/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.21932156]

>Got almost everything right
>Most influential thinker of the 1930’s
>Is completely forgotten in the west outside 4chan and some far right and occultist circles
Why was he forgotten?

[Anonymous No.21932178]

He's doing relatively well given the current circumstances. Him being right about everything should tell you everything you need to know about why he isn't more well known in the first place

[Anonymous No.21932512]

>>21932156
so do you have a chart on this guy or what?
where do I even start with him?

[Anonymous No.21932979]

>>21932512
1.'introduction to hindu doctrines' to get used to his terminology; if you're not interested in hinduism you can ignore the last part of the book
2. his conference at sorbonne: "oriental metaphysics"
3. anything you want

[Anonymous No.21932991]

[Anonymous No.21932995]

>>21932156

[Anonymous No.21933252]

>>21932156
He got filtered by classical music and everything German.

[Anonymous No.21934451]

>>21932512

[Anonymous No.21934456]

>>21934451

[Anonymous No.21935881]

>>21932156
>>Most influential thinker of the 1930’s
dude Guenon is as obsecure as a thinker can get, specially in the 30's which had philosophers like Wittgenstein and Heidegger and important changes in sociology, antropology, mathematics and logic with people like Weber,Cantor and Frege
Guenon was only know by right wing fringe groups, so that's your answer, he's forgotten because he was never famous to begin with

[Anonymous No.21935898]

>>21935881
also his study of religion and eastern philosophies is tainted by his pernenialist agenda, so he's not even a good schoolar, whch makes him a less than optimal reference to modern scholars in eastern philosophy and religious studies, which is the natural place in which people like Guenon should trive and acquire prestige, i know a lot of professors in that branch of academya(theology and eastern studies) and no one take Guenon seriously, he's not "a must read" in those areas of study

[Anonymous No.21935964]

>>21935881
please read xavier accart's massive tome Guénon ou le renversement des clartés. Influence d'un métaphysicien sur la vie littéraire et intellectuelle française (1920-1970) detailing the ridiculously extensive influence guenon had on figures as diverse as weil, daumal, breton, bataille, de lubac, corbin, fondane, ziegler, schmitt, eliade, maritain (of course this is just in europe, this is without mentioning his influence in the muslim world).

you can talk about more overt history of ideas at the level of heidegger and wittgenstein but that just scratches the surface of what was really going on inside the burgeoning culture factory of these intellectual circles. he is a strangely secret influence on such a large swathe of 20th century literary culture

[Anonymous No.21935978]

>>21932156
>Got almost everything right
I'm sure you can name 5 things what he was right about
>Most influential thinker of the 1930’s
Delusion
>Why was he forgotten?
There was nothing to forget.

[Anonymous No.21936003]

>>21932156
Guenon made no contribution to philosophy, he was a bore seduced by eastern mysticism. And monism was already refuted by Plato.

[Anonymous No.21936674]

>>21935964
mile wide but an inch deep

he was a pseud writing for other pseuds, that's exactly why he's forgotten

[Anonymous No.21936676]

>>21932156
The King of England hasn't forgotten him.

[Anonymous No.21936798]

>>21932156
Normalfags still believe in delusions like transfinite cardinals, they aren't ready for Guénon-sama.
https://youtu.be/NcE2mQC0gP8

[Anonymous No.21936825]

>>21932156
Imagine my shock when Mortimer J Adler makes reference to him in the Great Conversations series of essays. I was amazed he was more than an irrelevant towelhead spammed on here.

[Anonymous No.21936910]

>>21936798
Cantor is an infinitely better mathematician (and consequently philosopher) than Guenon.

[Anonymous No.21936915]

>>21936910
>infinitely better
THAT'S NOT POSSIBLE RETARD NOT EVEN IN HYPERBOLE

[Anonymous No.21936921]

>>21936915
t. angry zoomer brainlet

go smoke heroin

[Anonymous No.21936952]

>>21935964
>bataille
if that book thinks Bataille was influenced by Guenon then that already puts a red flag on the credibility of the author,is well know that Bataile considered Guenon a mediocre author and poorly informed on modern metaphysics, i think it was in "the tears of eros" where he said it was shameful of little Guenon knew about modern authors like Hegel or Nietzsche, let alone Heidegger which pretty much handle the same topics as Guenon but in a more orginal manner, Guenon's reing of quantity pale in comparison with Hediegger's domains of Techne
all the people that sell Guenon as a influential figure tends to eagerate how influential he really was

[Anonymous No.21937062]

>>21936952
People who think Guenon is brilliant are people who are very poorly read in philosophy.

[Anonymous No.21937619]

>>21936952
>bataille
a pseud and the first of the 'french sociologists' a la camus, sartre, and
foucault (especially foucault, since they were both massive degenerates)
>neetzsche
not even a systematic thinker, literally flip flops on everything he says from book to book and went mad (KWAB), why bother?
>hegel
he did well in ignoring him, wouldnt have anything of value from marx literal ideological father and schopenhauer already put his ass on blast
>heidegger
kek @ him being more original, maybe to a western normie, but guenon would have known his zen sources therefore a waste to read something he already knows and has already said

so basically bataille got filtered like a faggot pseud and al he could muster was "m-muh neetzsche" fucking kek

[Anonymous No.21937625]

>>21937619
interminably based

[Anonymous No.21937634]

>>21932156
>>Got almost everything right
lol

[Anonymous No.21937662]

>>21936003
> And monism was already refuted by Plato.
Plato was a non-dualist like Shankara (which isnt monism)

[Anonymous No.21937695]

>>21936915
wildberger drone

[Anonymous No.21938012]

>>21936003
He's not a monist. Maybe read him before making such a stupid comment again.

[Anonymous No.21938116]

>>21932156
His ideas were cool, but he writes like a 3 years old retard

[Anonymous No.21938138]

>>21932156
this literal peabrain got filtered by the number zero

[Anonymous No.21938411]

>>21934451
Updated version

[Anonymous No.21938416]

>>21937619
>french sociologists' a la camus, sartre,
this is your brain on /pol/

[Anonymous No.21938461]

>>21932156
Perennialism is a damned lie

[Anonymous No.21938581]

>>21938461
If you haven't achieved the absolute peak of enlightenment a la direct God-knowledge through multiple religions what makes you qualified to say that?
>>21938138
Zero is just an abstraction. Everything worth keeping in math can be deduced without it. You're the one being filtered here.

[Anonymous No.21938599]

>>21938138
He's right, though. You can algebraically rearrange (0)(infinity) to equal any number you want.

[Anonymous No.21938604]

>>21936952
>modern metaphysics

[Anonymous No.21938610]

>>21936910
Maybe a better mathematician, considering Guenon didn't focus on maths, but philosopher? Absolutely the opposite.

[Anonymous No.21938652]

>>21937662
>Plato was a non-dualist like Shankara (which isnt monism)
By "monism" I mean the Eleatic view that only the absolute is real.
My interpretation, based on a conversation with one of his followers, is that Guenon stands ambivalently between Eleaticism and Socratism, between saying that only the absolute exists and saying that the observable world still exists but it is a lower lever of reality.

[Anonymous No.21938686]

>>21938652
>My interpretation, based on a conversation with one of his followers, is that Guenon stands ambivalently between Eleaticism and Socratism, between saying that only the absolute exists and saying that the observable world still exists but it is a lower lever of reality.
By Guenon's own admission he agrees with the Advaita of Shankara (among other doctrines but he seems to prefer it as the basis of his exposition), which says that the observable world and multiplicity manifests as empirical experiences/appearances but without having true existence (manifestation = appearance =/= existence). This isn't 'ambivalent' and it's actually rather similar to how Plato regarded matter as having only a shadowy quasi-existence that is like an imitation or image of true/actual existence.

[Anonymous No.21938762]

>>21937662
Can you explain to a retard like me what is the difference between monism and non dualism? I always see that non dualists believe there is an ultimate reality beynod this from which everything comes and so oppositions are not real, only that reality, but wouldn't that be monism?

[Anonymous No.21938771]

He destroyed his reputation by becoming a Muslim and moving to Egypt. If had remained a Westerner he would be the right’s Karl Marx. He’s be to modern American imperialism what Zeno of Citium was to the late Roman Republic.

[Anonymous No.21938776]

>>21938762
Yes, it is. Monism = everything is actually one and there are no real distinctions. Dualism = there is this reality and then absolute reality, the two are distinct and thus distinctions are real. Buddhists posit an absolute one-ness reality ie monism. Muslims, whether they know it or not, posit a created reality and a heavenly reality ie dualism. To believe we’re all one in Islam identifies people with Allah, which makes you a kaffir. The only religion that evades monism and dualism altogether is Christianity. There’s a good book called The One and the Many.

[Anonymous No.21938788]

>>21932156
>>Is completely forgotten in the west outside 4chan and some far right and occultist circles
it's in all the New Age and spirituality sections of bookstores here in spain in big malls and stuff

[Anonymous No.21938790]

>>21938776
But wouldn't Christianity be "at least dualist" in the sense that there is this world and the other one which you don't have an access to?

[Anonymous No.21938797]

>>21938788
i'll send a picture if i visit the mall later today

[Anonymous No.21938808]

>>21938790
Also, if God is the creator and you are not the creator or part of it as you would be in monism you would still have at least a duality between God and the created, wouldn't it? MAybe the non duality comes from the created being different between them?

[Anonymous No.21938868]

>>21938762
>Can you explain to a retard like me what is the difference between monism and non dualism?
Monism allows for subsuming of differences/multiplicity within a greater unity without invalidating that difference/multiplicity whereas non-duality or Advaita in Sanskrit just means "without secondness".

If one regards multiplicity as being existent and real along with the greater unity that incorporates this, then there is not really a "without secondness" since the various instantiations of multiplicity becomes a real "secondness" in relation to each other as well as in relation to the whole or entirety. This is why Vishishtadvaita (which professes this view) says it is "qualified non-dualism" instead of just "non-dualism".

If you take Plato's "theory of forms" as being his final position (the exoteric reading) then this isn't exactly non-dualism but there are various interpretations of Plato that don't think this is true, Plato has one of his characters btfo the theory of forms in his own dialogues and there is evidence for him teaching an 'unwritten doctrine' involving 'The One', under some of these kinds of interpretations the various devices that Plato uses in his dialogue are exactly that, devices that have value in helping the mind train and prepare for higher levels of understanding, culminating in the intuition/assimilation of the highest/ultimate, the very possibility of which already implies some type of commensurability or identity between the highest and ourselves. Non-dualism isn't explicitly spelled out by Plato like it is by Shankara but it's a fairly reasonable take on his works.

[Anonymous No.21938887]

>>21938776
>Yes, it is. Monism = everything is actually one and there are no real distinctions.
Monism allows for real distinctions, they are just categorized as belonging to the same overarching unity that includes them.
>Buddhists posit an absolute one-ness reality ie monism.
Buddhists generally don't say that plurality is unreal
>The only religion that evades monism and dualism altogether is Christianity.
This is a laughable simplification
>There’s a good book called The One and the Many.
the author is a pseud

[Anonymous No.21938953]

>>21938887
No, it doesn’t. Absolute oneness implies no real distinctions in an absolute sense. I don’t care what Buddhists say. Of course, it’s an oversimplification but it’s not the less true. Any other doctrine that escapes is just aping Christianity.

