/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.21489343]

lately the more i reflect on the nature of consciousness the more i realise that it's a constant in universe. Death is merely changing the goggles from which you view the world. All is one and all is divine. What should I read to deepen my insight on this topic? Where should I start with Spinoza? What buddhist texts should i read when i speak no asian languages?

[Anonymous No.21489361]

>>21489343
I am going to stop you right there. You should start here: >>21483166
Thank me later.

[Anonymous No.21489391]

>>21489343
He looks like me, specially the haircut

[Anonymous No.21489393]

Read Langan if you want to read a theory in which the words you are using are clearly defined and in which the statements containing those words are undeniably proven to be valid in a chain of inference. Read Spinoza if you want an outdated and lackluster, but more poetically and historically relevant version of the above. Read texts in the Buddhist tradition if you want none of the above.

[Anonymous No.21489557]

lately the more i reflect on the nature of gay sex the more i realise that it's a constant in your daily life. Cum is merely changing liquids from which you push out of your asshole. All is cum and all is AIDS. Who should breed you to deepen your pleasure in your asshole? Where should you start with gayer penis? What HIV prescription medication should you read when you speak no gaysian fag bitches?

[Anonymous No.21489573]

>>21489343
Don't bother with Buddhism, it ultimately says the opposite of what you are describing. Instead read the Upanishads.

[Anonymous No.21489616]

>>21489393
is he unironically good?

[Anonymous No.21489621]

>>21489616
Yes.

[Anonymous No.21489631]

>>21489616
No. It's ultimately a flawed picture of reality.

[Anonymous No.21489639]

>>21489631
Wrong.

[Anonymous No.21489661]

>>21489616
It’s meaningless word salad. There’s a reason why he’s not quoted by any philosopher, but fucking Ayn Rand is

[Anonymous No.21489679]

>>21489661
Wrong. It's perfectly understandable to anyone who isn't retarded and actually cares about the truth, such as this interviewer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-bRM1kYuNA

[Anonymous No.21489690]

>>21489639
Keep coping Langan, you don't have a chain of inference, you didn't understand Leibniz, Spinoza, or the neoplatonists, and your philosophy is ultimately a facade to justify your modern American value system of bastardized theism, eternal progress, free will, etc - no matter how much you cope by saying your CTMU provides the framework for a metareligion you know deep down that 90% of religions have incompatible values and world views with your bullshit. I can't even stomach you whenever you say the word "language" because it proves you have no thorough understanding of the philosophers whose ideas you've taken from some encyclopedia entries and cobbled them together into your at bottom artistic expression of your values and world view, onto which you've plastered pretensions about "absolute truth" when any sophomore can create a logically coherent explanation for the origin of the universe in a thousand different ways - no matter how much you cope that the CTMU encompasses all other theories, you know deep down there are irreconcilable differences between it and every philosopher who truly knew. If you really want your theory to be so all encompassing, you might as well just say nothing.

[Anonymous No.21489727]

>>21489690
We can ignore this retard by virtue of the fact that he thinks I am someone who I obviously am not and the fact that he hasn't presented any kind of constructive argument whatsoever.

[Anonymous No.21489754]

>>21489727
You didn't post any arguments either, you just shill an ignorant faggot who doesn't have a toddler's understanding of the philosophical tradition he claims to complete. The fact is I can intellectually destroy Langan on any subject, but he is too much of a coward to debate me and sends his cronies to shill him on 4chan instead of doing it himself.

[Anonymous No.21489798]

>>21489343
DUDE WEED

[Anonymous No.21489805]

First you could start with Frederic Lenoir's book "The Spinoza Miracle", it's a really good introduction to both Spinoza's life and major works (The Theologico-Political Treatise, and Ethics). After that, if you still think Spinoza and his philosophy could answer your questions, you should read his "Ethics". Some people find it hard to read because the way it's structured, but i find it really easy to follow. After that you could read the Theologico-Political Treatise, but I find it optional in your particular case. You could also read his correspondence, since it sheds a bit of light on his works and should offer a bit more context, since he explains what others got wrong (also optional).
In regard to the buddhist texts, I can't really pinpoint something related to this topic. You would rather read some upanishads, such as the Mandukya upanishad, or anything related to the Advaita Vedanta (which Lenoir finds it close to Spinoza's philosophy).
I hope this is enough to get you started.

[Anonymous No.21489911]

>>21489343
https://adhyatmaprakasha.org/php/english/english_books_toc.php?book_id=017&type=english&book_title=Vedanta+or+the+Science+of+Reality

[Anonymous No.21489923]

>>21489679
Some retarded youtuber isn’t a philosopher. Come back when anyone of relevance even pays attention to your beloved word salad

[Anonymous No.21489945]

>>21489754
>You didn't post any arguments either
For any X, if X exists, X is real. Reality contains all and only that which is real. Therefore, everything in reality possesses the unary predicate "real", denoting inclusion in reality itself. In other words, all is one. That's a proof of the kind found in the CTMU, good luck refuting it. (You can't, because it's impossible.)

