Are there any philosophers, ancient or modern, who have talked about supposedly paranormal phenomena? (Like ghosts...

Every Ancient Greek philosophers when talking about gods were actually talking about ayys.

Thanks. What does he say about it?

Perhaps he did, I don't know. Admittedly I've only read Schopenhauer's aphorisms.

If I were to turn to religion for answers, why should I choose Islam over other more ancient religions?

I've read Vallee's books, and while I enjoyed them, his theory basically comes down to 'some all-powerful cosmic entity is toying with us for unknown reasons'.

That should be obvious to anyone with half a brain, but what I'm interested in, is the nature of those beings, whatever you want to call them. There are good reasons to believe that their magical powers are nothing more than advanced technology, but then again according to many writers and some eyewitness accounts, they're actually elemental spirits that exist on a higher level of reality.

>To ignore such a fundamental part of reality?
It's only fundamental for schizo's.

Jung has a book on flying saucers

Read Joseph Campbell or Jung they both explain mythology as it relates to the individual.

He believed they were psychological projections of the mandela though.

Aquinas believed in witches

>Thanks. What does he say about it?
A lot, it's hard to summarize. Modern science is basically a projection onto the world, rather than a value neutral way of assessing it, and its value is primarily in technology rather than theoretical explanation of the world, insofar as it works. This projection has a limited horizon that it can encompasses, and things which fall outside of that horizon have a "spectral" quality that seems to defy science and logic as we know it. Technoscience has a remarkable quality of assimilating things, however, and once it assimilates those phenomena which we consider spectral it will instigate a revolution in human society and thought of a greater magnitude than the industrial revolution. That's a pretty simplistic explanation. I'm currently reading the book myself, so I don't completely have my bearings on it. He draws a lot on Kant, Schelling, Heidegger, Descartes, Derrida, Delouze etc.

It's fundamental for most human beings that have lived for most of human history, including some of the greatest minds humanity has produced

Seraphim Rose

Here's your explanation: said phenomena dont happen and people knew since the times of Socrates.

I may have agreed with you a few years ago, but after reading a lot about this topic, I can no longer ignore it or dismiss it as the domain of mentally ill people.

Yeah, I heard about Jung's book, but is it worth reading?

But science deals with subjects that defy logic all the time, think about quantum mechanics for example, or light's dual nature as a wave and particle. Anyway, than sounds interesting, I'll check it out.

>But science deals with subjects that defy logic all the time, think about quantum mechanics for example
Yeah, that basically goes to show the direction that science is headed in. We're moving past the old naturalist/materialist/rationalist horizon that the Enlightenment gave us. That's only the beginning.

>inb4 mysticism

Jason Reza Jorjani is retarded compared to Reza Negarestani, but they both suck. I find it hilarious how many modern Westerners are so keen to find paranormal or mystical monist elements in life, but when it comes to questions pertaining to objective morality, they have knee-jerk reactions to relativize or dismiss them. Talk about messed up priorities.

>it's a "that poster who brings up Reza Negarestani anytime people talk about Jorjani without explaining anything" episode

What are you even trying to say? What's the point of this post?

>jorjani bad
>other guy also bad
>westerners very bad

And?

he does this any time Jorjani is brought up and he never explains anything, don't hold your breath. Soon he will be talking about how Jorjani isn't a real Iranian but is actually Turkic, as if anyone cares. Actually that might be a different poster who does that, not sure

Thats schizo shit

Westerners are only good when they accept my message. My message can save the West and by extension the whole world. I am pretty much the closest thing to Maitreya, Second Coming of Christ, Saoshyant, and much more. Hui Neng immediately bows out and gives me the bowl; Jesus crucifies himself again when he realizes he can't compared to my wisdom; Buddha burns the Bodhi tree when he realizes his wisdom is nothing compared to mine; Adi Shankara cries and jumps down a cliff; Zarathustra jumps into the fire; and much more.
I am the guy to come to for all the answers, but I could use some Bitcoin please.

Are you that Manichean poster who wrote his own scripture and shilled it on traditionalist facebook groups?

