/lit/ - Literature

>>16407063
>>16409401
Nvm found him, he was in the comment section, actually he was the only person in the comment section, and twice.

https://www.youtube.com/c/TheUnists/videos

>>15936405
1. Plato
2. Aristotle
3. Kant
4. Heidegger
And there are other great thinkers like Hegel and Schopenhauer, or Nietzsche, or the presocratics like Heraclitus. There are also the great Eastern philosophers like Laozi, who if you're looking for someone who can top Plato, you might want to look into the Tao Te Ching. Absolutely amazing. And there is after all the Bible, specifically the New Testament, which lays the base for all further philosophy in the West after the Greeks; you have to understand Christianity to understand Hegel, or any of these thinkers. Even if you disagree with it, it's genius and enormous value cannot be denied.

>>15924524
>"It literally doesn't."
>implying architecture is not constructed from dwelling, and in this further constructs dwelling

>>15049250
Mishima LITERALLY explains it in that video, but, in essence, if the natural world is the absolute justifier of all and their religion itself is based there and the personifying and extrapolating force of it all and such, then how (as Heidegger shows) can man find anything more than that absolute and most sublime of things-- death. And when expressed dualistically(only in the technical sense) they look to life and death in a natural acceptance(or rather expectance for them) and all the rivers of the world flow together in beauty, sexuality, heroism, brutality, gentleness, love, hate, responsibility and such and so forth.

However one must make a definitive difference between the naturally East Asian, and in this specific character, Japanese mindset of a (religiously) natural inhabitance, and that of the European(which we can see best in the Norse religion). I don't think so highly of myself that I can draw such vast and absolute differences in perspective, or even identify some root-essence from which one finds a manifest origin, but I can say a few words to approach the mood of it all.

If we agree that the innermost character of cultural functions and features and cultures themselves originate from a biological impulse which is racially unique, and that further every single detail is at the very least coloured by race even if found in various other differing races cultures: then we may be able to find some basic ground for which to begin what Heidegger tried and succeeded to do in great-part at least, that of defining mans finite experience(so as to see the nature of Being which one should remember is a verb and noun), through a racially non-conscious mindset. We can say that Heidegger reached into something beyond race, and in many ways beyond life (in the sense of not being particularised to any), however what individual(in the sense of a particular) character there is in there is racial. Another problem is that I should probably have read Being and Time before using Heidegger as an example but nevertheless again, it should do for a 4chan post.

Where there is these vastness of the phenomena, a framework of meaning which impels itself from outside so to speak, that is from nature, --and that as a defining of Being-- the symbol comes forward to beckon so many aspects into one, as if the centre of that web where everything connects, we can take it to be a great image of that foregrounded variation which we can never in whole by its particulars, but as if inspecting grow gradual knowledge from the directions it gives off. And yet further interrogation into the character-of-a-whole will explain this further. Where it was impossible to explain, the cultural image, ideally the hero or descending from him; truth and the truth of universal life, Being, is made clear.

>>15031231
And whether the unconscious "perception" of Being is procedural or genetico-eternal, should be scientifically investigated, but does not really matter for this.

>“There is a thinking more rigorous than the conceptual”
~Martin Heidegger

>“The Tao is beyond is and is not. How do I know this? I look inside myself and see.”
~Lao Tzu

>“...the most extreme sharpness and depth of
thought belongs to genuine and great mysticism”
~Martin Heidegger


It is something unconscious, or as many have called it supraconscious- because it is something higher and deeper, and overall greater. Conscious definitions imposed by an ego type terminology are merely constructions to it, whether rational or irrational here or there as absolutes. This is exemplified by Heidegger's "there-ness"; and naturally this all follows from a realisation of the dominance of experience over typical thought, a mystical experience. One must really see the unconscious as an absolute base for all experience, and so something more than which can be "engaged with" but is always engaged and always somewhat "there"- what follows is a realisation of it. It is just that for many the "mind" is confused with or interchangeable for the conscious experience, and hence comes the term "beyond the mind". Or rather is it "underneath the mind":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3MCtPhoRcIw

>“There is a thinking more rigorous than the conceptual”
~Martin Heidegger

>“The Tao is beyond is and is not. How do I know this? I look inside myself and see.”
~Lao Tzu

“...the most extreme sharpness and depth of
thought belongs to genuine and great mysticism”
~Martin Heidegger

>>14843702
Plato, but the most important figure would be Christ.