What were the best philosophical concepts you read that made you go

Atheists lack knowledge of science philosophy, but I am surprised to know they lack knowledge of basic writing, too.

Meditations on Moloch

Spengler, seeing culture as organic is so simple but it still blew my mind.

I loved that but the ending is a cope

Probably Rogan's ethical lectures, where he said (not without profundity): WEED=GOOD

The problem of the one and the many,

Attached: A8C1EC38-D68B-4F23-A5C0-468384E256E2.jpg (342x544, 172K)

physicalist panpsychism

The simulation theory.

heidegger's interpretation of althea in his phenomenological method.

Kant’s things-in-themselves blew my
mind in undergrad. Same with time and space as a priori faculties

Nor necessarily philosophical, but I used to be a NatSoc brainlet until Evola blew my mind with telling me how the caste system of India is actually the preferred way of living for humans.
Now I'm no longer a retard who believes in collectivist ideas.

ASS.

Attached: Albanian Secret Service.png (1200x1200, 263K)

Teleonoumenal vagicapital

Attached: 198384.jpg (171x266, 17K)

>undergrad
Doesn't count.

Based and muskpilled.

He's wrong about time and space. A person who is born blind will have no conception of vision; a person who has never experienced temporality will have no conception of time.

Agapism, that love is an evolutionary relationship that animates the living universe.

Why? I learned a lot then.
Yeah I don’t agree with it either. It was, however, an undeniably interesting way of conceiving space and time

Retard. I’m so glad science is dying

This is entirely in tune with Kantian philosophy though. Space doesn't designate a conception of vision, it designates the manner in which vision operates. The dimensionality of vision is what we end up calling "space". If you're lacking vision, your auditory inputs will be spatial or your tactile sensations. Same for time.

A person who has never experienced temporality cannot be considered a person, in Kantian terms. Kant makes the concession that for any reflection to be possible one has to have experience first, this is one of the first phrases in the first critique. However this doesn't mean all of our reflection is derived from our experience. I think you have a poor understanding of Kant.

Heideggerian ‘Janus head’ interpretation of the greek notion of truth, αλήθεια. From verb λήθω (‘being hidden’) + alpha privativum, literally ‘unconcealment’.

Attached: 3099F70A-B3C7-4311-8D4A-E62AA4E99CA1.png (300x301, 20K)

How exactly has science revolutionized your worldview?

“If we take eternity to mean not infinite temporal duration but timelessness, then eternal life belongs to those who live in the present.”

brety gud

The aristotelian argument for the existence of god.
The epicurean way of living a good life.
Aztec dialectical monism.
Kantian epistemology( the thing initself, synthetic a priori concept).
The verification principle. (Kant's trident)
The kk principle.
Hareian ethics.
Adornos views about technology and nature, he was basically uncle Ted but in the 60s.

Instrumental rationality.

Also, definition as useages.

>Aztec dialectical monism.
Please elaborate user

Attached: 1564515741170.jpg (500x628, 36K)

my own posts

Teleological suspension of the ethical.

nigga thats basic physics

ending ? as in the fair lady shit ?

The aztec philosopher where monists, they believed that reality was a single animated, sacred energy called "teotl". The aztec gods where a collection of physical processes and energies, part of teotl, like in hinduism with brahman. The major difference between Aztec philosophy and european is that the Aztecs thought that reality was fundamentaly a process, Aristotle looked at the world from a perspective of forms, while the Aztecs think of the world as a process. The concept of dialectical monism is that all things have a complimentary quality, that they struggle against. Every thing is ultimately an unambiougs struggle between different things, in a dialectic. Becuase everything is a process, becuase it's teotl, and then you need to analys it as a dialectic between opposites going back and forth. They then believe that there is not inherent teleology in history and that reality is fundamentaly a struggle between different forces.

For example, life and nonlife are basically chemical processes, they are in a conflict between eachother, and are the same thing, yet opposites. Same thing with being, and non being. As reality is a struggle between being and nonbeing, then the fundamental part of reality is becoming, meaning that the proper way to analys the world is as becoming.

Attached: aztec.png (1500x1490, 3.73M)

This is fucking fascinating. Reminds me of comments made in Dialectic of Enlightenment about conflicting worldviews.

Science is a joke.

Are you the guy who made this post? It's really interesting to read about philosophies which don't cleanly conform into "Eastern traditions" or "Western traditions".

Attached: aztec philosophy.png (972x297, 70K)

Nope, I don't know that guy.

Very interesting.