He takes the paranormal ramblings overboard to the point where it detracts from his overall philosophical claims. The way he interpreted Kant's Transcendental Idealism is laughably false too. In fact, I don't think he's capable of truly separating his paranormal nonsense from philosophy. He has said many things which are flat-out wrong, and he comes off as being more of an attention-whore with a massive inferiority complex, especially when it comes to genetics. Granted, he did have some interesting talks in New Thinking Allowed mainly about Sadegh Hedayat and his influences. However, his talks on Mani, Zoroastrianism, and etc. all had poor scholarship. I probably have less time than him to do thorough research, yet I could tell his lack of scholarship and rigor easily.
I am a far better thinker than Jason Reza Jorjani. He could tell when I emailed him, and he offered to help publish one of my works. He never responded again, but it was published elsewhere.

What's the connection between Negarestani and Jorjani, if you don't mind explaining, besides them both being Persian?

They're both quixotic as fuck.

>Prometheus and Atlas
this is quite interesting

It's bullshit and gives a Persians a bad name. Jews just want all the stupid Persians to be at the forefront in order to destroy their global image more.

I like stuff like that so whatever.

It's because you are brainwashed by Jews to be stupid, so you prefer the dumb things they feed you too.

It's blowing my mind to be honest. Probably my favorite part so far was the section on Schelling and "aesthetic judgement". Bout to finish chapter seven and I think chapter eight is about Neon Genesis Evangelion which should be pretty fun

It's all shit, especially compared to what I have to say. I could write a much more interesting philosophy book.

Read Man and His Symbols.

You should write it. I would probably read it if it looked interesting. I'd put it on my bookshelf right next to my copy of Prometheus and Atlas :)

I was just thinking that I need to know more about symbols, so I appreciate your recommendation (downloading it right now). But what does this book have to do with the topic of this thread?

There's no point if I can't find a literary agent. One can write the best story ever, but if it's not marketable, then there is no hope finding a literary agent. Do you have any referrals for an agent?

Not him, but I guess if the paranormal are psychic phenomena then they would also partake of archetypal characteristics. A lot of UFO phenomena has an achetypically "trickster" character.

>Do you have any referrals for an agent?
Nope, sorry. Why don't you just put them up for free online? Before the publishing industry became a thing, authors basically just wrote for fame and notoriety, like in the ancient world. That way they might also get the attention of wealthy patrons. I feel like we're returning to that way of doing things.

>authors basically just wrote for fame and notoriety, like in the ancient world. That way they might also get the attention of wealthy patrons. I feel like we're returning to that way of doing things.
moldbug.jpg

I've never read moldbug

>ghosts, elves, spirits
what there is to explain about folklore?
Although some have attempted to explain why people believe in such things, it’s not the same as explaining them.

Man and His Symbols is a rundown of Jungian psychological theory, archetypes, and how mythology relates to psychology. It is an absolute must read.

Read Joseph Campbell.

First off, I am back for another degree in Computer Science. I made the mistake of earning one in Neuroscience, which has horrible job opportunities. This semester will be rough because I am taking AI and Algorithms and Analysis, even though I do not enjoy this major. Therefore, I need to make time to write a major philosophical text, which is no easy feat. I could do it though because I have much of it in my head.
Second off, I am gaining a decent social media presence with hopes of persuading a literary agent to make me his client. I have 4500 followers on FB and 4000 on Instagram. I do not know if this is considered sufficient yet.
Third off, I would never publish my works for free online. I was able to publish one horror story via a reputable literary journal. I may try to send some of my other works to other literary journals. Granted, my mind feels like it is deteriorating at a rapid rate since a few months ago. It has become "blunter" and less sharp due to a lack of exercise and stress.

Good point.

That's exactly why I made this thread. Most of the available scholarship focused on why people believe in such things, in other words it treats like them beliefs, while I believe that they need to be treated as a natural or metaphysical phenomenon.

So basically he views mythology through a psychological lens? I was just re-reading Beowulf yesterday, and couldn't help but wonder if Grendel isn't the representation of some distant memory of non-human hominids (like Neandertals). Would Jung say that Grendel is the projection of some part of the human psyche?

