanatory power for observed phenomena which ties together real measurement with ideal measurement. this defense of relativism or the quantum world hypothesis is tight enough to remain unchallenged for hundreds of years, which means we are at the beginning of a dogma which will only begin to erode after centuries of speculative fiction and artistic works elevate it to world religion. god is gravity is external to reality is eternal/timeless etc all the other qualities.

the concept of manipulating gravity with machines is becoming a holy war between heretics and devout gravitationists, all searching for holographic particles and the mystery of gravito-magnetics. all very similar to the early work in electromagnetism.

[Anonymous No.15771341]

>>15771327
Cope. If you hate metaphysics it is because it is too difficult for you. I see this time and time again.

[Anonymous No.15771346]

>>15771322
Sorry. just proving this quip, not really disproving. Anyways like >>15771333 (checked) says, fuck Neoplatonists and their gay ass use of language.

[Anonymous No.15771386]

>>15771287
RC Sproul

[Anonymous No.15771389]

>>15771322
No it's a necessary result of the essential nature of God as beyond being. To know some thing is to circumcise, to encircle and cut it off from other things, and to define some thing. You can not know what it is not some thing, you can not circumcise and define what does not have any boundaries.

[Anonymous No.15771391]

Eriugena is the apex of both Christian and Neoplatonic Philosophy.

[Anonymous No.15771392]

>>15771333
>God is a being
God is beyond your limits and definitions.

[Anonymous No.15771397]

>>15771392
How do you know God is not a being?

[Anonymous No.15771405]

[Anonymous No.15771408]

>>15771109
It just sounds like meaningless drivel. You're just defining "God" however you want to define it. There's no basis in reality.

[Anonymous No.15771410]

>>15771408
filtered lol. i can tell you're a pseud from this post

[Anonymous No.15771415]

>>15771109
>muh imaginary friend is real
Christcucks are so delusional, it's sad

[Anonymous No.15771487]

>>15771415
better than living with hatred and divisiveness as you are. You can’t really laugh at someone who has a happier and more meaningful life. You’re coping just as much as they are.

[Anonymous No.15771493]

>>15771109
>He transcends Being
sounds like Jean Luc Marion

>>15771300
>Dermot Moran
nice

[Anonymous No.15771504]

>>15771410
I can tell you're a larper from this post. Do you think this is how Jesus talked to people?

[Anonymous No.15771515]

>>15771504
>he who has ears, let him hear

[jesus No.15771622]

>>15771109
God exist. He knows he exists, he is what exists, he is existence, fact of existence. A miracle. A fire in the void. Power. One.

[Anonymous No.15771634]

>>15771504
Jesus spoke in parables 99% of the time and at least in Mark, nobody understood him. Even in the other Gospels, he was rarely understood except by those with faith or who have desired to have faith.

[Anonymous No.15771684]

>>15771408
>we can’t comprehend god, we can’t define him
>hahahahahah broo you just defining god the way you wantttt ahahaha

[Anonymous No.15771791]

>>15771397
Because God is also not a being. And not not a being.

[Anonymous No.15771793]

>>15771392
I have 105 IQ and I detect a paradox in this statement. Have a nice day.

[Anonymous No.15771805]

>>15771389
But since God is infinite and omniscient, it makes no sense to say He doesn't know what He is. He is perfectly capable of knowing what He is since His Knowledge is Himself.

[Anonymous No.15771826]

>>15771408
It's nothingness par excellence, a superessential nothingness that overflows all things.
>God is nihil per excellentiam (“nothingness on account of excellence”) or, as he puts it, nihil per infinitatem (“nothingness on account of infinity”). God cannot “literally” (proprie) be said to be substance or essence (ousia, essentia), nor can He be described in terms of quantity, quality, relation, place or time. He is "superessentialis".
>God is a "nothingness" (nihilum) whose real essence is unknown to all created beings, including the angels. Indeed, Eriugena argues in a radical manner, following Maximus Confessor, that God’s nature is infinite and uncircumscribable, such that He is unknown even to Himself, since He is the "infinity of infinities" and beyond all comprehension and circumscription.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scottus-eriugena/

[Anonymous No.15771831]

>>15771415
God is beyond realness and not-realness.