[Anonymous No.21938963]

>>21938790
You do have access. Christ was God incarnate on earth and the Holy Spirit grants us divine knowledge. It’s the trinity that overcomes duality. There’s no equivalent in Islam. Muhammad magically had access to divine knowledge that he logically shouldn’t have access to.

[Anonymous No.21938980]

>>21938686
>By Guenon's own admission he agrees with the Advaita of Shankara (among other doctrines but he seems to prefer it as the basis of his exposition), which says that the observable world and multiplicity manifests as empirical experiences/appearances but without having true existence (manifestation = appearance =/= existence). This isn't 'ambivalent' and it's actually rather similar to how Plato regarded matter as having only a shadowy quasi-existence that is like an imitation or image of true/actual existence.
I think you are underestimating the logical difficulties bound up with the notion of quasi-existence. If existence is not a binary, not a question of a thing just existing or not existing, we are introducing the notion of degrees of reality. The observable world, then, has some reality to it but it is not fully real ("metaphysics": distinction between higher and lower reality, what is fully real and what is less than fully real). But the problem is that if this lower reality has a real and an unreal part, that unreal part itself is not partly unreal but completely unreal, and so only the real "part" remains.

[Anonymous No.21938994]

Someone needs to take up the mantle of Christian Traditionalism to finish the return from Guenon through Evola.

[Anonymous No.21939067]

>>21938953
>No, it doesn’t. Absolute oneness implies no real distinctions in an absolute sense.
Monism isn't "absolute oneness with no real distinctions" but is just a general "oneness", if you look up academic articles surveying "monism" and "monist philosophies" you'll find that the majority of the types of monism listed DONT posit that there are no real distinctions.

eg:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/monism/

>I don’t care what Buddhists say.
You may not care, but you said a factually incorrect statement that I was correcting
>Of course, it’s an oversimplification but it’s not the less true.
lmao
>Any other doctrine that escapes is just aping Christianity.
This is not even true, you are just aping Jay Dyers sophistic apologetics that tries to dismiss everything besides Orthodox Christianity by inaccurately generalizing them into two categories which he then tries to dismiss for invalid reasons based on inaccurate assumptions about those things which are themselves not critically examined. It's brain-dead bottom-tier sophistic garbage for midwits.

[Anonymous No.21939072]

>>21939067
Do you understand the argument that just because someone says “this doesn’t posit absolute oneness” doesn’t mean it actually doesn’t?

[Anonymous No.21939108]

>>21938980
>I think you are underestimating the logical difficulties bound up with the notion of quasi-existence.
I'm not, the idea has been debated fairly extensively in Indian writings. Whether there are logical difficulties depends on exactly how you formulate said idea (there are different ways to do so) and many of the objections to certain types of these formulations are predicated on assumptions which are themselves often questionable and unproven.
>If existence is not a binary, not a question of a thing just existing or not existing, we are introducing the notion of degrees of reality.
This isn't actually necessary, e.g. in Advaita the conditional level (vyavahara) is regarded as being false (mithya), which is neither existence nor nothingness but is instead its own category, this means it's not a 'degree of reality' since reality (existence) has no degrees except in the informal sense where the mithya (which isn't reality at all) is referred to as one as a mode of expression or for the sake of convenience in discussion.
>The observable world, then, has some reality to it but it is not fully real
This isn't required of the above position, there is no logical necessity that makes it a requirement for one to say that falsity "has reality" in order for it to be falsity and appears as false experiences, such a claim actually involves a subtle contradiction.
>But the problem is that if this lower reality has a real and an unreal part, that unreal part itself is not partly unreal but completely unreal, and so only the real "part" remains.
This problem arises from the confusion of assigning the "lower reality" an "unreal part" and a "real part", but this isn't what Advaita does so it's a non-issue for them.

[Anonymous No.21939128]

>>21939072
>Do you understand the argument that just because someone says “this doesn’t posit absolute oneness” doesn’t mean it actually doesn’t?
You aren't even familiar enough with Buddhist thought to presume to know the actual implications of their positions so I don't know why you would even bother trying to dispute that point. You have not given any valid reasons why what they are saying results in "absolute oneness", or why the various types of monism listed in that Stanford article amount to "absolute oneness" with "no real differences". You should start there by providing such an argument if you want to come up with a serious reply.

[Anonymous No.21939142]

>>21939128
Buddhists do in fact posit absolute one-ness so if your argument is that actually they don’t, we can’t even agree on premises enough to have our own argument. People always want to do these mental gymnastics to pretend that the implications which are obviously there somehow aren’t actually there if you just say you reject them but that’s not how philosophy works. If I describe a triune God but then say actually no I don’t believe in a triune God, then I don’t have an argument. I’m just lying.

[Anonymous No.21939188]

>>21939142
>Buddhists do in fact posit absolute one-ness so if your argument is that actually they don’t, we can’t even agree on premises enough to have our own argument.
You have not provided any source, if you want your claims to be taken seriously you actually have to back them up with sourced information instead of pulling unsourced claims out of your ass.

What type of Buddhism are you talking about? Indian Buddhism?

Theravada and Abhidharma doesn't posit an absolute oneness but they believe in a plurality of existent dharmas
Madhyamaka doesn't posit an absolute oneness but they say that plurality is existent and that the plural phenomena simply lacks its own essential self-nature (which doesn't mean that its non-existent), which means that all plurality is qualitatively similar but still nevertheless existent as plurality with unique and non-effaceable differences pertaining to their respective forms etc
Yogachara doesn't seem to work out whether there is an absolute oneness or not, since they say at once that the modification of consciousness is real but also that it's due to transcendental avidya, which is a contradiction, however Yogachara for the most part doesn't even exist as a single school anymore but it just influenced other later schools

Or are you talking about Tibetan Buddhism or Chinese Buddhism, which is a whole other discussion? Unless you specify what you mean your assertions are not serious at all

[Anonymous No.21939351]

>>21932979
I would suggest you not skip the second half of Introduction to the study of the hindu doctrines, as hinduism (and sufism) are the basis of Traditionalism

[Anonymous No.21939578]

>>21939108
>This isn't required of the above position, there is no logical necessity that makes it a requirement for one to say that falsity "has reality" in order for it to be falsity and appears as false experiences, such a claim actually involves a subtle contradiction.
If I may, put aside all epistemology-adjacent terms like falsity and appearance and consider my question just in terms of being/reality: Is the world real?
Now, if we say the world has no reality whatsoever, we are left with just the absolute reality. And if we try to avoid this by saying it only has a lower degree of reality or, what comes to the same thing, it is only partly real, we get the problem I already mentioned: The unreal part doesn't exist, and we are left with pure reality again.
At this point I want to suggest a solution to the problem. If it is absurd to say that the world is completely unreal, and if saying that the world is partly real collapses to the former view, there is still a third alternative: That the world is completely real. On this view, the partially connected, partially distinct things of common sense are real in the full sense of the world, with no higher realm of pure unity above them. A complete reversal then, of the Eleatic view.

[Anonymous No.21939584]

FACE WAS TOO BIG FOR HIS HEAD

[Anonymous No.21939640]

>>21937619
>guenon would have known his zen sources
ah yes my favorite scholar of East Asian Buddhism, the French hindu-muslim beloved by monoglot American teenage neo-nazi larpers who've read nothing else on the subjects they've copied him on except twitter, wikipedia, and the handicapable Sicilian wizard

[Anonymous No.21939664]

>>21939640
Oof, maybe you need to take some analgesics after your daily dilation sessions, you seem to be upset.

[Anonymous No.21939680]

>>21939664
I don't believe I am secretly being piloted by an astral blue man who is the real me while my body is fake and I need to get rid of it. You will never be a brahmin.

[Anonymous No.21939747]

>>21939680
Why are you implying I follow hindu religions?
In any case, I don't believe I am a woman trapped inside a man body and so I have to chop off my cock to be one.

[Anonymous No.21939770]

>>21939747
So you are defending the monkey man to be a contrarian? Well I am attacking him to be a contrarian. The Atman is a transgenderesque essentialist dogma.

[Anonymous No.21939841]

>>21939770
>everyone who doesn’t believe in anti-foundationalism is actually transgender because I can draw some barely relevant hackneyed comparison between them
So this is the power of Buddhist coping…

[Anonymous No.21939877]

>>21937619
>>bataille
>a pseud
first Bataile is what Guenon couldn't be, the most important french thinker baout comparated religions and symbology, second, the matter here is if Bataile was influenced by Guenon which is proven false, since Bataile had a really bad opinion about Guenon's system
>'french sociologists' a la camus, sartre
what the fuck are you talking about? Sartre studied philosophy
>went mad (KWAB), why bother?
Guenon tought a group of satanist summoned an astral bear to kill him
>>21937619
>he did well in ignoring him
he "ignored him" because hegel retroactively refuted his whole system in the prologue of the phenomenology of spirit
>his zen sources
okey so you don't know what you're talking about

[Anonymous No.21939878]

>>21939578
> If I may, put aside all epistemology-adjacent terms
Advaita isn’t using them in an exclusively epistemological sense, it rather cites common place epistemic errors and related falsity in order to draw comparisons with the metaphysical falsity that its talking about.

> Is the world real?
>Now, if we say the world has no reality whatsoever, we are left with just the absolute reality.
Not really, I mean in such a scenario you are left with the Absolute reality that is the only thing that exists but it’s not the only thing about which anything can be said or predicated, because you can say that phenomenal experiences still nonetheless appear as such without existing or being real. This is talking about a metaphysical conception of falsity as something that appears to be a real and existent reality or which ‘imitates’ reality but which actually isn’t real/existent.

>And if we try to avoid this by saying it only has a lower degree of reality or, what comes to the same thing, it is only partly real, we get the problem I already mentioned: The unreal part doesn't exist, and we are left with pure reality again.
Again, this a purely contrived problem and it doesn’t apply to what Advaita is talking about, by ejecting what you call “epistemological-adjecent terms” from the discussion (which for Advaita are not purely epistemic terms anyways) you are placing artificial and entirely contrived constraints onto the discussion that don’t actually apply to what Advaita is talking about.

It’s like you’re saying “yeah but if we change the meaning of what position #1 says then it has logical issues”, yeah sure but this is just a strawman and the same thing can equally be said about literally anything and anyone whatsoever.

[Anonymous No.21939889]

>>21938604
you know metaphysics is a wetsern discipline right? and that as a discipline it develop trought the centuries even to this day, why Guenonfags refuse to sudy the most basic shit?

[Anonymous No.21939908]

>>21938980
>Plato regarded matter as having only a shadowy quasi-existence that is like an imitation or image of true/actual existence.
tthat's not true at all, Platos' view matter as the "Xhora" the basis of existence that is then molded by the "Nous" what you're citing is a metaphor from the republic, the metaphor of the cave, but that's a exoteric text designed to teach epistemology to the causal reader, and the "shadow" is not matter but "Doxa" the common mental compositions that didn't ascended the path of the "Episteme" or intelectual discovery, Plato was dualistic seeing the world as a dialectial dance between the "To-Hen" (the one) and the "Ahóristos dyás"

[Anonymous No.21939913]

>>21939908
sorry i wanted to respond to>>21938686

[Anonymous No.21939916]

>>21938610
Guenon didn't even study philosophy, and all of his philosophical texts were awful relying on tons of petitio principii fallacies and circular reasoning, he didn't ever engage with the most important philosopher of his time or even modernity at large

[Anonymous No.21939920]

Incidentally I just made a video based on his book. I hope you'll like it lmao
https://youtu.be/6FfByyp_e2E

[Anonymous No.21939923]

>>21939841
You will never be a brahmin. And that's a fact. That's why froggie had to go to Cairo and become an Arab

[Anonymous No.21941364]

>>21939920
Nice one, keep them coming

[Anonymous No.21941454]

>>21939908
> Platos' view matter as the "Xhora" the basis of existence that is then molded by the "Nous" what you're citing is a metaphor from the Republic
I didnt literally mean that the ‘Plato’s Cave’ metaphor was his ontological position, I was rather referring to statements of his like in Timaeus 28A where he says that the world of becoming “comes to be and passes away, but never really is”

That to me doesn’t sound like he is setting up a dualism of two equally real realities.