>I believe that they need to be treated as a natural or metaphysical phenomenon
for what reason?

Neandertals were just as much human as you and me. Studies have been shown they had the capacity for complex socio-theological thought that’s only up to now been observed in humans.

abloo bloo bloo

Not him but peruse the evidence and you will see that the phenomena is worth taking seriously, even if we are nowhere near understanding its precise character or the explanation for how it comes about.

a great argument user

waa bloo bloo waa abloo

As far as I know, there’s no valid evidence for
>ghosts, elves, spirits

I’m sure you know a lot. You don’t need to read books or investigate the possibility of views you’re uncomfortable with. That’s very nice, user.

I’ve dropped acid a few times.
Should I think that what I saw during the trips was real or that it was just illusion caused by my brain on acid?
Is human perception really that reliable?

Because there are countless stories, going back to the dawn of time, from all over the world, about encounters with these beings. To dismiss them all as beliefs just because they don't fit into the modern Western scientific paradigm seems extremely foolish to me.

>Neandertals were just as much human as you and me.
Nobody really knows what they were like. They used to be depicted as brutish man-apes, now we're supposed to believe they were just like us. But their skeletons are very different from ours, and more similar to a gorilla. Their big eyes suggest that they may have been nocturnal predators. They were a lot stronger than us. They may or may not have been covered with hair. I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that they were the inspiration for the nordic trolls.

Is this really an argument? Is this the kind of casuistry you engage in to avoid reading books?

>They used to be depicted as brutish man-apes

That’s because of 19th century sentiments like phrenology. Look at how skeletal structure varies today in modern humans and you’ll see that an argument based on skeletal structure alone tells us nothing about what a human is capable of in terms of complex thought akin to modern humans. Seriously, look at the bone structures of people from Mongolia or the aborigines and compare them to European skeletons.

My argument is:
>Is human perception really that reliable?
I presented a very good example of how human perception is not always reliable.
Can you adress my argument itself?
There’s no reason not to dismiss these stories as beliefs other that (as you said) they’re “countless”.

Obviously human perception isn't always reliable lmao, do you think paranormal researches don't know that? Jesus Christ, this is some real amateur hour shit

Interesting that you should mention "paranormal research."
>James Randi: "Here's 1 million dollars. If you can prove whatever you want to call magic exists, I will give it to you."
And nobody is able to take it. Funny, that. Countless dowsers, psychics, ghost hunters, etc., and nobody can even make it past the preliminaries.

Attached: Flimflam.jpg (259x384, 56K)

I didn't say they were necessarily stupid, but they were certainly quite different from us, and we know from archaeological evidence that at some point we came in contact with them, and after some time, they... disappeared. Look at what happens today when you put different races together, whites, blacks, yellows... they inevitably start fighting each other. And there was more of a difference between neanderthals and us, than any of the modern races.

Attached: neanderthal-sapiens-comparison.png (1200x781, 395K)

So once you’ve admitted that, the fact that human perception isn’t really reliable is the reason why there’s no (serious) research on the paranormal itself, but only on what makes people believe in the paranormal.

There's no reason to dismiss them as beliefs, other than close-mindedness.

Randi is a known fraud and nobody in the parapsychological community takes him seriously. Next.

k
I don't believe in physics because human perception is unreliable. Mathematics is an illusion as well btw

Okay you sound like an idiot or a troll. Gonna ignore you from now on.

I don't exist. Your perception of me is unreliable

Scientists use other resources and appliances that human perception to study the world.
Mathematics is an a priori science.
There actually is: no legitimate evidence.

>Scientists use other resources and appliances that human perception to study the world.
Those resources and appliances are only known through human perception which is unreliable

Yes, you're right about one thing, that the Neanderthals were merely a different race, not a different species. Consider animals like a tiger and a lion, two completely different species, but are still able to interbreed. Neanderthals are more similar to modern humans genetically than a lion is to a tiger, and we know we interbred with Neanderthals because we can find traces of their DNA in our genome today. So clearly they weren't so different that there was a genetic barrier to breeding, as would be the case for truly separate species like a cat or a dog, or even a human and a chimpanzee because the chromosomes don't match up.