[Anonymous No.21489955]

>>21489945
why would i refute that? I never said the ctmu doesn't contain any true statements lol. you posted the most trivial "argument" in the paper though, which technically isn't an argument even according to Langan because it is nothing more than a tautology.

[Anonymous No.21489973]

>>21489361
i've read the first 3 enneads as part of a course, maybe it's worth finishing
>>21489393
>Christopher Michael Langan (born March 25, 1952) is an American horse rancher
yeah no fuck that autistic shit. I'd rather read someone who has an idea of tradition
>>21489573
well buddhists would probably argue about the idea of oneness and escaping the endless cycle of rebirth is what the whole religion is built upon, yeah, but i still think there might be some valuable insights. The upanishads seem to be exactly what i'm looking for, thanks anon! now onto finding a good tl
>>21489798
i've never smoked the stuff, i just have some sort of oceanic feeling when i'm innawoods on my own
>>21489911
i'd have never thought i'd read the phrase "super-empirically" in a text that's > 2000 years old. Shit i better start learning sanskrit

[Anonymous No.21489980]

>>21489955
>why would i refute that?
I'm assuming you would refute it because it's the meta-axiom from which his entire theory derives. But you can't, so you won't.
>according to Langan
Langan never said anything like "tautologies aren't arguments". Langan actually says tautology is the most fundamental kind of truth from which every individual truth must be heritable. Of course, you would know that if you had read his work for any substantial amount of time. (You haven't.)

[Anonymous No.21489987]

>>21489343
>What should I read to deepen my insight on this topic?
pic rel

[Anonymous No.21489989]

>>21489980
>I'm assuming you would refute it because it's the meta-axiom from which his entire theory derives. But you can't, so you won't.
No it's not you absolute retard, it's one of three tautological principles from which he uses to inspire the three other principles of the ctmu, there is no "meta axiom" from which the entire theory derives it's supposed to be a closed structure without, tautologies don't have conclusions or deductions, they just are, and the ctmu is supposed to be a supertautology. I guarantee I know more about the ctmu than you, muh "you haven't read it!" bullshit is just only cope your NPC brain can come up with

[Anonymous No.21490009]

>>21489989
You're wrong. It's right there in black and white.

[Anonymous No.21490019]

>>21490009
that's not the reality principle

[Anonymous No.21490034]

>>21490019
lol just stop posting man

[Anonymous No.21490057]

>>21490034
lol which paper is that even from? it's not the reality principle he published originally. apologies I don't keep up with every development in the theory that he talks about as if it is fully complete while refusing to publish all his results for decades

[Anonymous No.21490067]

>>21489973
>I'd rather read someone who has an idea of tradition
I must say that I prefer truth over tradition. This means that when I see a vastly powerful and comprehensive theory with remarkable explanatory power capable of casting traditional ideas in a new light, I won't ignore such a theory on the grounds that it "isn't traditional". But I can see why some people wouldn't value truth over tradition. You're entitled to your preference, as harmful as it may be.

[Anonymous No.21490131]

>>21489573
I would like to offer an opposing yet somewhat adjacent view: there is much interesting and worth learning from Buddhism. However, discussions on /lit/ on Eastern philosophy, and apposite topics like perennialism/Traditionalism/mysticism/on the nature of enlightenment, often get bogged down by Medieval-era-reminiscent “How many angels can dance on the tip of a pin?” autism.

See, for instance, truisms such as, “This very mind is the Buddha” (of Ch’an/Zen Buddhism).

>All sentient beings are replete with buddhanature. It is only due to their vexations that they do not know or perceive it. Thus, you must diligently cultivate expediencies to eradicate vexations.
—Mahaparinirvana Sutra

And also see the recursive microcosmic-macrocosmic mindfuck of Hwa Yen Buddhist cosmology, their concept of interpenetration of all dharma or phenomena, and the paradoxical absolutism of relativity (leading to a strange flickering union between absolutism and relativity, similar to optical illusions like the duck/rabbit-one, so commonly brought up as a trope for novices in perception psychology) encapsulated in the Flower Garland Sutra (Avatamsaka Sutra).

[Anonymous No.21490266]

>>21489343
Don't touch anything Buddhist if you wanna understand that stuff, start with Advaita Vedanta stuff like >>21489987 recommends.

>>21489393
Ignore this guy

[Anonymous No.21490273]

>>21490266
ignore this guy

[Anonymous No.21491368]

>>21489343
advaita vedanta is exactly what ur looking for

[Anonymous No.21491457]

>>21489973
Please elaborate on what you mean by an oceanic feeling when innawoods.

I have to say, don't read too much. Knowledge is powerful and words can be enlightening, but how many became enlightened or found truth by poring over the instructions of others? Spend time in the woods, contemplate existence by a river or a lake side, meditate, build a fire and watch the flames and the stars. Be in the moment, appreciate everything, and yes of course reading is still a wonderful way to arrive at a destination as well.

[Anonymous No.21491829]

you're retarded

[Anonymous No.21491857]

>>21489987
>>21490266
Advaita is a dogmatic medieval religion part of Hinduism since it has a dogmatic creation myth and a dogmatic set of social rules inherited from Brahmanism.