[Anonymous No.21941472]

>>21932991
>The schizo retard chilean hitlerlover
HAHAHAHAHAHA.
Man, I don't know how you take the guy seriously once you know his associations.

[Anonymous No.21941475]

>>21939889
>you know metaphysics is a wetsern discipline right?

[Anonymous No.21941484]

>>21939188
You haven't provided any source, either, my friend. You are just listing off unsourced claims.

[Anonymous No.21941486]

>>21941472
I'm mostly talking about the argie mutt he met up with several times.

[Anonymous No.21941492]

>>21941486
Argie mutt with a following made up of bolivian vegans and latinx schizos.

[Anonymous No.21941494]

>>21939916
Do you think that obviously making things up strengthens the position you are trying to push? I don't understand what you are trying to accomplish.

[Anonymous No.21941497]

>>21938599
No you can't because infinity is not a number

[Anonymous No.21941547]

>>21941497
No one said it was. Infinity still gets used algebraically by mathematicians despite that fact.

[Anonymous No.21941630]

>>21932156
>funnels any impressionable, Tradition-minded Westerners into Islam like a boss
Guenon's retarded polemicism and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race.
>>21935881
I've literally never met anyone who gave a shit about Wittgenstein or Heidegger. At most, you'll see people interest in Foucault, Derrida, Baudrillard. All of these people are a waste of time. At least Guenon has something meaningful and fresh.

[Anonymous No.21941688]

>>21932512
Why do I feel like these memes always follow my exact age? Is there only one guy who makes them? Is whoever makes them my age and by the time they make another one we are both older? Stop stalking me AHHHHHHH

[Anonymous No.21942259]

>>21932156

[Anonymous No.21942511]

>>21932156
>Quoted by the monarch of one of the most powerful nations on Earth
>Forgotten

[Anonymous No.21942759]

>>21939878
>Again, this a purely contrived problem and it doesn’t apply to what Advaita is talking about, by ejecting what you call “epistemological-adjecent terms” from the discussion (which for Advaita are not purely epistemic terms anyways) you are placing artificial and entirely contrived constraints onto the discussion
It was merely a suggestion, you can use whatever terms you deem necessary for the exposition of the theory. I was just afraid we may sidetrack into epistemic questions, which happens often in modern philosophy especially.
>I mean in such a scenario you are left with the Absolute reality that is the only thing that exists but it’s not the only thing about which anything can be said or predicated, because you can say that phenomenal experiences still nonetheless appear as such without existing or being real. This is talking about a metaphysical conception of falsity as something that appears to be a real and existent reality or which ‘imitates’ reality but which actually isn’t real/existent.
I can grant you that what is experienced may not exist, but then what about the act of experiencing? It seems to me that the same type of problem comes up: If we say there is no act of experiencing, we are left not with appearance and reality, but with just reality. And if we say that the act of experiencing is real, we are introducing something that is real and yet is not the absolute.

[Anonymous No.21942926]

>>21932991
>studied Hinduism first hand
His take on Hinduism is cooky though

[Anonymous No.21943007]

>>21932156
I wondered why Eliade strikingly skirts mentioning this guy in any capacity despite being in the same circles, same pool of sources, writing on the same subjects, and having a very obvious influence on him.

[Anonymous No.21943039]

>>21937619
>schopenhauer already put his ass on blast
the opposite was true, Schopy got so humiliated when all the students leave his course to study with Hegel taht he leave acaedemya forever, and become an incel hermit

[Anonymous No.21943058]

>>21941630
>I've literally never met anyone who gave a shit about Wittgenstein or Heidegger.
that's your problem you should try to met more people since Wittgenstein is the most influential philosopher of the analitical school and Hediegger of the continental school
>you'll see people interest in Foucault, Derrida, Baudrillard.
and all of those authors are so heavily influenced by Heidegger that a lot of people considered them just commentaries on Heidegger's work

>At least Guenon has something meaningful and fresh.
not ta all, all Guenon said was already etsablished by tons of authors,his critic of themodern world was already outdated since all his points were already articulated by the german romantics and french authors like voltaire, not to mention the reign of quantity is just a more shallow version of the notion of Tekhne in Heidegger

[Anonymous No.21943071]

>>21941494
>Do you think that obviously making things up
Guenon didn't study philosophy, that's a fact, he studied mathematics
he did rely in fallacies, taht's also a fact since he always start his argument from a unrpoven dogma he never explain and already takes for granted, and then unses thoses dogma to "refute" atual philosopher, that¿s also a fact you can read any of his books on Spinoza, Leibiniz or Kant and you can see that for yourself
and he never engage with Hegel, Nietzsche or Heidegger, that's also a fact, so all the things i'm sayign are proven facts realise that and then you'll understand what i'm trying to accomplish

[Anonymous No.21943077]

>>21942759
>I can grant you that what is experienced may not exist, but then what about the act of experiencing?
The act of experiencing is possible in such a scenario because it results from the mixture of reality and falsity, or rather from the light of reality pervading the falsity and illuminating it. Everyone's innermost consciousness is none other than the infinite undivided self-luminous reality of Brahman, that is in an apparent conjunction with the mind/intellect (falsity) of individuals (falsity), and thereby falsely appearing to be an individualized consciousness limited to one body, just as the universal space that is all-pervading can falsely appear to be delimited and enclosed inside an empty pot, even though it's just the same undivided all-pervading space that is present both inside and outside the pot equally. This conjunction can be said to result from Brahman being the substratum and originating reality that provides the basis for this illusion/falsity by projecting it as such like a magician.

>"The Supreme Lord is but one—unchanging, eternal, absolute Consciousness; but like a magician He appears diversely through Maya, otherwise known as Avidya (ignorance). Apart from this there is no other consciousness as such."
- Shankara, Brahma Sutra Bhashya 1.3.19.

This innermost consciousness never actually 'acts', never changes, and never has particular 'experiences', all of these changes and distinctions only inhere in and pertain to the intellect/mind/body complex (falsity) that this innermost awareness illuminates, like a motionless lamp illuminating and revealing moving objects. In itself, this awareness is utterly simple, partless, uncompounded and unconditioned. That an awareness is always present is an immutable fact and is completely real, that awareness being identical with reality (Brahman) itself, that this awareness seems to be divided up among individual beings and having particular experiences is part of the falsity.

>It seems to me that the same type of problem comes up: If we say there is no act of experiencing, we are left not with appearance and reality, but with just reality. And if we say that the act of experiencing is real, we are introducing something that is real and yet is not the absolute.
There are acts of experiencing within the realm or plane of falsity, which is not to say that they exist but just that they appear as falsity. What you are stating is a false dichotomy where the act of experiencing is assumed to be either reality (1) or denied totally to the point of not even saying it's happening as an appearance (2), but this is a false dichotomy precisely because assigning it to a category of metaphysical falsity is doing neither of these things, and it accounts for the empirical experience of it while at the same time denying that it's real, thus neither taking option 1 or 2.

[Anonymous No.21943097]

>>21941454
you mentioned the shadowy figures, which are from the allegory of the cave
>Timaeus
in that same text he refres to the khora as something outside of "being" that is there's form and there's khora, pure matter
So likewise it is right that the substance which is to be fitted to receive frequently over its whole extent the copies of all things intelligible and eternal should itself, of its own nature, be void of all the forms. Wherefore, let us not speak of her that is the Mother and Receptacle of this generated world, which is perceptible by sight and all the senses, by the name of earth or air or fire or water, or any aggregates or constituents thereof: rather, if we describe her as a Kind invisible and unshaped, all-receptive, and in some most perplexing and most baffling partaking of the intelligible, we shall describe her truly. Timaeus, 51a
and in the agrapha dogmata the idea of a dialectic dualism is more obvious when the idea of the to-hen and the ahoristos dyas, as opposing forces is even more evident

[Anonymous No.21943172]

>>21943077
>This innermost consciousness never actually 'acts', never changes
then it can't interact with change, and then it becomes incongruent, it contradict itself, since is not aware/conciouss of anything

[Anonymous No.21943178]

>>21943097
>you mentioned the shadowy figures
Not true, I didn't actually mention any figures. My only point in using the word shadow was in the sense of alluding to it being dependent on something else like real being and in the sense of lacking its own being (while apparently seeming to have being), like how Plotinus viewed matter as non-being and how Augustine viewed evil as insubstantial. "Privation, in Aristotle, is non-being. So too is the part of otherness opposed to being in the Sophist. Plotinus has drawn on both sources for his own conception of matter as non-being" - Dennis O'Brien

>and in the agrapha dogmata the idea of a dialectic dualism is more obvious when the idea of the to-hen and the ahoristos dyas, as opposing forces is even more evident
If one is less real than the other then it's not really a dualistic ontology. And this is even more true if one party is unaffected by any interplay/dialectic between the two. You can correct me if I'm wrong but Plato doesn't assert that the to-hen is in itself modified or corrupted by anything else right?

[Anonymous No.21943195]

>>21943172
>then it can't interact with change
It doesn't interact with anything in the first place, a one-way relation of non-reciprocal dependence is BY DEFINITION *not an interaction*. I find it amusing when people pretend to not understand this for ideological reasons. Something is only an interaction if there is reciprocity.

>and then it becomes incongruent, it contradict itself, since is not aware/conciouss of anything
Incorrect, as Brahman's partless consciousness is self-luminous, that is, it is reflexive, self-revealing, self-disclosing. It is self-conscious in a way that transcends the subject-object dichotomy.

[Anonymous No.21943461]

>>21943077
>The act of experiencing is possible in such a scenario because it results from the mixture of reality and falsity, or rather from the light of reality pervading the falsity and illuminating it. Everyone's innermost consciousness is none other than the infinite undivided self-luminous reality of Brahman, that is in an apparent conjunction with the mind/intellect (falsity) of individuals (falsity)
Well, as I said in my original post I do not consider that there can be a mixture of reality and unreality, because it would have to be composed of an absolutely real and an absolutely unreal part - and since the absolutely unreal part is just that, only the absolutely real part remains.

As I see it, there is no avoiding the conclusion that only absolute reality exists. The follow up question would be whether this absolute reality is the pure unity of Parmenides or the mix of unity and plurality of Heraclitus. And since it can't be denied that plurality has at least some reality, by the above argument we are lead to suppose that it has absolute reality.