The idea that they were a different species comes from outdated and easily disproven pseudo-anthropological arguments.

Neanderthals were a different subspecies much like Subsaharan Africans.

So, rather than believe the potentially wrong on the basis of observable evidence and rational thought, I should believe in ghosts because a guy who claims to channel an Egyptian god tells me to?

I will clarify
my
> human perception isn’t really reliable
meant that it’s not enough to serve as a scientific proof. (a story that someone saw a ghost is not enough to be a proof for the existence of ghosts)
>human perception which is unreliable
I’ve never said it’s unreliable.
>isn’t really reliable
really in the sense of not always
Don’t act retarded on purpose.

Have you considered reading actual books on the subject before rejecting it offhandedly with meme non sequitor arguments like "perception is unreliable"? Just a suggestion

>Randi: "You're wrong, and while I can't directly prove it, I have no evidence to believe you in any capacity."
>Believers in the paranormal: "FRAUD! EVERYONE THINKS YOU'RE A HACK."

Imagine I engaged in this level of casuistry against physics without knowing anything about it. Like imagine if I had never heard of gravity or Newtonian laws and I tried to refute physics on an imageboard. That's what your doing. All I'm saying is read some books. Then make up your mind in an intelligent matter. Of course, if you don't want to, that's ok, but no one is going to take your meme arguments seriously.

Are there any philosophers, ancient or modern, who have talked about OPs extreme stupidity? (Like retardation, low IQ, brain damage, etc) I think any serious philosophy should be able to explain OPs low intelligence, or at least make an attempt.

Very well then, good user, enlighten us: What books would you recommend? The books I have read on the subject were less than convincing.

>Subsaharan Africans
Different race =/ different species

The authors so far mentioned in this thread, would be a start (Vallee, Dolan, Jorjani)

I said subspecies, not species. Also, when a race is significantly different and not even on a continuum, then it is a different subspecies. Subsaharan Africans are a different subspecies, not race.

Attached: genetic_reality_race.jpg (572x532, 43K)

a bad analogy (how can you even compare physics with pseudoscience)
Why can’t you just address my argument directly?

Lol

Aliens are a footnote to Plato.

How do I know I'm not an alien? What if they forgot me here?

Read the book and stop thinking so literally. Mythology is symboloc not literal. Monsters are projections of the fears of the unconcious. Stop thinking myths are literal like some ancient alien believer.

> Look at what happens today when you put different races together, whites, blacks, yellows... they inevitably start fighting together.

What a retarded statement. Everyone fights when put together, including people of the same race. Europe had plenty of blood baths even without including contact with the rest of the world. And there are plenty of other examples..

A German shepherd can interbreed with a chihuahua. The fact that we interbred -which may have been the result of rape- means nothing. Look at the skulls and the skeletons, they were nothing like us.

I think, in general, symbols and archetypes are basically abstractions of real things. Ancient people were simple and pragmatic, the need to overcomplicate and intellectualize everything is a modern vice.

Vallee: "Yeah, there's UFOs. I just can't prove it because THE MAN is keeping us down."
Dolan: "UFO's exist, it's just THE MAN doesn't want us to know."
As I said: less than convincing. As for Jorjani, you'll forgive if I'm skeptical of anyone who embraces /pol/ so thoroughly.

ok mr smartypants have it your way

No, read Joseph Campbell and Jung. Shamanic visions come from within and are atavistic but not in an external way. The myth is the collective dream that lends a path or archetype to live by within the constraint of a given society. They are adopted because they resonate within everyone within the tribe or cultural group not because they're literal. Stop thinking they're fucking literal. Fuck I hate /x/ so much. Do some psychedelics and get back to me.

another excellent argument user

What do shamanic visions have to do with Beowulf or the Iliad?

>A German shepherd can interbreed with a chihuahua
Those are different breeds of the same species, Canis lupus familiaris, not separate species like a human and a chimp.