[Anonymous No.15771841]

>>15771805
As I said before, God is not being, He's Being, with a capital B. That means He is not is nor is He not is not, He is neither because He.

[Anonymous No.15771843]

>>15771793
God is a being and also not a being and also not either being or non-being.

[Anonymous No.15771854]

>>15771805
God is actually infinite, and so can not be known even by himself. God is not knowable, there is not a limit to bound and define God.

[Anonymous No.15771857]

>>15771826
I think Morrowind explained this concept best with the sleeping Godhead and the lives in his dreams capacity for CHIM.

[Anonymous No.15771875]

>>15771684
>we can't comprehend Urasmxaoncuo. We can't define it. But we will continue to philosophise about it as if it exists.
It's just meaningless. Where are you even getting your idea of "god" from if you can't define it? You're simply harnessing the cultural power of the word "god" and talking about some random idea you made up. I could replace the word "god" in his argument with "dragon" or some random gibberish like "Urasmxaoncuo" and it'd be the same thing.

[Anonymous No.15771882]

>>15771826
Shankaracharya wrote about the same thing one century before Eriugena

[Anonymous No.15771926]

>>15771882
Does his system include the anthropology of man as imago Dei?

[Anonymous No.15771930]

>>15771875
They're actually not talking about God, they're talking about the Tao, but they're too westernized to realize it.

[Anonymous No.15771939]

>>15771875
No, it's defined in as far as its undefinability. See>>15771826

[Anonymous No.15771946]

>>15771930
Tao is too limited. God is also a being as well as not a being. Tao stops at indefinability.

[Anonymous No.15771958]

>>15771946
If it stopped at indefinability it wouldn't have a name. God is just a redundant renaming of the Tao, not only redundant but obstructive since it implies a conscious entity with a name.

[Anonymous No.15771968]

>>15771279
what the bible says is that "God is the logic(logos) that gave birth to the universe and we are a simil of that logic, nothing that exist was made without this logic/logos, everything that is made was made throu him, and this logic/logos it is the light of mankind,"

another way to put it is that "the universe is the mind of God in action"

BTW Christ represents "the logos made flesh", the "Father of Christ" (GOD) is that same Logos/logic... we are not that same logos we are a "simil" although we have a potentiality

its a shame that we never get this explanation from the religious leaders but at least the text has always been there (some medieval people like the rosicrucians understood this content very well)

this doesn't mean that everything IS God (pantheism) just like this post I've made is not really me. this is an emanation of me but it is not me. the only way you could know me is if you were here by my side and even then you would only know a part of me

[Anonymous No.15771983]

>>15771958
Tao places limits on the unlimited. God isn't limited by being not-X.

[jesus No.15771988]

>>15771968
jesus was admin who logged in as regular user to tell other users that this is just a game and being obsessed with collecting loot, karma points, attachments poisons experience, wastes energy.

[Anonymous No.15771998]

>>15771983
Seems like the opposite to me. You can't help but talk of God like some physical animal who is or isn't something, even as the statements you make are directly paradoxical to that. You can't say "the God" , you just refer to him as a named person like you would a friend, making him very much limited. The Tao doesn't have this restriction, by language it's apparent how transcendent over language it is.

[Anonymous No.15771999]

>>15771968
huh, this is actually really interesting. its not just neoplatonism it seems. you got any recs on this subject? is this something focused on by the scholastics?

[Anonymous No.15772004]

>>15771988
Wastes energy, as opposed to what other end?

[Anonymous No.15772017]

>>15771999
(Checked)
YOu might want to look into the beliefs of the Stoic school of philosophy, because it seems that the writer of John is somewhat influenced by them, just based on the language alone. A good comprehensive book on the ethical, epistemological and (most importantly for this discussion) metaphysical ideas of the Stoics is J.M. Rist's "Stoic Philosophy" and if you want to see a bit more of their ideas on logic, Benson Mates' "Stoic Logic".

[Anonymous No.15772028]

>>15771988
>jesus was admin who logged in as regular user
Kek

[Anonymous No.15772040]

>>15771998
Paradoxes aren't a limit to God. You're tripping yourself up by thinking that the law of noncontradiction and law of the excluded middle apply to God. God is an infinite multiplex which predicates and their contraries can be applied to.

[Anonymous No.15772048]

>>15772040
So how can you use language to think about God?