[Anonymous No.21943501]

>>21943178

>Plotinus has drawn on both sources for his own conception of matter as non-being
there's a reason why Plotinus is no longer called a platonist and instead called a Ne-platonist, his system is a reforumaltion of the theory of forms, so using Plotinus to justify monism in Platos is not really usefull, you can't compare the two as the same thing
>And this is even more true if one party is unaffected by any interplay/dialectic
if it's unaffected then is no longer dialectical

>Plato doesn't assert that the to-hen is in itself modified or corrupted by anything else right?
to-hen isn't corrupted in the same way that the ahoristos dyas is not corrupted, the matter don't stop being matter just because to.hen give it form and to-hen don't stop being the from on his interaction with matter, so the system remains dualist, what we see is the inetrplay between the two, a thing that has form and substance, an essence (ousia) and a substance(hypokeimenon) so both of those principles are just as real

[Anonymous No.21943523]

>>21943195
>It doesn't interact with anything in the first place,
then awarness is not possible, is like saying that the eye doesn't interact with the objects of his perception, awarenes sends up being soemhting completly useless and contradictory

[Anonymous No.21944188]

>>21932156
Islam is wrong, no matter how much you and your friends wanna suck this guy's dick.

[Anonymous No.21944258]

>>21932991
Tell me about Serrano please.

[Anonymous No.21944260]

>>21932156
What would Guenon make of AGI? The reign of quantity embodied?

[Anonymous No.21944267]

>>21943461
>Well, as I said in my original post I do not consider that there can be a mixture of reality and unreality, because it would have to be composed of an absolutely real and an absolutely unreal part
I didn’t mean the literal mixture (absolute reality is partless), the point is just that when the reality that is awareness functions as the substratum/basis of falsity, then from the perspective of being within the false realm it seems to the creaturely mind as though they are mixing when they really aren’t.
> and since the absolutely unreal part is just that, only the absolutely real part remains.
this is not really relevant to the conception that I was talking about since falsity doesn’t have a real and an unreal part and since reality (existence/Brahman) is partless
>As I see it, there is no avoiding the conclusion that only absolute reality exists.
This is exactly what Advaita says, ie only Brahman (awareness) exists and Brahman is absolute reality
>And since it can't be denied that plurality has at least some reality
Lol, wrong, that can easily be denied. The epistemic experience of apparent plurality doesn’t demonstrate anything about its ontological status.
>by the above argument we are lead to suppose that it has absolute reality.
that line of reasoning is fallacious for the reasons listed above

[Anonymous No.21944350]

>>21943501
>so using Plotinus to justify monism in Platos is not really usefull,
I didn’t use Plotinus to justify monism in Plato, I merely said that I was using ‘shadowly’ in an abstract sense (and not in reference to the Cave metaphor) and drew a comparison with the thought of Augustine and Plotinus without making any statement about how either men agree or disagree with Plato. I already cited the statement of Plato in Timaeus that the world of becoming ‘never really is’, indicating that it’s less real than the unchanging. If one is less real than it’s not a dualism.
>to-hen don't stop being the from on his interaction with matter
Unless you can cite how the ‘not-to-hen’ induces a change or a modification in the to-hen, then their relation doesn’t meet the actual definition of ‘interaction’, which is ‘reciprocal action or influence’

[Anonymous No.21944384]

>>21943523
>then awarness is not possible
Incorrect, since Brahman’s self-disclosing awareness is not predicated on any interaction and it’s instead simply Brahman’s own independent, self-sufficient and inalienable nature. The mind-intellect-body complex is able to have experiences of objects because it is of a similar ontological status with the objects (both belong to falsity) and they mutually interact with each other.

Thus, I am speaking about two distinct conceptions of awareness:

1) Brahman’s awareness, which is the real awareness per se, and which doesn’t depend on anything to be aware, this includes not depending on any sort of interaction.

2) The “””awareness””” that the mind has of objects, which is not awareness per se but is just a mental function. This “””awareness””” also doesn’t depend on any interaction with Brahman because it’s conjured up as falsity (along with all objects) by Brahman in a non-reciprocal manner (which isn’t an interaction).

Thus, your argument that an interaction is required is simply fallacious in both of the two conceptions of awareness cited above, as neither requires an interaction between Brahman and anything else.

[Anonymous No.21944489]

>>21944267
>>And since it can't be denied that plurality has at least some reality
>>by the above argument we are lead to suppose that it has absolute reality.
>that line of reasoning is fallacious for the reasons listed above
To expand on this a little bit, the only thing that is undeniable about plurality is that there is the empirical experience of it. You cannot deny that you have the empirical experience of plurality because all conversation and debate takes place within the empirical experience of plurality and you have to have empirical knowledge of the opponents position to even agree or disagree with it. Denying this would be like using speech to assert that speech is impossible. However, epistemology and ontology are two different things, just because you have the empirical experience of something doesn’t reveal or prove anything about the ontological status of what you perceive or experience. Saying “it cannot be denied that plurality exists or has reality in some way” is unconsciously sliding from an epistemological claim (I experience X) into an ontological one (X has Y ontological status). Langan’s CTMU also makes this same mistake and asserts without proof or justification as far as I’ve seen that the experience of something is tantamount to that thing existing, this is one of the reasons the CTMU isn’t actually ‘self-justifying’, because this claim is unfounded.

[Anonymous No.21944846]

>>21941472
Serrano was also good friends with the Dalai Lama. Your opinion is trash.

[Anonymous No.21945111]

>>21944489
>You cannot deny that you have the empirical experience of plurality
proof? there is no ontological evidence of this "empirical experience" you are speaking of. saying "you have the empirical experience" implies that empirical experience is what is actually being experienced when in reality something else could be being experienced. why are you making an ontological claim with no proof? are you a langan supporter? prove empirical experience actually exists right now.

[Anonymous No.21945197]

>>21943058
>that's your problem you should try to met more people since Wittgenstein is the most influential philosopher of the analitical school and Hediegger of the continental school
No thanks, they can keep each other company.
>and all of those authors are so heavily influenced by Heidegger that a lot of people considered them just commentaries on Heidegger's work
I can see that you're some kind of Heidegger fanboy.
>all Guenon said was already etsablished by tons of authors,his critic of themodern world was already outdated since all his points were already articulated by the german romantics and french authors like voltaire, not to mention the reign of quantity is just a more shallow version of the notion of Tekhne in Heidegger
This kind of bold stupidity is why I don't talk to Midwittgenstein and Heidegger appreciators btw.

[Anonymous No.21945298]

>>21944489
I am waiting on the proof for your claim that "there is [there exists] ... empirical experience ..." This claim in completely unjustified. You have just made a claim with no proof whatsoever and you expect people to take you seriously? Prove experience actually exists.

[Anonymous No.21945304]

>>21944489
I am waiting on the proof for your claim that "there is [there exists] ... empirical experience" This claim is completely unjustified. You have just made a claim with no proof whatsoever and you expect people to take you seriously? Prove experience actually exists.

[Anonymous No.21945366]

>>21944489
You have still provided no evidence whatsoever that "there is ... experience". This is an ontological claim with no proof whatsoever, yet you are still trying to pretend like this claim is justified. Making this unjustified claim with not a scintilla of proof demonstrates conclusively that you are just as stupid as Langan. Prove experience exists!

[Anonymous No.21945379]

>>21941688
Im in ur balls

[Anonymous No.21945380]

>>21945366
>Prove experience exists!
Imagine making this statement thinking that it's an own.

[Anonymous No.21945401]

>>21944489
It has been more than one hour and you still have not justified your claim that "there is ... experience" because you cannot actually do it because you have no evidence. Where is the evidence? Your so-called "experience"? That proves nothing. Claiming it proves anything is a completely unjustified leap from epistemology to ontology. It could be something else in reality, but yet you still claim without evidence that it is "experience" which "is".

[Anonymous No.21945421]

>>21935964
>more literal whos

[Anonymous No.21945423]

>>21944489
So where is the proof that experience actually exists? Did you forget to post it? When you made the ontological claim that "there is ... experience" I was expecting to see some sort of proof but you just leave the claim completely unjustified and have failed to produce even a single word in support of it. Can you point me to the proof that it actually exists?

[Anonymous No.21945487]

>>21945423
Please refute experience exists.

[Anonymous No.21945503]

>>21945423
Please coherently and logically refute any variation of the following claims:

1.) Experience exists
or
2.) There is experience of reading this right now
or
3.) Qualia exist.
or
4.) Consciousness/selfhood/sentience/awareness exists (any name you want to give to it is fine — the quibble is not on defining these words exactly and getting into etymological or classificatory minutiae, but to the gist behind the shared and overlapping meanings of these terms)
5.) “Being is” (as Parmenides famously, and so simply and elegantly, put it)

[Anonymous No.21945511]

>>21945423
>>21945423 #
Please coherently and logically refute any variation of the following claims:

1.) Experience exists
or
2.) There is experience of reading this right now
or
3.) Qualia exist.
or
4.) Consciousness/selfhood/sentience/awareness exists (any name you want to give to it is fine — the quibble here is not about defining these words exactly and getting into etymological or classificatory minutiae, but about the gist behind the shared and overlapping meanings of these terms — feel free to try to disprove the simple meaning behind any of these terms exists)
or
5.) “Being is” (as Parmenides famously, and so simply and elegantly, put it)

[Anonymous No.21946500]

>>21945511
>Experience exists
There is no proof of this as you cannot reason from an epistomological claim to an ontological one as per >>21944489.
>There is experience of reading this right now
There is no proof that anyone is reading that right now or that anyone has read that as you cannot reason from an epistomological claim to an ontological one as per >>21944489.
>Consciousness/selfhood/sentience/awareness exists
There is no proof of this reading this right now as you cannot reason from an epistomological claim to an ontological one as per >>21944489.
>“Being is”
It is true that "Being is" but there is no proof that experience is as you cannot reason from an epistomological claim to an ontological one as per >>21944489.

[Anonymous No.21946506]

>>21945511
>Experience exists
There is no proof of this as you cannot reason from an epistomological claim to an ontological one as per >>21944489.
>There is experience of reading this right now
There is no proof that anyone is reading that right now or that anyone has read that as you cannot reason from an epistomological claim to an ontological one as per >>21944489.
>Consciousness/selfhood/sentience/awareness exists
There is no proof that consciousness/selfhood/sentience/awareness exists as you cannot reason from an epistomological claim to an ontological one as per >>21944489.
>“Being is”
It is true that "Being is" but there is no proof that experience is as you cannot reason from an epistomological claim to an ontological one as per >>21944489.

[Anonymous No.21946528]

>>21944489
It has been more than 12 hours. I have responded to this fellow and have successfully refuted all of his claims using the irrefutable logic in your post about how you cannot reason from an epistomological claim to an ontological one. You still have not provided any kind of proof that "experience ... exists". This is an ontological claim with absolutely zero evidence. You made the claim, it is your responsibility to prove that experience exists!

[Anonymous No.21946559]

>>21944489
It has been more than 12 hours. I have responded to this fellow and have successfully refuted all of his claims using the irrefutable logic in your post about how you cannot reason from an epistomological claim to an ontological one. You still have not provided any kind of proof that "experience ... is". This is an ontological claim with absolutely zero evidence. You made the claim, it is your responsibility to prove that experience exists!

[Anonymous No.21946589]

>>21944489
It has been more than 12 hours. I have responded to this fellow and have successfully refuted all of his claims using the irrefutable logic in your post about how you cannot reason from an epistomological claim to an ontological one. You still have not provided any kind of proof that "there is ... experience". This is an ontological claim with absolutely zero evidence. You made the claim, it is your responsibility to prove that experience exists!

