[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 334 KB, 608x762, Four_Horsemen.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17307271 No.17307271 [Reply] [Original]

Who would win a three (3) hour debate, pic related or
>Parmenides
>Shankara
>Guénon
>Evola
Both teams have a month to prepare.

>> No.17307274

>>17307271
The topic of the debate is "Does God exist?"

>> No.17307280
File: 447 KB, 1630x1328, 1610696686677.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17307280

I would be careful about reading Advaita Vedanta interpretations such as Shankara's as a commentary to the Upanishads, they are extremely reliant on Buddhist philosophy (Shankara is called a "cryptobuddhist" by most Hindus, and most scholars agree). If you want to read the Upanishads, work through them with editions and commentaries that aren't sectarian, or at least read an interpretation that is closer to the original meaning of the Upanishads, rather than Shankara's 9th century AD quasi-buddhism.

>> No.17307281

>>17307274
The first team wins by default because God doesn't exist. /thread

>> No.17307334

>>17307281

>> No.17307387

>>17307271
Parmenides mogs them all

>> No.17308190

>>17307271
It's just gonna be a very incoherent debate because both parties are trapped in their biases like crazy. That being said Parmenides and Shankara will come out on top, but Guenon and Evola wouldn't stand a chance on their own.

>> No.17309203

Bump

>> No.17309206

>>17307271
KEK unironically caring about who 'wins' a debate.

>> No.17309210

>>17309206
Have. Sex. Tranny.

>> No.17309295
File: 56 KB, 656x679, 1605501655424.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17309295

>>17307334
I had always anticipated the day where I would dislike you buttercunt. Here's a frog that I will post out of spite. Suffer buttercunt

>> No.17309446
File: 36 KB, 560x292, 1607922772695.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17309446

>>17307271

>Moreover, the Materialist ought to be asked what is the exact nature of that consciousness which he supposes to be exuded from the elements. For he does not admit the existence of any other principle apart from his four (or any number of) elements. He will perhaps try to define consciousness as consisting in the mere fact that the elements and their products are experienced. But then they would have to be its object, and it could not be a property of them at the same time, for it is contradictory to suppose that anything can act on itself. Fire may be hot, but it cannot burn itself, and not even the cleverest acrobat can climb up on his own shoulders. And, in the same way, the elements and their products cannot form objects of consciousness if consciousness is their property. A colour does not perceive its own colour or the colour of anything else. And yet there is no doubt whatever that the elements and their products are perceived by consciousness, both inside and outside the body. Because, therefore, the presence of a consciousness which takes the elements and their products as its objects has to be admitted, it follows that it has likewise to be admitted that consciousness is distinct and separate from them.

Four Horsemen BTFO'd by Shankara

>> No.17309455

>>17309210
It doesn't matter, anon.

>> No.17309519

>implying that debates are about ‘winning’
I’d say Dennett would win. He looks built like a bran and would easily beat the shit out of Evola. After all, Italians are confident, but usually all talk

>> No.17309525

>>17307271
Back to

>> No.17309535

>>17307271
Im a materialist but it’s evidently the later

>> No.17309877

>>17309446
>Because, therefore, the presence of a consciousness which takes the elements and their products as its objects has to be admitted
Dennett actually argues against this position.

>> No.17310425
File: 39 KB, 400x246, 370790510_tp.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17310425

>>17307271
Look man I hate these four atheist fucks but if you're putting two perennialist pseuds, a Buddhist, and an iron age philosopher, even though I think Parmenides is fantastic the atheists are probably going to win. Literally anyone in a debate will defeat them. It has nothing to do with who's right or wrong either, you just have to think about the skills these people would bring to a live debate.

>> No.17310457

>>17307271
Lol the brainlet atheist are going to get REKT into oblivion. I would pay big money to say that.
Did Sam Harris not recently started advocating that God exist? It just shows you how clueless those paeud are.

>> No.17310467
File: 86 KB, 1200x887, 113125-110942.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17310467

>>17307281
>t.