>killing "niggers" is logical scientific or evolutionary
Stop...

Attached: 1564143812883s.jpg (105x125, 2K)

>A person who is born blind will have no conception of vision
they will have an intuition of space though, not the same thing as vision
>a person who has never experienced temporality
literally no such thing

So aztecs were hegelian before it was cool?

>your
Get the fuck out of here, reeeeeee

A blind person can still intuit an object through touch.

I (who am not ) am the guy who wrote that. I'll explain more after work.

>he focuses on killing niggers instead of chinks or indians

proof?

Unironically the tarot. I thought it was gay fortune telling and now I fell down the esoteric tradition rabbit hole and think magic is real

Attached: FB_IMG_1568919203285.jpg (550x960, 84K)

Checked v powerful king

just wait till you discover the concept of evidence

Leibniz principle of sufficient reason

My prof was a leibniz specialist and he took us deep into the PSR and i even wrote a paper that i can barely recall even though it was only 2 years past. My brain is fried

Good bait.

What's even more interesting is the mythological implication of aletheia, since "lanthano" is related etymologically to the river Lethe.

Most of Jung, but the initial punch was from "people don't have ideas; ideas have people".

Not him, but...
Chinese and Indian history proves potential for competence, ergo, sociology, religion and ideology can have strong effects and shape them rapidly. However, Sub-Saharan Africans are almost like a plague, only ruining things regardless of time-frame. The Chinese were influenced to eat their school teachers and burn their history - and they are better off than Detroit. Better parts make a better machine.

Yours and most others, to varying degrees of scientific accuracy. However, it should continue to do so if you're honest with yourself. It's not exactly an enjoyable ride, nor should it be as total as it has been among most people.
People have become very risk-averse in their opinions, and need to maintain some folly of moral supremacy to hold separate values or even opinions.

how to start with the tarot?

The conception of being as infusion, vortex bringing entities to himself, being-for-itself, instead of an ex-fusion emanating entities.

Zizek's description of evil as the "eroticizing excess" of consciousness

Weininger's writings on memory and genius

Schelling's inversion of the body = bad, soul = good dichotomy

Whitehead's distinction between panexperientiality and panpsychism

Laszlo's concept of the heteron

The similarities between Manichaean demons and the Lacanian lamella

The electro-gnosticism of plasma cosmology and John Lash

Eriugena's pre-emptive BTFO'ing of Kant

Mainlander's pluralism of the will + his rehabilitation of the Kantian noumena through the concept of God as a self-effacing primal singularity

The resonances between Klages' concept of parasitic spirit and UG's experiencing structure

Hegel's Spirit always "having a story to tell"

Stellar larva hypothesis

Multi-Sense Realism's concept of reality as a "Sole Entropy Well": consciousness eats entropy, entropy eats consciousness, the Big Bang is eternal

Attached: 258px-Image_of_a_Manichaean_Temple.jpg (258x224, 13K)

The Tao

>Zizek's description of evil as the "eroticizing excess" of consciousness

brainlet garbage

I'm sure that's an informed opinion *farts*

>The aristotelian argument for the existence of god.
Actually this thanks to Edward Feser.
>mfw

Attached: 1567433091760.gif (500x370, 3.57M)

i rest my case

That doesn't really do it justice, particularly because the Aztecs were far more extreme than Hegel. To elaborate on what said (I'm not him btw), the dialectic of Hegel vs the Aztecs is a little different. Hegel's is thesis + antithesis = synthesis, whereas the Aztecs don't see it like that.

To the Aztecs (I'm brainfarting on what the Nahuatl term for this is), these Opposites are more like Sparring Partners. When you play chess, the best way to win is to shoot your partner with a gun. But then, we don't play chess to win, do we? We play chess to improve our skills, to have fun, to match wits, and so on and so forth. If your opponent is better than you by too much, it's not fun to play. If they're worse than you by too much, it's not fun to play. If you're evenly matched, however, then you have fun. Sparring partners don't want to kill each other, they want to push each other right until the very limit, and then be sprung back upon. To be defeated well and justly is just as good as to to win properly and righteously, of course.

Walking is an example of this: The right leg pushes, and the left leg gives way. But then, the left leg pushes, and the right leg gives way. If one dominates the other, you fall. In sex, the man dominates the woman, but the woman wants to be dominated, and in so dominates the man, who wants to be dominated, but dominates back. One could argue that this is really just Hegel ("walking" is the synthesis), but the Aztecs didn't see it that way.