[Anonymous No.21946623]

>>21944489
We are waiting on the proof. It was you who made the claim that "there is ... experience". So where is the proof of this? Do you expect us to just take your word for it? Making ontological claims like this requires evidence of some kind but you have failed on all counts. This is the most spectacular failure I have ever seen. Everyone in this thread is waiting on the proof, and has been since you made that claim, but you have failed to deliver despite having been given 12 entire hours to do so. Zero proof, zero evidence, zero justification. I don't want you to look this bad. I actually want you to justify this claim. Please prove that "there is ... experience". For your own sake, at least.

[Anonymous No.21946915]

>>21944267
>this is not really relevant to the conception that I was talking about since falsity doesn’t have a real and an unreal part and since reality (existence/Brahman) is partless
But that wasn't the conception we were talking about. I asked you to account for the reality not of the content of the experience (which I am perfectly willing to grant it has no reality) but of the act of experiencing. Your account was the following:
"The act of experiencing is possible in such a scenario because it results from the mixture of reality and falsity, or rather from the light of reality pervading the falsity and illuminating it."
Now, in response to my logical criticism of the above you say that your description should not be taken literally. But if this is so, you still haven't given your literal account of how the act of experiencing is possible. As I put it earlier,
"I can grant you that what is experienced may not exist, but then what about the act of experiencing? It seems to me that the same type of problem comes up: If we say there is no act of experiencing, we are left not with appearance and reality, but with just reality. And if we say that the act of experiencing is real, we are introducing something that is real and yet is not the absolute."

[Anonymous No.21946927]

>>21946506
>>21946623
There is no proof that there is anything that IS NOT, there is no proof that something has come from nothing, there is no proof of anything that does not exist, it only is, and it is completely there is only being. There is no non-being, if there is something which "is not" it firstly IS, there is no non-being there is only Being.

[Anonymous No.21946929]

>>21944489
I'm beginning to think you don't actually have any kind of proof and you can't justify this claim. Why did you make it then? Were you just bored or something? Yes, that must be it. There is no way you actually believe that "there is ... experience". This claim is so patently unprovable that you have to be trolling. There is no possible way to reason from "I experience X" to "X exists". It simply cannot be done. Anyone who unironically tries to do this is deranged. Unless you can do it by providing the proof or the evidence or the justification? You made the claim after all, so will you at least say you were trolling? Until you say you were just trolling the onus is on you to prove that "there is ... experience". It has now been more than 16 hours but you have not fulfilled this obligation. When will you do it?

[Anonymous No.21946953]

>>21944489
Prove experience exists right now! This claim that "there is ... experience" still stands and you have not renounced it. You need to renounce it or prove that experience actually exists. It is pathetic to just lackadaisically throw this claim out here with no justification whatsoever. You have provided no evidence that experience actually exists. None! Give me the evidence. Show it to me. 16 hours is more than enough time for you to have done this.

[Anonymous No.21947515]

>>21944489
You claimed that "there is ... experience". This has not been proven. Prove experience actually exists. You have been given full opportunity to do this, yet are refusing to do so. You are no better than Langan. You are a disgrace, and will continue to be until you justify this claim of yours.

[Anonymous No.21947580]

>>21947515
>You claimed that "there is ... experience". This has not been proven. Prove experience actually exists.
The post you are replying to never asserted that experience exists to begin with, it was actually criticizing Langan for asserting that very claim uncritically. It was only saying that experience takes place or manifests as an epistemic phenomena without asserting that such thing possess the ontological status of "existence".

Experience is the medium through which you have awareness of other people's 4chan posts and reply to them, so it's absurd to make a post on 4chan denying that experience is happening qua experience, however agreeing that experience is happening qua experience (epistemological claim) doesn't entail the additional assertion that this experience exists (ontological claim)

[Anonymous No.21947584]

>>21939877
>heidenigger wasn't reading all his zen to try to solve western philosophy once and for all

woooooooooooooowwww... so this is the power of copetinental thought...

[Anonymous No.21947604]

>>21939877
>sarkek studied philosophy (aka neetszche)
yes and? like all xx century french "philisophers" he's a sociologist, also a
fucking degenerate faggot cryptomarxtrany like all xx century french "philosophers"

[Anonymous No.21947673]

>>21941494
he's a KEGELian, if you have been on /lit/ and other phil/lit agoras you will know KEGELians act almost identically to marxtrannies, which makes sense, since KEGEL thought is indeed proto-marxtranny thought. KEGEL spawning marxtroonism to this world should be the biggest indictment against the retard who got filtered by the vedas. His books should be burned and his old lesbian face and vaginal-toning name (KEGEL) subjected to damnatio memoriae.

[Anonymous No.21947692]

>>21945111
>You cannot deny that you have the empirical experience of plurality
>proof?
I mean, anyone can say so but their very denial presupposes a plurality of words each with their own meaning in order to meaningfully communicate the point, the very action taken to deny it is based on an implicit acceptance of categories rooted in plurality, so it's denial becomes absurd and irrational
>there is no ontological evidence of this "empirical experience" you are speaking of.
I didn't say there was, but there is epistemic evidence of it, namely that we have awareness of objects and words and language etc
>saying "you have the empirical experience" implies that empirical experience is what is actually being experienced when in reality something else could be being experienced.
Anything that is experienced is *by definition* pertaining to epistemology
>why are you making an ontological claim with no proof?
You are confusing me as making an ontological claim when I'm not

To say that empirical knowledge is manifesting with experience as empirical knowledge is only an epistemological claim and not an ontological one, it doesn't involve any assertion about whether that knowledge/experience exists or not.

[Anonymous No.21947704]

>>21947580
>The post you are replying to never asserted that experience exists to begin with
OK, I was just confused because when you referenced "experience" with the words "there is", it sounded like you made an ontological claim, as in "I think, therefore I am". This is because the words "is" and "am" are the present-tense first- and third-person singulars respectively of the verb "be". As you also know, ontology is the Now that you realize there is no way to claim anything about the existence of experience there is no problem.

[Anonymous No.21947708]

>>21932156
>most influential thinker
>is completely forgotten
So, he wasn't that influential?

[Anonymous No.21947713]

>>21947580
>The post you are replying to never asserted that experience exists to begin with
OK, I was just confused because when you referenced "experience" with the words "there is", it sounded like you made an ontological claim, as in "I think, therefore I am". This is because the words "is" and "am" are the present-tense third- and first-person singulars respectively of the verb "be". As you also know, ontology is the Now that you realize there is no way to claim anything about the existence of experience there is no problem.

[Anonymous No.21947731]

>>21947580
>The post you are replying to never asserted that experience exists to begin with
OK, I was just confused because when you referenced "experience" with the words "there is". It sounded like you made an ontological claim, as in "I think, therefore I am". This is because the words "is" and "am" are just the present-tense third and first-person singulars, respectively, of the verb "be". As you also know, ontology is the study of "being", which is the present participle of "be". Now that you have renounced these grammatical conventions and definitions, there is no doubt in my mind that you know there is no way to claim anything about the existence of experience, there is no problem.

[Anonymous No.21947750]

>>21947692
>there is epistemic evidence of it
You just made an ontological claim with the inclusion of the word "is"... I thought you had already renounced ontological claims about experience? The word "is" is just the present-tense third-person singular of the verb "be". And ontology is the study of "being", which is the present participle of "be". So which is it? Do you renounce making claims about the existence of experience or do you not?

[Anonymous No.21947753]

>>21946915
>Now, in response to my logical criticism of the above you say that your description should not be taken literally. But if this is so, you still haven't given your literal account of how the act of experiencing is possible. As I put it earlier,
A literal account of how the act of experiencing is possible qua experience was in fact already given here >>21943077
when it was stated that the reality that is Brahman conjured/projects falsity (which includes changing particular experiences)

>"I can grant you that what is experienced may not exist, but then what about the act of experiencing? It seems to me that the same type of problem comes up: If we say there is no act of experiencing, we are left not with appearance and reality, but with just reality.
This is you once again slipping into the false dichotomy which I already identified and disposed of as invalid and irrelevant here >>21943077, perhaps you didn't understand the point that was made. If you actually understand the point it becomes irrational for you to even raise this question again. The "act of experiencing" is, just like the objects, equally belonging to the falsity that the reality of Brahman conjures/projects as falsity.

[Anonymous No.21947790]

>>21947731
> there is no doubt in my mind that you know there is no way to claim anything about the existence of experience, there is no problem.
I'm glad that we agree

>>21947750
>>there is epistemic evidence of it
>You just made an ontological claim with the inclusion of the word "is"
No, I didn't, I think it's a mistake for you to assume that words automatically and always have an ontological force just because in a certain contexts they can indeed be used that way

If I'm using "is" is relation to a purely epistemological claim (as I did in the post you replied to) then it is only for the purpose of referencing and assenting to that very epistemological claim, it's not trying to secretly imbue it with ontological implications via the backdoor or whatever. Assenting to an epistemological claim as being a correct one isn't by any stretch the same thing as attaching some ontological status to it.

[Anonymous No.21948107]

>>21947790

[Anonymous No.21948563]

Why the long face?

[Anonymous No.21948893]

>>21937662
Plato was a dualist, you're confusing Plato with Plotino, in Plato the idea of god is not the whole of the cosmos, but the blueprint that make chaos take form, so yo uhave a hierarchy of form and a indefinite matter, both of them creat ethe reality we see, Plotino's didn't lie kthat and made matte ra lower form of the idea of god, which is not part of Plato's exoteric or esoteric teachings, that's why Plotino is considered a neo-platonic and not a platonic philosopher

[Anonymous No.21950367]

>>21948563
kek

[Anonymous No.21950374]

God I am so tired of seeing this horse-faced motherfucker on this board

[Anonymous No.21950441]

>>21947604
>french "philisophers" he's a sociologist,
no he's not, read at least a wikipedi aarticle before start talking nonsense and out yourself as someone easily influenced by alt-right memes

[Anonymous No.21950460]

>>21947584
>>21947604
>>21947673

kek samefaging this hard, go back to the self bro, it's all an illusion, breath and stop getting triggered this hard, go read the vedas or some shit

[Anonymous No.21950470]

>>21944384
>Brahman’s self-disclosing awareness
if the quality of self-disclosing awarebess is possible, then you just can put that quality on awraeness itself, you don't need a knower or Brahman, so the same system that explains or defend the brahman position ends up being the same thing that proves it's inexistence, and that's why Brahman is a contradictory notion

[Anonymous No.21951118]

>>21945197
>No thanks
okey, but you'll never know which philosophers and thinkes are actually the most inlfuencial since your realm of interaction with that world is incredible small, but you do you
>I can see
as i already pointed out, your reach for this kind of things is really limited so what you can "see" is something i can't be bothered with
>I don't talk to Midwittgenstein and Heidegger appreciators btw.
why should i care what you take or don't take seriously, you describe yourself as someone more interested in pursue blind dogmatism(something commoni n guenon circles btw) than in the pursue of truth and metaphysical doctrines

[Anonymous No.21951241]

>>21948107
Assenting to an epistemology claim isnt making an ontological one, period. I’m not sure why you are so hung up on this.