[jesus No.15772052]

>>15772004
real magic, long life, telekinesis, OBE, controlled dreams, lucid dreams that are more "real" than reality we consider as only reality, seeing behind surface (3d eye). and just fucking happiness. be in control of yourself. once you surrender to Power, Power surrenders to you. details: see carlos castaneda.

[Anonymous No.15772061]

>>15771926
Only metaphorically, in his school man's innermost consciousness or self is ultimately none other than the ineffable God Itself falsely appearing as an individualized consciousness through the expression of God's creative power, with the aim of spiritual praxis being to realize this. One metaphor used is that the light of God's consciousness is reflected in the mirror of the created and non-conscious intellect, thus causing the being to mistakenly regard itself as an individualized consciousness, similar to how one might mistake one's reflection in a mirror for one's own body; although Shankara notes that this metaphor cannot be taken literally and is only symbolic, because since God in his school is formless and all-pervasive it has no image to reflect and nothing existing separately from It upon which It could be reflected in; the receptacle of the reflection only existing virtually in God's consciousness as an expression of It's creative illusion- or art-like power of maya but never truly emerging into being as a created existing product.

[Anonymous No.15772074]

>>15772048
You can talk about God in a limited way, or in part, or in a particular view; but never properly, or in totality, or in every view.

[Anonymous No.15772078]

>>15771999
You should read The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church by Vladimir Lossky. He talks about a lot of this and it is a very fascinating read.

[Anonymous No.15772110]

>>15772074
So would I be right in thinking that this stream of partial thoughts about God from all those different minds is the totality of God? Because it still seems pretty similar to the Tao to me.

[Anonymous No.15772131]

>>15772110
No because there's no totality of God, God is always more and outside of any particular or set of particulars.

[Anonymous No.15772145]

>>15772131
So all these attempts at thinking about God throughout human history are ultimately purposeless and futile?

[Anonymous No.15772148]

>>15771389
>To know some thing is to circumcise
Sorry but the brain trauma from your mangled dick prevents you from being able to comprehend metaphysics.

[Anonymous No.15772160]

>>15771791
You're just speaking in circles. The god you believe in may as well not exist. It's impossible to fear or to love a philosophical abstraction.

[Anonymous No.15772166]

>>15771174
>how do you get a finite from an infinite
This is something I really struggle with. If the universe really is infinite, then there exists a point of view sufficiently broad where everything within it becomes a single, homogenous glut, and then approaches nothingness. From such a broadened viewpoint, everything within our universe, taken together, might appear irreducible.

[jesus No.15772179]

reminder: arguing if god exist is like fingers arguing if hand exists or like leaves arguing if tree exists.

[Anonymous No.15772183]

>>15771109
Carolingian Renaissance seems to have been a pretty weird time and place. Anywhere else in Europe people would have been burnt on the stake for saying that.

[Anonymous No.15772200]

>>15772160
Wait a second I know the answer to this one. You're right, God does not exist, but He does not not exist either, He does not does either, nor does He not not does, nor does He, nor does He not, nor He, nor He not.

[Anonymous No.15772205]

>>15772200
Now you're starting to understand.

[Anonymous No.15772217]

>>15772160
You're not understanding what God is. God is both a being to fear and love, and superessential non-being that grounds all being.

[Anonymous No.15772230]

>>15772183
Power brings freedom. Revive the Western Roman Empire and you decide what can and can't be done.

[Anonymous No.15772316]

>>15771875
In so far as the very core of reality is non-rational (as in supra-rational), why would you deem God to be defined, bound in reason? It is so simple that it is literally a matter of comprehension. Descriptions are not definitions.

>>15771930
Tao is the Logos, brainlet.

[jesus No.15772325]

>>15772217
have you seen God, or just hallucinate most comfy idea you have read somewhere else?

[Anonymous No.15772336]

>>15772316
Here >>15771968 it says God is the Logos.

[Anonymous No.15772342]

>>15772336
It is in the same sense Christ is God.

[Anonymous No.15772350]

>>15772342
So the hierarchy is;
>Logos
>God
>Christ

[Anonymous No.15772355]

>>15772166
There is a difference between infinite, transfinite and indefinite.