The Aztecs had a golden mean, viewing the life as a man walking across a slippery mountain ridge. The struggle is to balance constantly competing forces not so that they are in equillibrium, but so that they cycle back and forth, winning and losing but never coming close enough to snuff one another out. Harmony is a system of constant wins and losses of both sides for the betterment of the whole, not for everything to be static and equal.

>Hegel's is thesis + antithesis = synthesis

Attached: Horton hits a ho.webm (640x360, 2.79M)

This influenced Aztec geopolitics, by the way, and was a philosophical reasoning for war (humanity needs war, or else humanity will die). The Aztec viewed a war of annihilation as a loss for the the victor just as much the loser. I talked about the whole "Recycling hearts to keep the sun going" thing in 's pic related, and while that's a literal example, it doesn't quite explain the entirety of why killing your opponent is a loss for you. It also loses you an ally, a trading partner, and a sparring partner. The Aztecs viewed their society's constant war as a process of self betterment for the whole of humanity.

Now of course this also means all of the nasty stuff that comes with war, but the Aztecs knew that. You know the Aghouri of India, who live in filth and squalor as a means of connecting with Brahma, for Brahma is in all things, even filth and decay? The Aztecs took that up to 11, with the goddess of birth also being the goddess of death, and various gods of agriculture also being the gods of shit (literally, feces). It's cycles: the most bountiful harvests are born from fields strewn with the foulest of feces, corpses, and rot. Indeed, the various gods ARE their spheres: "war" is actually an intelligent process that we act out, just as our cells act out an intelligent process that is us. This influenced the Aztecs seeming complete disregard for strict boundaries, as the Aztec had no sense of profane and sacred in the Indo-European sense. Things were profane SOMETIMES, and sacred SOMETIMES. Shit during a religious ceremony (and there were public ceremonies were priests would cover themselves in it) was incredibly holy. Temples were just large buildings when not in use.

It should be noted that these opposites are NOT "Forms". Male and Female are purely teotling observing teotling teotl. If humans were different, male and female would be different. They're purely observed emergent phenomenon.

Screenshotted, how did you find all this crap?

archived.moe/lit/thread/11670156/

>thinking.jpg

Ahah this pleb has never read the first 100 pages of Kant's first critique LooooooL u a punk xD

Who cares. What's interesting is that the expression of Being is always mediated through a privation (or, in better terms, through the nihilation of its concealment).

>Hegel's is thesis + antithesis = synthesis
Stopped reading here.

Cs pierce made me re-evaluate all other kinds of normative ethics as being agapism-derivative, in degrees. Virtue ethics is clearly the closest, then deontology, then consequentialism

youtube.com/watch?v=7n36qV4Lk94

Eriugena's negative theology is always great. Nice specs, 5 o'clock.
>Hegel's is thesis + antithesis = synthesis

Attached: 462462.png (474x226, 58K)

You're free to do as you please despite consequences by Jean-Paul Sartre.
You're being trained to give free blowjobs to the system by Michel Focault
Reality might be a dream by René Descartes

It's mainly syntheses/resonances from different readings.

Multi-Sense Realism: multisenserealism.com/glossary/glossary-q-z/sole-entropy-well/

Stellar Larva Hypothesis: starlarvae.org/

Hegel's Spirit always "having a story to tell": sort of a complicated concept I don't want to drag this post down with, it's all in Zizek's Less Than Nothing

Klages & Krishnamurti (read 'em together): revilo-oliver.com/Writers/Klages/Ludwig_Klages.html

en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Mystique_of_Enlightenment

Mainlander: docdroid.net/file/download/Bj0oMLa/mainlander-philosophy-of-redemption.pdf

Eriugena and Kant: Deirdre Carabine's goes into Eriugena's views on pre-subjective ("divine") space and time in her book on him

Electro-gnosticism, plasma cosmology: Electric Universe and this book donquijotte.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/john-lamb-lash-not-in-his-image.pdf

Combine the two and you get: God's mind is a living web of inter-galactic plasma and the galactic center is the gnostic pleroma.

Manichaeaism and Lacan: synthesis of a few insights, selfhood as the principle of evil through Schelling + Mani's demons are entities that feed on light + the lamella is the subject's undead thirst for life

Laszlo's heteron: tradicio.org/english/solumipsum.htm

Whitehead's distinction: Process & Reality, of course

Schelling's inversion: Inquiry Into The Essence of Human Freedom

Weininger: Sex & Character

Zizek & Evil: his new book, Sex and the Failed Absolute

Where you been, player?