[Anonymous No.21951247]

>>21950470
>if the quality of self-disclosing awarebess is possible, then you just can put that quality on awraeness itself,
Brahman IS awareness itself
>you don't need a knower or Brahman, so the same system that explains or defend the brahman position ends up being the same thing that proves it's inexistence,
this is meaningless babble
>and that's why Brahman is a contradictory notion
meaningless babble does not demonstrate a contradiction in anything chump

[Anonymous No.21951279]

>>21951247
>Brahman IS awareness itself
if brahmas is awareness, then the object of awareness must be something else beyond brahman, and if awareness is the only thing that exist, well then is no longer awareness since it's not aware of anything, and awareness can't be only aware of itself since awareness is not a thing, the whole notion of awarenes slose it's meaning at that point, so again brahman ends up being nothing at all or a fallacious idea of awareness, a non-aware awareness, a contradiciton in terms

>this is meaningless babble
the fact that you can't understand it doesn't meanis babble, just means is babble to you because you don't undestand it

[Anonymous No.21951322]

Can someone give me a QRD on the ideas of this guy Guenon?

[Anonymous No.21951349]

>>21951322
the real world is static and the world we see is an illusion

[Anonymous No.21951360]

>>21951349
That sounds like a Plato copy

[Anonymous No.21951373]

>>21951279
>if brahmas is awareness, then the object of awareness must be something else beyond brahman
The objects of awareness are maya, the subject is also maya. Awareness (Brahman) is non-dual and without subject or object, it only appears to be divided up into the divide of subject vs object because of metaphysical ignorance (avidya), or because of the illusion of maya, which amount to the same thing.

>and if awareness is the only thing that exist, well then is no longer awareness since it's not aware of anything
Incorrect, because awareness (Brahman) is intrinsically self-aware, thus it’s factually incorrect to say that it’s not aware of anything.
>and awareness can't be only aware of itself since awareness is not a thing
That awareness is “not a thing” is a nonsensical dogma that you are asserting without any proof or any supporting argument, because there is no grounds to make this claim it doesn’t actually refute anything. If you actually wanted to use that as an argument and have it potentially work then you’d have to argue why that is the case, but you haven’t and so it fails to be a valid argument, and even taking it on it’s face that’s a laughable statement, if awareness was not a thing we would have no knowledge of this conversation. You have utterly failed to refute or show any contradiction in anything and you are just making absurd assertions without trying to demonstrate how or why they are necessarily true.

[Anonymous No.21951376]

>>21951322
Rene Guenon is the most correct, smartest and most important person of the twentieth century. There was no smarter, deeper, clearer, absolute Guenon and probably could not be. It is no coincidence that the French traditionalist René Allé in one collection dedicated to R. Guenon compared Guenon with Marx. It would seem that there are completely different, opposite figures. Guenon is a conservative hyper-traditionalist. Marx is a revolutionary innovator, a radical overthrower of traditions. But Rene Halle rightly guessed the revolutionary message of each of Guenon's statements, the extreme, cruel noncomformity of his position, which turns everything and everything upside down, the radical nature of his thought.

The fact is that René Guenon is the only author, the only thinker of the twentieth century, and maybe many, many centuries before that, who not only identified and confronted with each other secondary language paradigms, but also put into question the very essence of language. The language of Marxism was methodologically very interesting, subtly reducing the historical existence of mankind to a clear and convincing formula for confronting labor and capital. Being a great paradigmatic success, Marxism was so popular and won the minds of the best intellectuals of the twentieth century. But R. Guenon is an even more fundamental generalization, an even more radical removal of masks, an even broader worldview contestation, putting everything into question.

- Aleksandr Dugin

Guénon undermined and then; with uncompromising intellectual rigour, demolished all the assumptions taken for granted by modern man, that is to say Western or westernised man. Many others had been critical of the direction taken by European civilization since the so-called 'Renaissance', but none had dared to be as radical as he was or to re-assert with such force the principles and values which Western culture had consigned to the rubbish tip of history. His theme was the 'primordial tradition' or Sofia perennis, expressed-so he maintained-both in ancient mythologies and in the metaphysical doctrine at the root of the great religions. The language of this Tradition was the language of symbolism, and he had no equal in his interpretation of this symbolism. Moreover he turned the idea of human progress upside down, replacing it with the belief almost universal before the modern age, that humanity declines in spiritual excellence with the passage of time and that we are now in the Dark Age which precedes the End, an age in which all the possibilities rejected by earlier cultures have been spewed out into the world, quantity replaces quality and decadence approaches its final limit. No one who read him and understood him could ever be quite the same again.

- Gai Eaton

[Anonymous No.21951381]

>>21951322
René Guénon defies classification. . . . Were he anything less than a consummate master of lucid argument and forceful expression, his work would certainly be unknown to all but a small, private circle of admirers.”
—Gai Eaton, author of The Richest Vein

“Guénon established the language of sacred metaphysics with a rigor, a breadth, and an intrinsic certainty such that he compels recognition as a standard of comparison for the twentieth century.”
—Jean Borella, author of Guénonian Esoterism and Christian Mystery

“To a materialistic society enthralled with the phenomenal universe exclusively, Guénon, taking the Vedanta as point of departure, revealed a metaphysical and cosmological teaching both macrocosmic and microcosmic about the hierarchized degrees of being or states of existence, starting with the Absolute . . . and terminating with our sphere of gross manifestation.”
—Whitall N. Perry, editor of A Treasury of Traditional Wisdom

“René Guénon was the chief influence in the formation of my own intellectual outlook (quite apart from the question of Orthodox Christianity). . . . It was René Guénon who taught me to seek and love the truth above all else, and to be unsatisfied with anything else.”
—Fr. Seraphim Rose, author of The Soul After Death

“His mixture of arcane learning, metaphysics, and scathing cultural commentary is a continent in itself, untouched by the polluted tides of modernity. . . . Guénon’s work will not save the world—it is too late for that—but it leaves no reader unchanged.”
—Jocelyn Godwin, author of Mystery Religions in the Ancient World

“René Guénon is one of the few writers of our time whose work is really of importance. . . . He stands for the primacy of pure metaphysics over all other forms of knowledge, and presents himself as the exponent of a major tradition of thought, predominantly Eastern, but shared in the Middle Ages by the . . . West.”
—Walter Shewring, translator of Homer’s Odyssey

[Anonymous No.21951386]

>>21951322
“In a world increasingly rife with heresy and pseudo-religion, Guénon had to remind twentieth century man of the need for orthodoxy, which presupposes firstly a Divine Revelation and secondly a Tradition that has handed down with fidelity what Heaven has revealed. He thus restores to orthodoxy its true meaning, rectitude of opinion which compels the intelligent man not only to reject heresy but also to recognize the validity of faiths other than his own if they also are based on the same two principles, Revelation and Tradition.”
—Martin Lings, author of Ancient Beliefs and Modern Superstitions

“If during the last century or so there has been even some slight revival of awareness in the Western world of what is meant by metaphysics and metaphysical tradition, the credit for it must go above all to Guénon. At a time when the confusion into which modern Western thought had fallen was such that it threatened to obliterate the few remaining traces of genuine spiritual knowledge from the minds and hearts of his contemporaries, Guénon, virtually single-handed, took it upon himself to reaffirm the values and principles which, he recognized, constitute the only sound basis for the living of a human life with dignity and purpose or for the formation of a civilization worthy of the name.”
—Philip Sherrard, author of Christianity: Lineaments of a Sacred Tradition

“Apart from his amazing flair for expounding pure metaphysical doctrine and his critical acuteness when dealing with the errors of the modern world, Guénon displayed a remarkable insight into things of a cosmological order. . . . He all along stressed the need, side by side with a theoretical grasp of any given doctrine, for its concrete—one can also say its ontological—realization failing which one cannot properly speak of knowledge.”
—Marco Pallis, author of A Buddhist Spectrum

“Guénon’s mission was two-fold: to reveal the metaphysical roots of the ‘crisis of the modern world’ and to explain the ideas behind the authentic and esoteric teachings that still [remain] alive.”
—Harry Oldmeadow, author of Traditionalism: Religion in the Light of the Perennial Philosophy

"René Guénon should certainly be considered a Master of our times. His contributions to the "world of Tradition", of symbols and of metaphysical teachings, are truly invaluable."
—Julius Evola, author of Eros and the Mysteries of Love: The Metaphysics of Sex.

[Anonymous No.21951447]

>>21951360
yeah kinda, more of a parmenides copy to be honest

[Anonymous No.21951454]

>>21932156
>Got almost everything right
>forgotten in the west outside 4chan
I know you didn't make this post because you believe what you said but it's depressing that someone could have actually, unironically made your post

[Anonymous No.21951480]

>>21951373
>The objects of awareness are maya, the subject is also maya. Awareness (Brahman
then is not awareness anymore,m the notion of maya defeats the pourpose of awareness as a thing that exist, let alone functions
>, because awareness (Brahman) is intrinsically self-aware
the only way self-awareness can arise is in a reflective manner, that is, by reflecting itself in the object of awareness, if awareness is not an object and there's no object of awareness either, then self awareness can't happen

>That awareness is “not a thing” is a nonsensical dogma
no, awareness can't be an object because an object can't perceive other objects, there's only objects for a subject,it's like a knife sharpening itself, or an eye seeing itself

[Anonymous No.21951500]

Sometimes I wonder if Rene Guenon hadn’t moved to Egypt and became a Muslim he could’ve been our Confucius.

[Anonymous No.21951551]

>>21951500
no, his metaphysical system was already outdated by the time Hegel hit the scene

[Anonymous No.21951600]

>>21951551
Confucius was more of an ethical reformer than a proper metaphysician, as was Guenon.

[Anonymous No.21951992]

>>21951480
>the only way self-awareness can arise is in a reflective manner, that is, by reflecting itself in the object of awareness, if awareness is not an object and there's no object of awareness either, then self awareness can't happen
Maurice found a reallt clear way to explain that
"The primary truth is indeed ‘I think’, but only provided that we understand thereby ‘I belong to myself’ while belonging to the world. /.../ The world is wholly inside and I am wholly outside myself."

Maurice Merleau-Ponty

[Anonymous No.21952051]

What do I need to read in preparation for Guenon? I am totally uninitiated.

[Anonymous No.21952082]

>>21950460
you don't even know what samefagging is you fuckiing reddittor faggot tourist, ssmefagging would be replying to myself pretending to be someone else, or at least trying to falseflag, these three posts sre obviously mine and at no point i try to disguise it, ifunny bunkercuck faggot.

[Anonymous No.21952091]

>>21950441
you fucking autist, im saying that sartre is such a piss poor 'philosopher' with such mundane and retarded concerns that he may as well be a sociologist, same goes for derrida, camus, focault and every faggot frog 'thinker', may be wikipedia would be more your speed if you cant even undestand non-literal language (watch the other retard faggot newcuck -probably you- call me a samefag for making two post in a row)

[Anonymous No.21952101]

>*hits opium pipe*
>Things get old and fall apart, and civilization is a thing, man...
damn...

[Anonymous No.21952119]

>>21952082
>, these three posts sre obviously mine and at no point i try to disguise it
i mean you should, is kinda sad to see how tirggered you get by so little, specially when you try to defend Guenon, seems like you can't really connect with "the self"
or at least you could answer all those anons in the same post like normal people do, but seems like you're to mad to do that, anyways some more lives in maya for you then, next one you'll probably reincarnate as a tranny or faggot, you seems to be kinda fixated on them

[Anonymous No.21952158]

>>21952119
kek you fucking faggot tourist, truth is, if you werent such a KEGELcuck newfriend you would have realized im mostly shitppsting. I have barely read guenon but I hate bataille and his sociologist ilk (yrs, cope about it faggot) and KEGEL so I decided to joker it up a bit when I saw the post I originally replied to. Although, almost everything I said is still true (french xx century philosophy is sociology, KEGELA is a blight on humanity, heidegger was reading zen buddhism, etc)

lurk moar, simple as

[Anonymous No.21952454]

>>21939923
>brahmin
As someone without Dravidian blood outside of the Indian sub continent why would he be a Brahmin? More likely he's a Volkhv or Druid instead.