[Anonymous No.15772366]

>>15772350
No hierarchy. It is just a matter of principality, the egyptian theology represents this well.

[Anonymous No.15772406]

>>15771109
yeah i am a dialetheist so what

[Anonymous No.15772417]

>>15772325
The world is a theophony. I see.

[Anonymous No.15772433]

>>15772217
How can God both be a particular being and what you call the ground of being? It's like me saying that I am a particular man, but I am also man in general, apart from any particular man, provided that such a thing really exists. But you see, your whole theology depends on the assumption that such a thing as entirely transcends particulars could even exist beyond the mind. What you need to understand is that 'being' and 'existence' are not real things in themselves, such that something could be prior or posterior to them. These are just names that we use to signify the totality of what we observe. So saying, 'God exists' or 'God is a being' is not placing a limit on Him.

[Anonymous No.15772451]

God is a place you will wait for the rest of your life

[Anonymous No.15772469]

>>15772017
>>15772078
thanks guy

[Anonymous No.15772485]

>>15772433
About to fall asleep so can't reply in depth, but see the lecture and book by Dermot Moran here>>15771300, and read the introduction to Neo-Platonism by Eric Perl in pic.

Eriugena goes well beyond Neo-Platonism and introduces dialetics, perspectivism, meontology, and a (Greek Orthdox) Christian-Platonic anthropology that has strong perspectivist epistemological consequences.

[Anonymous No.15772492]

>>15771299
Zerzan leave

[Anonymous No.15772497]

>>15772433
>could even exist beyond the mind.
Yes, that's exactly right. Before all forms and ideas and logic.

[Anonymous No.15772506]

>>>/mu/96472987
>>>/mu/96472987

[jesus No.15772735]

>>15772417
it is so difficult to answer yes or no, because simple answer removes your hypocritical larping mask.

[Anonymous No.15772826]

>>15771174
The infinite does not exist, it is only an idea. Nothing in the universe, reality, is infinite.

[Anonymous No.15772845]

Religion is literally nothing but sophistry and rhetoric.

All religions but mine that is.

[Anonymous No.15772866]

>>15771622
>>15771988
>Did acid once and things he found god

[jesus No.15772880]

>>15772866
>thinks that I did acid once and think I found god

[Anonymous No.15773371]

>>15771999
>>15772350

there is a hierarchy and continuing with this post >>15771968 all points to the same cosmic Logos , the trinity is: (father) the ultimate-Logos of universal creation; (son) the encarnate-logos "a local being" and the spiritum sanctum basically means the "bless of life":

SPIRIT:
> "animating or vital principle in man and animals" "inspiration; breath of life" hence "life"
>Old French espirit "spirit, soul" and directly from Latin spiritus "a breathing (respiration, and of the wind) breath; breath of a god" supernatural immaterial creature; angel, demon; an apparition, invisible corporeal being of an airy nature, ghost
>from passages in Vulgate, where the Latin translates Greek pneuma and Hebrew ruah. Distinction between "soul" and "spirit" (as "seat of emotions") became current in Christian terminology (such as Greek psykhe vs. pneuma, Latin anima vs. spiritus) but "is without significance for earlier periods" [Buck]. Latin spiritus "breath" replaces animus in the sense "spirit" in the imperial period and appears in Christian writings as the usual equivalent of Greek pneuma (air, breath)
https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=spirit

we could confidently say that christianity is heavily based on greek thought

so, God send christ to give a message, Rene Girar gives an academic thesis as to why christ is the final conclusion to ancient myths, basically: the scapegoat/sacrify mechanism of ancient myths had to be broken , christ "completed the cycle", also is important to note that a lot of the ancient world did animal or human sacrifices (even children) even the isarelites did, the aztecs are the prime example of brutality, this is not something minor in history, pagans just ignore all this, even norsemen did this practices


https://youtu.be/DoWTO-2ju8M?t=1581 22:20
https://youtu.be/BNkSBy5wWDk?t=969 16:00
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNJq6BlVyhM

[Anonymous No.15773386]

What a lot of words to say nothing at all

[Anonymous No.15773417]

>>15771335
>gravity holy war
Write a book about this please, or point me in the direction of some sources to read more.

[Anonymous No.15773583]

>X is Y

[jesus No.15773612]

>>15773583
not a pit, just recursion.