If there was interbreeding, then there is compatibility between the two on a genetic level, typically pertaining to a common origin. Just as all dogs have a common origin from the wolf and its many subspecies, modern humans and Neanderthals would have had to have come from a common source, but did not diverge enough to make interbreeding impossible. Like a horse and a donkey diverged from a common animal, and yet can still interbreed today, but this produces infertile mules.

In other words, humans have Neanderthal DNA in our genome today precisely because the children of humans and Neanderthal interbreeding produced fertile children, just as with your German shepherd and chihuahua example. So humans and Neanderthals were closer genetically than a horse is to a donkey or a tiger is to a lion. That tells us a lot about what Neanderthals were capable of in terms of complex thought, because if the Neanderthals were close enough to modern humans to interbreed and produce fertile children, as proven in our DNA, then they must have been close enough to us for complex thought, language and civilization.

At least Vallee is better than Dolan. Vallee has a raging hardon for his confirmation bias, but Dolan moonlights as a conspiracy theorist so we get titles with bullshit gems like:
>UFOs and the National Security State: Chronology of a Cover-up
>UFOs and the National Security State: The Cover-Up Exposed

Everything. Folklore is based on making things up from the unconcious. The Gods in the Iliad represent parts of humans. For Paris love is his god which is why Aphrodite is his patron and saves him from Menelaus- him being whisked away represented him choosing to live for love because it is more important to him than honor. Cowardace is the negative side of love. For Achilles, it's Athena for the sake of war and because wrath is his biggest negative quality which is the bad side to war. Athena is also the god of wisdom which is why she represents Odesseus, however hubris is the negative side to cunning. They're projections of psychology.

Beowolf is more simple as grendel can represent a bastard and a regret or a skeleton in the closet of anyone ambitious or in power. Think of the sex scandals of politicians today, those are fucking grendels.

I think you missed the point completely. You keep talking about genetic compatibility, which is irrelevant as far as I'm concerned, and complex thought, which I never denied they had. What I've been saying, and it seems pretty simple to me, is that at some point in prehistory we made contact with a group of humanoids that looked very different from us, and probably had different habits and cultures. I don't think we co-existed peacefully, and there's good reason to believe that we experienced predation at their hands. Put two and two together, and you have the origin for the troll myths.

>The Gods in the Iliad represent parts of humans.

Have you ever read the Iliad? Goddamn it, you're making me mad.

Yes idiot. Stop taking things literally.

Kill yourself.

OP, read Robert Kirk's "The Secret Commonwealth of Elves, Fauns, and Fairies." Kirk was an Episcopal minister who traveled the Scottish Highlands in the mid-17th Century and collected fairy lore. He eventually came to the conclusion that there was a serious basis for believing in the reality of this strange aspect of existence.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Kirk_(folklorist)

Kirk himself was the seventh son of his father, and there's a rumor that he was the seventh son of a seventh son, which would have given him the gift of second sight. You can read the entire thing online for free:

sacred-texts.com/neu/celt/sce/index.htm

Attached: 2cf294bf87435021fa01ecdd98c4c861.jpg (609x880, 87K)

The gods were clearly ancient aliens interacting with people and Achilles shield was of extraterrestrial origin. Clearly the greeks had met with these "gods" which is how they managed such mathmatic feats.

I like my interpretation of Grendel more:
"Hey, ever hear stories of trolls and shit?"
>"Fuck yeah. Who hasn't?"
"I'm gonna write a poem. About a bigass troll. And a guy who kills it. Be rad as fuck."
>"It's been done before, hasn't it?"
"Hmm... What if, after he beats the troll, he beats up his mom? His bigger, STRONGER mom? At the bottom of a lake? While fending off fucking dragons? Fuck yeah, this'll be sick."

Fucking lmao /x/

And 7 horcruxes is the magical amount

Read Joseph Campbell. The unconcious is inescapable. Regardless of intent.

I don't think trolls would be a good comparison mainly because trolls mythologically speaking do not have the type of culture and/or language capacity, and there certainly wouldn't be myths about human/troll hybrids.