Remember when science was a bunch of white men in labcoats fucking around with atomics? And now its a bunch of midget brown women writing about decolonization?
I 'member

As a blind person fjdjfjsdkkeicmd kfjdkfdkj jsckdlslcmsmcnx kdjcnskskck xkfns o

A logical person would recognize niggers as a threat to his wellbeing

upload zizek's new book please. don't make me BUY it.

Reading Emerson and Melville, applying ECT to my theory of apparatuses, listening to irony podcasts. Oh, and plodding through resources about Charles Harsthorne.

Attached: Blue.jpg (638x460, 61K)

I always thought of it as his attempt at pseudo-physics and I mostly disregarded it

You mean like the philosophy of science and its methods or like
>I fucking love science!
meme bullshit

People doing actual physical sciences are still mostly whites, jews, asians, and indians. Especially the ones with major contributions. Though the exact proportions certainly depends on the field of study.

Nice, you're as busy as ever. I still think back to a lot of things you mentioned before. Those were very fruitful discussions.

I've just been trying to hash out these resonances between Zizek's thought in his new book and a kind of Manichean ontology of predation. The rabbit hole never ends.

If it isn't up on libgen it should be soon. It's the most complete presentation of his system yet.

wat nigga do u read science journals.

So do I. I've dialed back (towards the side of slow, paced learning) and left off with most of the bombastic stuff, but that sense of afflated passion meant much more than the dozen tedious and elusive little facts I have to deal with now.

I'm doing the same with Zizek and Hartshorne. Haven't read Sex and the Failed Absolute. Any warnings?

Yup, same here, I forced myself to slow down, I miss the passion but it was frying me

I forgot to mention I gave Saltus a whirl and enjoyed him immensely. Hartshorne looks very interesting, I'll peep him.

And not really, if you can believe it. Still as rigorous as Zizek has ever been but something about his style feels more streamlined and compact. Think of the book as the spitshine and capstone to all of his thought so far.

And there's a chapter in it called the "The Retarded God of Quantum Ontology" so you know that's gonna be fun

The Transcendental Aesthetic in Critique of Pure Reason really blew my mind. Rest of book was huge snooze.

>The Retarded God of Quantum Ontology
Always glad to see the Retard God of Job, gotta love it.

How much of Saltus have you read?

Most of Philosophy of Disenchantment. Couldn't find his other works anywhere.

that the subject likely isn't separate from the object. instead, the subject is continuous with the object, with the object possibly being primary

Read the Anatomy of Negation, Love and Lore, and An Idler's Impressions too. A surprising amount of his works are free through google books and gutenberg.

Imperial Purple, gutenberg.org/ebooks/4250

Lords of the Ghostland, gutenberg.org/ebooks/31608

Historia Amoris, gutenberg.org/ebooks/32512

Thanks, what do you like about Saltus? I remember you saying he tests your "sixth sense" or something to that effect once

He has a classical sense of derogation and observational [Herodotean] fabulism. As to his work being intuitive, his earlier writing has traces of an underlying "holism" and his later writing (after Emerson spurred on his Idealist turn) openly engages in mystic impressionism.

He has that extremely readable quality I'll never be able to articulate. But it is certainly Herodotean in that sense. Thanks again.

>read plate
>"dude there are like forms"
>"wow i didnt looked at it in this manner"

Attached: 36577574175775.png (539x715, 340K)

Hume and Frankfurt on compatablism
People who deny all forms of free will are usually edge lords who want to have a deep reason for being an edge lord

You're welcome, I'm glad to help.

Attached: FBI.png (501x375, 127K)

Its not up yet and I'm dying to leave it open and pretend like I'm reading.

Please anons.

Attached: file.png (1261x884, 200K)

When I realised my interpretation of Stalker that was pretty epic.

I am that I am.

evolution as dogmatic philosophy that makes no sense as one

All that is is.

His judgement mistakes the real value of presence. Gadamer spoke around it well.

That we can learn about the past by now - Kojima

A true genius.

"God exists"

Thanks for the sources! Did you study philosophy formally?

Oswald Spengler's concept of 'civilizations' as cultures with a natural lifespan and an inevitable decline.

You should read schopenhauer's Fourfold Root of the PSR if you haven't, that blew my mind, specifically how he separates material causality and immaterial reason into two different roots, the principle of becoming and the principle of knowing. Also blew my mind that the PSR is given to us a priori, so any question of how or why the universe exists only in the human mind

Kek what