You'd be better able to critique someone's work if you properly understood it and the ethos surrounding it.

Just a tip you probably didn't get taught at the leftist indoctrination centre which formed your opinions for you.

[Anonymous No.21953415]

>>21932178
Fpbp. His only mistake was leaving the Church or not going Orthodox. And with that,
"that is all
Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know."

[Anonymous No.21954061]

>>21951480
>then is not awareness anymore,m the notion of maya defeats the pourpose of awareness as a thing that exist, let alone functions
This is meaningless babble once again lol, maya does not 'defeat anything', Brahman is unaffected by maya, Brahman's partless reflexive awareness remains what it is and exactly the same irrespective of the apparent presence or absence of maya, it makes no difference either way.

>the only way self-awareness can arise is in a reflective manner, that is, by reflecting itself in the object of awareness
This is dumb hegelian schizononsense and it isn't a serious argument, I disagree with that premise, which is a premise that is impossible for you to prove, you can only assert it as an unprovable dogma which fails to refute anything. Brahman's awareness is not a 'conceptual awareness' that develops through conscious reflection but is NON-CONCEPTUAL AWARENESS you retard, reflection plays no role whatsoever. This non-conceptual awareness is partless, unconditoned, eternal and immutable, it has never not been intrinsically self-aware/self-revealing. Your point doesn't even make sense in this context because such an awareness would not need nothing else and there would be no possibility of it deviating or ever being not-aware.

>and there's no object of awareness either, then self awareness can't happen
>if awareness is not an object and there's no object of awareness either, then self awareness can't happen
Once again, you are fundamentally misunderstanding the entire premise by trying to retreat back to a dogmatic assertion that awareness involves a linkage of subject and object, I'm talking about another type or conception of awareness entirely from you, one that is utterly partless and simple, and has already been said it is self-disclosing in a way that transcends and doesn't involve the subject-object division. Just because whatever retarded pseudophilosophy you follow disagrees is not sufficient proof that other conceptions of awareness are inherently wrong, all you are doing is dogmatically asserting that only your conception off awareness is the right one, which is not a real argument and it doesn't refute anything.

[Anonymous No.21954068]

>>21953415
Orthodoxy definitely is in line with the Traditionalist framework. Him and Evola had good intuitions about that.

[Anonymous No.21954086]

>>21932156
>>Is completely forgotten in the west outside 4chan and some far right and occultist circles
It's amusing how american Guénon larpers paint him as obscure and radical to cultivate an air of edgy esoterism, when reality is much more prosaic.

[Anonymous No.21954095]

>>21954086
France is probably the only western country where he is anywhere close to being commonly recognized by the average educated person

[Anonymous No.21954142]

>>21952051
Plato, Aristotle, and Plotinus would suffice as background. Everything else he explains himself.

[Anonymous No.21954215]

>>21954142
I'm not even sure if Guenon had read Plotinus, at least he never mentions him explicitly, except maybe in one or two places. Aristotle is definitely necessary, though, as he is the Western philosopher Guenon uses as a baseline for translating metaphysical terminology from the East, and there is constant reference made to his work (plus Aquinas). I'd say Aristotle and Aquinas would be the essential backbone for Guenon, Plato would then still be worthwhile but not quite as important.

[Anonymous No.21954258]

>>21954061
>arguing with borderline retarded ESLs

[Anonymous No.21954262]

>>21938138
>cant into limits
Kek and then he decided to write a book about calculus. Jfl

[Anonymous No.21954263]

>>21932156
>Is completely forgotten in the west outside 4chan and some far right and occultist circles
Lmao, what fucking university did you study at?

[Anonymous No.21954357]

>>21954061
>This is meaningless babble
this is just a ad hominem fallacy, prove how weak your argument is

>Brahman's partless reflexive awareness
if brahman is awareness itself, then brahman can't at the same time "be" aware,it's like saying you're touching the touching, that's actual babble
>This is dumb hegelian schizononsense and it isn't a serious argument
again, another ad homine, which is the only not serious argument here
>I disagree with that premise, which is a premise that is impossible for you to prove,
i don't need to prove that you're aware of things, that's an empirial fact, not a logical one, if you wnat top disagree with that you're free to do so, but you're negating a basic fact of reality, what's important here is taht empirical actual awareness don't conect with your non-conceptual awareness, so you saying "brahman is awareness" doesn't make any sense and is the only dogmatic argument here, since you can't porve how the awareness that i can experiemnt relates to non-conceptual awareness and how that relates with brahman, you're just dogmatically repeatign those axiom like is a self evident true
>This non-conceptual awareness is partless, unconditoned, eternal and immutable, it has never not been intrinsically self-aware/self-revealing. Your point doesn't even make sense in this context because such an awareness would not need nothing else and there would be no possibility of it deviating or ever being not-aware.
again, try to tpove taht instead of just repeatign it as an act of blind faith, you're not telling what awareness is, you're repeatign what you think awareness should be in order to fit your system, but in reality there'sno moment of pure awarenss or non.cocneptual awareness that i can use to contarst it with the empirical awareness of experience
>I'm talking about another type or conception of awareness entirely from you,
yes but you can't prove or articulate how such a thing can exist, just saying that "is awareness" doesn't work because awareness in the real life can only be epxlained with the subject/object dichotomoy, just thinking there's something else because teh vedas say so is by deffinition dogmatism
>>21954061
>whatever retarded pseudophilosophy you follow disagrees is not sufficient proof that other conceptions of awareness are inherently wrong
again, no one needs a philosophy book to know that you're a person(subject) that os aware of an object(object) is completly self evident and you can even see it expressed in every language in the world, there's al ogical expersssion of taht dichotomy and an empirical one, the burden of proof is on you, and all you can answer is "you don't know if that true, my system is as good as yours"

[Anonymous No.21954365]

>>21952091

most french philosopher of that era where against sociology, the fat thay they refuted classical metaphysics doesn't mean that they where mundnae, just that you have a naive notion of what true metaphysics is all about, a metapysical with a sky daddy and fairy tales is actually the most shallow and mundane system of the bunch

[Anonymous No.21954419]

>>21954357
> if brahman is awareness itself, then brahman can't at the same time "be" aware,it's like saying you're touching the touching, that's actual babble
Brahman “being” aware just means that Brahman IS aware, i.e. it is what its own nature is; if Brahman was awareness itself then it would be contradictory for Brahman to not be aware (is aware). Perhaps because you are ESL that’s why you didnt understand this. If you actually understand English then it’s obvious that nothing illogical or contradictory was said, a thing is what its own nature is, Brahman’s nature is awareness ergo Brahman is aware.

> i don't need to prove that you're aware of things, that's an empirial fact, not a logical one,
Just because we have empirical knowledge of objects does not constitute sufficient philosophical or logical proof that awareness itself is a connection of subject and object, because even in the Advaitic model where awareness itself is partless and without subject-object they still account for the empirical knowledge of objects by having the intellect/mind complex that is lit up by awareness be the thing that interacts with objects, so the mere fact of the empirical experience of objects does not contradict their teaching or prove anything about what awareness itself is.

> so you saying "brahman is awareness" doesn't make any sense and is the only dogmatic argument here
This is not profane philosophy where I am trying to prove a thesis using syllogisms or another form of argument, I am talking about a doctrine that is sourced from revealed Scriptures and hence they don’t care about proving it. The concept itself makes complete sense and it only seems conflicts with anything if you accept dumb a priori axioms that conflict with it, but these axioms of yours are themselves unproven so any argument which presupposes them uncritically and without proving them will itself fail to refute or otherwise demonstrate any contradiction in Advaita so these basis or validity of the argument remains unestablished.

> yes but you can't prove or articulate how such a thing can exist
I can articulate how it exists easily, it is the unconditioned, undecaying, independent absolute reality itself and has always existed forever and will forever do so, that is how.

>just saying that "is awareness" doesn't work because awareness in the real life can only be epxlained with the subject/object dichotomoy
I explained why this is an invalid argument in the second part of this post above. Moreover it’s not even true that normal empirical experience can “only be explained” that way since the experience of objects and the subject-object divide can be accounted for by assigning it to the intellect/mind and not awareness itself.

[Anonymous No.21954427]

>>21954419
>>21954357
> the burden of proof is on you, and all you can answer is "you don't know if that true, my system is as good as yours"
I have nothing to prove, I am just demonstrating that there are not any arguments whatsoever that actually refute the Advaitic position or demonstrate any logical contradiction in it since they all these arguments invariably rely on logical fallacies and/or unproven presuppositions. Advaita is not refutable by any means, period.

[Anonymous No.21955391]

>>21947753
>This is you once again slipping into the false dichotomy which I already identified and disposed of as invalid and irrelevant here >>21943077, perhaps you didn't understand the point that was made. If you actually understand the point it becomes irrational for you to even raise this question again. The "act of experiencing" is, just like the objects, equally belonging to the falsity that the reality of Brahman conjures/projects as falsity.
In other words, the experiencing is just as false as the objects the Brahman is experiencing(!)

Once it is understood that what I call experiencing is the same as what you call projecting, a contradiction can be seen.

[Anonymous No.21955398]

>>21954419
>Brahman “being” aware just means that Brahman IS aware
you said Brhaman is awareness, not brahmanis aware, here>>21951247
so you're now contradicting yourself only to win a point
>that awareness itself is a connection of subject and object,
that doesn't matter, we know that empirical awareness requieres ansubject and an object, so by deffinition awareness itself(if that ting even exist) should be related to that principle, if not then is not related to the concept of awareness and is not "awareness" itself, just a vague trascendent object of imagination
>that is sourced from revealed Scriptures
exctly, so you by deffinition rel yon dogma, hence you're dogmatic
>I can articulate how it exists easily, it is the unconditioned, undecaying, independent absolute reality itself and has always existed forever and will forever do so, that is how.
you're not articualting anything there, you're describing an object from your imagination(or shankara's), an articulaiton implies that you explain how such an object can interact with empirical reality, or in other words, how that object is more than just an object of your imagination
>and not awareness itself.
you first have to prove that awarenes sitself exist, which you can't do since you need to rely on dogma
>>21954427
>I have nothing to prove
no one has nothing to rpove, you chose to tets your argument by debating here, but in the end you back up to dogmatic axioms, so your doing a lousy job at proving your point, or show how advaita is "irrefutable", since your whole system relies on circular reasoning

[Anonymous No.21955864]

>>21932156
what did he got right then, qrd?

[Anonymous No.21955914]

>>21932156
I recently came to know of perennialism as it relates to religion and want to learn more; is Guenon a good place to start?