Comparing Neanderthals to myth about dwarfs would make more sense. Neanderthals were known to be shorter and stockier, but not as small as dwarfs became in myth. Like dwarfs, they would have lived in the highlands closer to mountains and would have had a complex civilization able to produce tools at least as good if not better than humans. Neanderthals have been shown to have had spears, axes and other weapons that you would normally only associate with modern humans from that era.

Attached: maxresdefault.jpg (1280x720, 87K)

Excellent recommendation, user. I've already read Kirk, in fact, and it's definitely a must-read for anyone interested in elves. He talks about something called the 'elf shot', which was basically the same kind of weapon used by modern aliens to paralyze people. Fascinating stuff. However, right now I'm more interested in a philosophical/scientific explanation for the existence of these beings. If I remember correctly, he believed they were elemental spirits, but his book was mostly a summary of his research rather than a philosophical treatise.

I don't know what the Gods were, but it's extremely insulting to Homer to state that they were symbols, when he wrote them as very much physical characters. There's nothing in the Iliad to suggest this interpretation.

Ancient poets weren't like modern Hollywood screenwriters.

>trolls mythologically speaking do not have the type of culture and/or language capacity
Trolls could speak. I'm not sure about their culture, and we don't really know much about neanderthal culture anyway, but I imagine that thousands of years after the neanderthals' disappearance, people wouldn't remember much about the details of their culture or the level of sophistication of their tools. They would remember 'sort of human, but more animal-like, likes the dark, is dangerous'.

>Neanderthals were known to be shorter and stockier
On average, yes, but there have been found skeletons of neanderthals that are as tall as 2 metres (almost 7 feet).

hi big pharma

>Ancient poets weren't like modern Hollywood screenwriters.
Nor many regarded writers, it would seem. It just so happens that, in 1963, a 16 year old student sent a survey to 150 well known authors.

The general view is that, barring the author doing so unconsciously, symbolism was hit or miss. Those that never (consciously) put in symbolism had readers finding things, while those that did put in symbolism found readers all over the place. Some would correctly find a symbol the author meant, and others would go off on an entirely unintended tangent.
In short, it's haphazard, even when we live in similar times and societies.

>On average, yes, but there have been found skeletons of neanderthals that are as tall as 2 metres (almost 7 feet).
Yes, but those are the exception, not the rule, just as there are modern humans over 7 feet tall.

A common aspect of trolls were their size, much larger than humans, basically giants on steroids. Trolls aren't described as human-sized. So I think dwarfs mythologically share more in common with Neanderthals than trolls.

Post your work.

That would pretty much ruin all of my chances of getting published. I'm not stupid. If you want, I can give you my special email address whereby you give me a referral to a literary agent. I can then query them that way. However, you will not be able to dox me, so I am just warning you in that regard. Some idiot from Estonia underestimated me and thought he could dox me. I am a very paranoid individual due to many painful life experiences, and you will not be able to dox me.

>ancient gods were ayys
Hum, no. Get outta here Mr. Sitchin.

There were many different Gods, but they weren't literal beings. Only the stupid mistake metaphors for actuality, and this recent effort to reduce all things ancient to ayys is lazy thinking and plain disinformation.

Each god symbolized an aspect of existence. Jung approaches these matters explaining the psychology and mode of thinking of these societies. The Greek myths represent how our mind came to be. Ares wasn't a blood spilling alien. He is our Anger, and our Will to defend and fight for what is worthwhile. Venus wasn't an alien whore. She was our passion and appreciation for aesthetics and erotic love - - the antropromorfization of all things beautiful.

Furthermore, monotheism was always present, even in apparently politheistic religions. There was always a God that represented The All, a Supreme God from which others sprang. In Egypt this was Ra or Osiris, in India this was Brahma. Greece was the only civilization that didn't have an All Father, but they had an origin: the Chaos God, who bore Night and Day and Ether.

If there aren't philosophers who deal with ayys as our forefathers it is because no respectable philosopher would do such thing.