[Anonymous No.21491958]

>>21491457
oh boy get ready for a wall of text, sorry if my thoughts seem cliché. Freud called oceanic feelings those that make it seem like there's something infinitely bigger than yourself that still somehow makes you feel comfortable. I was just sitting on a rock one day, trees surrounding me and I looked at them. They look like they connect the earth and the sky, their bark houses insects, fungi and other lil critters. To the bugs the tree seems like their whole world, who knows how they perceive it with their little bug senses. To me the tree is just something that's there, something that i can't walk through and i have to walk around, something under which i can hide from light rain and so on. To birds it is a place where they can perch, sleep, hunt for bugs and build their nests. It seems like every living being is intentionally (intention as in phenomenology) directed towards things in its environment. Consciousness cannot exist without intentionality, as any consciousness is necessarily a consciousness of something, e. g. consciousness of my surroundings, consc of my body and so on. What if everything that is intentionally directed towards its environment is conscious to some degree? That would make consciousness be one of the few constants in the universe. All I can think of are times when I am conscious. They say death is like eternal sleep, but i only remember when i'm awake or when i dream. Even after my body deteriorates to a degree to which it cannot keep fueling the fire of my soul, it will just spark and catch fire in a different being. To that being it will seem like there was nothing before it and like there won't be anything after it, just like it does to me now. Individuality is just an illusion, it's just a product of the differentiation of oneself from one's environment, from the things one has a feeling of and the things one has a feeling for. As hegel would say, every spirit is just a digit of *the* spirit. As a dudeweedlol redditor would say, we're just the universe experiencing itself. Also you're right, some truths cannot be mediated through language and one has to experience it.
>>21489805
thanks anon i ordered the book!
>>21489987
nice, it should be hard to find all those in my language since i don't wanna be just reading pdfs

[Anonymous No.21491959]

>>21491857
Go back.

[Anonymous No.21491973]

>>21489805
Advaita is not very similar to Spinoza's philosophy at all.

[Anonymous No.21492226]

>>21491857
Every single spiritual/religious philosophy from every corner of the world contains unverifiable dogmas, however they still have valuable insights to teach us in spite of these dogmas. To act as though we should refrain from studying them because of these dogmas is silly, like throwing out the baby with the bathwater or cutting off one's nose to spite one's face.

>>21491958
>Freud called oceanic feelings those that make it seem like there's something infinitely bigger than yourself that still somehow makes you feel comfortable.
I feel like this description is lacking, because it doesn't encapsulate oceanic feelings wherein oneself is identified with the entirety of the ocean, so that there is no sense of an additional thing that is "infinitely bigger"

>Consciousness cannot exist without intentionality, as any consciousness is necessarily a consciousness of something, e. g. consciousness of my surroundings, consc of my body and so on.
This is not a logical assertion or a real argument that challenges anything because it's simply assuming without any evidence that all consciousness everywhere in the universe is qualitatively similar. We have no way of knowing this though and so consciousness could theoretically be different in other creatures and/or continue onwards after the body dies but without having any relation with intentionality at all, and simply describing how our experience appears *right now* does nothing to refute or rule out this possibility.

Moreover, it can also be argued that you are starting off from the wrong basis in a way that's begging the question by immediately conflating consciousness and mind (mental functions/acts) which not everyone is on board with, because that is actually a problematic position that has its own issues that it struggles to account for. For example when you are talking about "being conscious of something", the position of Advaita is that this is really just the mind (not consciousness) engaged in the mental act (not consciousness) of observing something, and consciousness is just the partless space of luminous awareness IN WHICH the mental act of observation arises and falls like a wave or image; in this scenario simply citing the fact of us engaging in the "mental act of observation" which requires an object does nothing to show that consciousness itself is actually intentional or that it requires an object because that thing you are analyzing ie "the mental act of observation" is just another thing taking place as an object of consciousness and thus it isn't consciousness itself and so nothing whatsoever about it is automatically true of consciousness, according to this understanding of what consciousness is.

[Anonymous No.21492498]

>>21491973
While I acknowledge Advaita and Spinoza's philosophy aren't entirely similar, they share a few points.

As Lenoir sees it, regarding the issue of the survival of the mind after death, "it is the divine and eternal part in us that remains. The veils of time will dissipate as soon as we die, and our mind will continue to live in God, who has neither beginning nor end, like a part of himself. This joins, once again, the conception of the Indian philosophy of the Advaita Vedanta: the atman (the divine part in us) joins the brahman (the impersonal cosmic divine) when it came out of ignorance and reached liberation. What Hindus add, and what Spinoza remains silent about, is that it will once again reincarnate in a new body if it has not reached the ultimate liberation through knowledge."

As for the concept of God, Lenoir states that Spinoza's "concept of god is indeed much more familiar. [...] Spinoza extracts from the traditional metaphysical dualism of the West to establish a monism: God and the world are one and the same reality. However, it is the very heart of the greatest philosophical current of Indian thought: the Advaita-Vedanta, the way to non-duality. This current postulates unity between God and the world. Everything is in God and God is in everything." Quoted from his book.