[Anonymous No.21957733]

>>21932156
>most influential thinker of the 30s
Read more books.
>why was he forgotten
Because like all perennialists what he writes is a giant argument from authority on (undebated) assumptions of watered down platonism.
He is a nonentity in western intellectual literature and he's as relevant as a minor neoplatonist in late antiquity, reworking theories of others and adding nothing. The King of the World and Symbols of the Sacred science are embarassing books, and if you want to read "thinkers" of the last century read some Heidegger or Wittgenstein.
Traditionalists are the literal hooga booga monkeys of western philosophy, going back to unpack the knowledge of lost tribes as if it made sense and turning every piece of culture they have the disgrace to touch into an O MY RUBBER PLATONISM where you have metaphysical order of whatever informing reality.
I love Plato but these guys would literally shit their pants if they read one (1) Aristotle book and actually understood it, as most philosopher from Plato onwards did, trying to advance a discussion. Wannabe a Platonist? Read fucking Plato, or Plotinus, or Lloyd Gerson's sperging about Ur-Platonism. Not this guy or Evola.

And if you are ACTUALLY interested in ancient religions, Eliade, Brelich and Kerenyi are going to be much better starting points for you than these absolute irrelevant hacks.
Go to a library, use google or ChatGPT for what matters but read a fucking book.

[Anonymous No.21957771]

>>21957733
I haven't posted here for a while, but this is utter rubbish, complete dogshit.
>Neoplatonism, Platonism, Plotinus
You are completely exaggerating the relationship between Guénon and "Platonism." This is almost embarrassing for you, guénon's main work was in studying oriental metaphysics as exactly as possible, not from the lens of platonist, but from inside the tradition itself. Guénon was one of the first authors to describe Advaita Vedanta to western audiences in so much detail, in his book Man and His becoming according to the Vedanta, a cornerstone of his work. Nowhere there does he reference Platonism. Infact guénon does not even care much for Platonism, or for Plotinus. he paid very little attention to the western intellectual tradition, in fact he wrote more on Aristotle than plato, or Plotinus, merely because of the connection there to medieval Christianity and the scholastics. Guénon is about Oriental Metaphysics, Ibn Arabi, Shankara, the Upanishads, the Vedas and the Quran, even Kabbalah and the Zohar which he saw as the core of the more modern western esoteric tradition. Anyway you seem to be confused because nowhere did he declare himself to be part of the canon of western philosophy, he went to great lengths to deconstruct this sort of categorization. And no. Just no. Plotinus and the Neoplatonists was not his main subject of interest, that is later schuonian interpolation, and the role that the platonic tradition had a role in inspiring Guénon was arguably non-existent.

>And if you are ACTUALLY interested in ancient religions, Eliade, Brelich and Kerenyi are going to be much better starting points for you than these absolute irrelevant hacks.
>Ancient religions
No instead go through initiation and learn from a qualified representative of the respective tradition, or read the traditional sources themselves. You don't seem to understand

After thinking about it for a long time, guénons aim have much more in common with psychiatriats investigating and systematizing "non-ordinary states of consciousness" like stanislav grof, than they do with these sterile bookish anthropologists and historians of religion. It is all leading to direct experience and intuition.

Imagine calling the upanishads and Advaita Vedanta "watered down Platonism" you really are embarrassing yourself to those who are really in the Know.
I have noticed the population of people who have actually detected the primary objective of guénon in terms of seeking out initiation, and prioritizing direct experiential metaphysical realization, have dropped to almost 0 here.

[Anonymous No.21957783]

>>21957733
>I love Plato but these guys would literally shit their pants if they read one (1) Aristotle book and actually understood it, as most philosopher from Plato onwards did, trying to advance a discussion. Wannabe a Platonist? Read fucking Plato, or Plotinus, or Lloyd Gerson's sperging about Ur-Platonism. Not this guy or Evola.
Complete rubbish, you were completely filtered by the Primary directive of Guénon and Evola. The acquisition of supra-individual, supra-human states of consciousness through a process of initiatic disclosure. This is not some schizobabble, but a real task, whether you follow through with it and end up regressing to a state below where you began is only a result of your incomprehension and psychical composition.
>Muh Read Muh Read
Reading to Guénon is mere theoretical preparation, which is insignificant in light of actual initiating, and initiatic disclosure. There is no platonic tradition either, no rites, no mysteries.

Guénon is not saying, read plato after so many millenia for some merely intellectual curiosity, he is saying Get initiated into the mysteries of Eleusis, you just don't seem to understand the difference between these things at all.

[Anonymous No.21957841]

>>21957771
>>21957783
So what you're saying then is that if you feel bored of ordinary life, reading and taking Guénon seriously is a possible doorway to schizophrenia?

[Anonymous No.21957843]

>>21957841
Yes exactly right.

[Anonymous No.21957853]

>>21957771
>>21957783
>nowhere does he reference Platonism
This is your brain on Traditionalism.
I never said he references Platonism, I said that his metaphysics is Platonic in nature, in that he assumes an higher metaphysical order informs reality.
You think that in order to do this, he must have read Plato, because his books gave you mental illness by making you think that the only way in which you can be philosophically aligned with something is by quoting him or directly referring to his philosophical tradition.

Now even if Guenon wrote his books on Saturn, without ever knowing planet Earth and his traditions, as long as his metaphysics is philosophically compatible with Platonism, on this planet (Earth) we are allowed to refer to it as Platonism.
The only difference between what he does and actual Platonism what that, while Plato built arguments, Guenon thinks he's right because he builds a giant (methodologically unsound) philological research around ancient texts from various traditions saying that he's right. Whatever metaphysics he gets out of his magical hat you can only believe if you believe his interpretation of some other book, and this is problematic on two levels:

1. The fact that a book states something never means that it is true, therefore it does not matter how much you interpret a book: by interpreting you can only say "what the book truly says", which is never and will never be the same as saying "how things truly are". When you interpret something, you make statements about the object you interpret (the book) not about the objects referenced by what you interpret (the states of affait the book claims to describe).
2. I have never met a Guenon reader who actually bothered reading any of the sources he quotes, and I can assure you that once you do (as I did) you either despair or laugh loudly at how wrong he is. But Guenon readers don't want to read, they want to be right, which is why the read Guenon, who validates absolute trite and banal points on traditional values and modes of existing, rather than his sources, which address life and existence in a complex way that requires actual study. They prefer reading interpretations of books than read books, i.e. they prefer playing with the idea that since someone said something then it must be right, instead of picking up some primary source, learn an ancient fucking language for once, read the fucking book and THINK ABOUT IT BY YOURSELF trying to see if it matches reality for you or not.
This is what a philosopher does. Otherwise you can keep being a philologist and enjoy your Dungeon & Dragons game with your friends.

[Anonymous No.21957893]

>>21957853
>I said that his metaphysics is Platonic in nature, in that he assumes an higher metaphysical order informs reality.
Reality is one and nondual, all that informs reality is not metaphysical, higher and lower degrees belong to the world of duality, which is not really metaphysical. There is no metaphysical order.

Anyway, I actually agree with you a fair bit. Point 1. And 2. All I know is that Reality cannot be known or said, the monosyllable OM is enough, in that any syllable is enough, any word expresses that incommuncable intuition of non-difference, the more strange and alien the more unitive. After a point there is no return, and you no longer remember where exactly you departed from. Or if anything can be stopped, of course it can't.
So yeah I don't really care. I enjoy not thinking as much as I used to.

[Anonymous No.21957898]

>>21957853
You just can't get through to zombified guenonians :/

[Anonymous No.21957919]

>>21932156
Why should you read this guy again?

[Anonymous No.21958971]

guenonians/traditionalists, whatever. and their pseudo-metaphysics fruit of arbitrary symbolical research mixing up completely different doctrines have already been completely obliterated (picrel)

get a taste:

mistaken presentation of Vedanta:
https://www.ekatosedizioni.it/advitiya-caitanyavada/
https://www.ekatosedizioni.it/lucciole-per-lanterne-ancora-gli-incompetenti-di-vedanta/
https://www.ekatosedizioni.it/lucciole/
https://scienzasacra.blogspot.com/2020/09/gian-giuseppe-filippi-proposito-di.html

"Metaphysics" built upon fundamental errors:
https://vedavyasamandala.com/essere-o-non-essere/


Their critique of the modern world is useful (althought mistaken sometimes, as already showed by Wolfgang Smith) for our times, but that's just it.

[Anonymous No.21958980]

>>21932156
Remembered in various Sufi circles in Pakistan

[Anonymous No.21960643]

bump

[Anonymous No.21960789]

Do you people actually read Guenon? I thought it was just one guy spamming these threads.

[Anonymous No.21960812]

>>21960789
Hes quite readable. A little long winded but at least it's clear. If you want the tldr of his metaphysics the first 20 or so pages of The Multiple States of Being tells you what his deal is. It's a bit like neoplatonism.

Most of his books are these very roundabout digressions on symbols in culture and history and what they mean in relation to metaphysics, rather than being strictly about metaphysics.

[Anonymous No.21960860]

>>21960789
dont fall for the meme.
fell down a rabbit hole trying to find who was behind all of the spamming, and found out most of the spammers come from "poast", it's some twitter clone where teenagers with anime pfps larp as blue-collar workers that read esoteric nazism. its genuinely /b/ levels of retardation

[Anonymous No.21961077]

>>21958971
thanks

[Anonymous No.21961504]

>>21960789
guenonfag has been spamming his shit for 7 years now and has attracted not 1 person into his schizo postings because once you actually read Guenon, you will know how much of a brainlet he was.

[Anonymous No.21962036]

>>21958971
anyone got a pdf?

[Anonymous No.21962282]

>>21958971
thanks anon, i will check it out

[Anonymous No.21962305]

>>21932156
Loved him in Star Wars

[Anonymous No.21962353]

>>21962305
kek

[Anonymous No.21962641]

another guenonian blunder, the so-called 'informal manifestation' and 'universal/supraindividual intellect', which are just products of guenon's imagination
>Informal manifestation in the Advaita Vedānta?

"One of the misconceptions into which Guenonians who improvise themselves as "experts" on Vedānta invariably - and stubbornly - fall, along with the evergreen of the Samkara śaiva et similia, is the categorization whereby there would be above formal manifestation, i.e., individual or characterized by the conditions of name and form (nāma-rūpa), an informal manifestation. This would allow Samkara's Vedānta to fit into the more familiar ternary concept of body, soul, spirit. Accompanying this idea as a corollary is that of the assimilation of the notion of buddhi to that of "universal intellect."

Too bad that Samkara makes it explicitly clear that everything that is not Brahman is nāma-rūpa. The saṃsāra is, therefore, only formal or individual, consisting of name and form. The Deva themselves are jīva. Moksa is indeed liberation from the erroneous notion (mithyajnāna), "I am a pramatā," that is, from the adhyāsa whereby one mistakes Ātman for aham, the very situation in which one finds oneself as an individual. And it is no accident that Samkara always uses "buddhi" as the individual faculty of deliberation, of thought, nothing else.

"Nothing but Brahman can be different from name and form, since the whole of creation consists of a manifestation of name and form." BSŚBh 1:3,41

But that which is not Brahman is false and unreal, that is, it is māyā: "it appears - it is perceived - but it does not exist." Nāma-rūpa is thus a māyā, a mere illusion (BSŚBh 2,2,2). This is because it is not the product or a dynamic inherent in Reality, but rather an erroneous way of knowing Reality. "

[Anonymous No.21962739]

>>21939889
Bruh

[Anonymous No.21963935]

>>21957919
as already said here >>21958971
his critique of modernity from various angles is spot on
the problem is the arbitrary use of symbolical analogies (vide. the King of the World) and his 'metaphysical' system (which is more of a cosmological one, and yes, it's a system, even if he denied it) a is flawed one