Now I don't deny that aliens do exist, and I have seen UFOs, but to reduce ancient myths and gods to ayys is ridiculous and is plain disinformation. If you don't know your myths you don't know your mind, and if you don't know your mind you're the perfect target to manipulate.

There's no fucking metaphor in the Iliad.

Retard alert

d/a

You're right. The ancient gods weren't ayys. However, the mystery religions surrounding those gods were taught by the ayys, by that I mean, the secret rituals so as to commune with the gods that only the high priests were privy to.

Let me give you participation mystique 101.

Inside that gas chamber within your skull lies a group of ethereal, subtle movements which the ancients called the nous or the psyche. This is the mind.

This thing came to be by many means unknown, but throughout our history some patterns have emerged and they remained. Some things were constant throughout our societies: our emotions, our curiosity regarding the afterlife, our feelings of reverence towards mothers, our respect towards fathers when they started being relevant.

Furthermore, we felt strange things. We had intuition about things within us, things that to communicate to each other we had no language. We then created stories about Infinite Men, inexistent in the material world, but that used to abide in the Aethers. We projected the movements of our psyches into the astrological bodies, and explained our own stories by means of the sky.

Once we grasped the story, we started playing with it. Thus Zeus, the All King, came to have many spouses, or just one. He came to spouse mortal women, or none at all. Athens -- was she a virgin, or was she not? Did she spring from Zeus' head or did she not? Did Hephaestos totally pawn Ares because of Aphrodite or did he not?

Is love and beauty attracted to skill or to strength? Do women prefer useful men or do they prefer virile chads? Is Aphrodite enamored to Ares or to Hephaestos?

These things exist within you, and they are not fixed in stone. You can play with them. You can literally speak to the gods within you. They live your life with you, and if you favor one excessively in detriment of the other, the latter will grow resentful, and the former will show himself to be not what you expected.

If you understand these myths and how they relate to you, reading a book on mythology is like looking in the mirror.

>it’s published by NYRB
pic related isn’t me making fun of you, btw. that was my genuine reaction. looks good, added to my amazon wishlist

Attached: 2259ACE4-03D2-469A-B6F7-4BC0EFD4CDA7.gif (326x192, 40K)

>I have seen UFOs
>seeing a flying object that's unidentified.

Attached: -D.jpg (474x284, 12K)

I don't think it's impossible for men to have communicate with ayys in our ancient (or recent) past, but to deprive mankind of capacity to properly commune with their Creator "on their own" is silly. Religious practices are born spontaneously when man finds himself in a somewhat stable environment, and they are to be found through the most common means: tasting food, dancing, moving in certain ways, singing certain songs. Where beauty is found, where pleasure (or pain) is present, so is capacity for Religion.

When the material experience is somewhat balanced, man can then devote himself to other pursuits. This plane can show itself to be quite... boring, after some time.

Now, traditions are passed along from generation to generation. Someone must have come up with such a tradition. When the Oracle of Delphos said, "know yourself and you shall know the universe and the gods", she gave away the recipe -- True Religion 101. The Buddha created a tradition. Laozi created a tradition. These were men, actual men. Laozi is somewhat doubtable, but there are real, historical accounts of Siddartha Gauthama, exposing his routines, talking about his meals, his travels et cetera -- much more information than there is regarding, say, Jesus Christ.

Now, I'm not so rigid as to believe that our history isn't somewhat murky. Some knowledges have sprung from a very ancient past, but I don't see any sort of knowledge that can't come from man and that must come from aliens.

This doesn't mean that it is absolutely impossible that ayys taught us stuff in the past, but this theory demeans man, makes him appear less capable than he truly is, and is akin to the idea of the "God of the gaps", but instead of God we have aliens.

UFOs are now synonyms to alien spaceships, sadly. What I've meant is that I saw a flying ship unlike any human craft that I have ever seen.

It was triangular in its shape, and it hovered as if unaffected by gravity and without the need of any propulsion. There were lights underneath it, but sadly I don't remember how many. I wasn alone either. My girlfriend and my father saw it too.

I don't expect to be believe and honestly I don't care. I don't think this changes anything

Yes, but I was just referring to the mystery religions, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greco-Roman_mysteries

I believe that much of these cults had some kind contact with the divine because they were taught how to do this by the ayys. This goes beyond merely "tasting food, dancing, moving in certain ways, singing certain songs" but really strict rituals done in a very specific order with specific intentions that the mystery religions were known for.

LMAO how is THAT fundamental. Get a life loser and grow the fuck up.

>elves

>his theory basically comes down to 'some all-powerful cosmic entity is toying with us for unknown reasons'
And he isn't wrong.

Definitely much more plausible than extraterrestrials

Attached: just because you are unique.jpg (1024x781, 59K)

I agree, that axe won't accomplish much unlike my wisdom.

Augustine did, in The City of God. Those are fallen angels and Nephilim. Beware

You want this...
tricksterbook.com

discord.gg/az3CXnJ

OP you might find this book interesting. he has some lectures on youtube as well

Attached: C7A13390-DEF0-4F73-9BC3-87E8B1875689.jpg (333x499, 33K)

Goethe, Novalis, Steiner

Kant apparently was very interested in the possibility of extraterrestrial life

He might be right for all I know, but there's no way to prove it, so he might as well have said 'because God wants so'.

The nephilim were described as violent giants, not tiny shapeshifting creatures.

Thanks, will read!

Can you narrow it down a bit? Where did Goethe write about elves and ghosts?

this

both are memes, move along u will be better of reading actual jung

bumping quality thread

Not sure if astrology counts but John Anthony West's "The Case For Astrology" is a good overview of arguments in favor of it and studies/data supporting it

Based

>Where did Goethe write about elves and ghosts?
The Green Snake and the Beautiful Lily

Jung is better than Jorjani, true. Some of the texts Jung wrote are interesting such as Seven Sermons to the Dead.

>imagine wasting your time like this

why we humans are we this stupid? why we have to justify our beliefs like this? It amazes me how successful threads like these are, same thing with /sffg/, it's like we are obsessively trying to scape from reality

>abloo my extremely narrow life experience and ideological filter defines objective reality bloo
why indeed

The best tool we have to discover reality right now is the scientific method, everything in this thread is nothing but pure entertainment that goes nowhere, and that's fine, don't get me wrong, but it has nothing to do with the thing we call reality and many anons in here don't realize that.

While this surely is an interesting subject, this is a fruitless pursuit. You are bound to find lots of con artists and sources of questionable veracity.

There shall be several fake abductees, and some sincere ones. Amongst the sincere ones, there will be the ones who speak the truth, and the ones who are batshit crazy.

Furthermore, most """"channeled""" alien material is filled with pseudo esoterica which serve for nothing except to confuse the minds of the readers. Disinformation is ubiquous in our day and age.

Aliens exist, but the field is spoiled to such a degree that it is not worth it to go after it. However, if you truly want to investigate this issue, I recommend reading Jung's writings on the subject.

However, this IS a fruitless pursuit. Nothing in your life will change when you learn more about this stuff, and lots of confusion will be passed on to you. There be dragons.

I suggest you turn your mind to metaphysics or traditional mysticism if you want to learn about what lies behind the veil of ordinary perception.

no one here is rejecting the scientific method you dumb faggot

here
To further my point, if you wish to delve into metaphysics and mysticism, it is paramount to arm yourself with rational tools. Epistemology, the scientific method, logic et cetera. All these bodies of knowledge will help you filter shit from shinola. Like many other fields, the field of esotericism is filled with con artists.

We killed the Neanderthals off. The first genocide.

J. Posadas.
marxists.org/archive/posadas/1968/06/flyingsaucers.html
Give a read, some batshit insane stuff.
youtube.com/watch?v=14mIFbhB0b8

Attached: posadist homer.jpg (1346x4000, 719K)

This

>NOOOO HOW DARE YOU BE INTERESTED IN SUBJECTS THAT MAY NOT BE ENTIRELY SCIENTIFICALLY ACCURATE
Fuck off