/lit/ - Literature

>>14581280
>700 year old metaphysical word games
>undefeated
kek

>>14581280
>refuted by guenon

>>14581287
>Imagine atheists being so retarded they cant even finish a word game.
Its to be expected I guess.

>>14581280
>declaring a winner of is real! vs. Is not real!
All participants are retarded

>>14581318
To add to this: Spirituality is the cope olympics.

>>14581302
What did Guénon say about Aquinas

>>14581412
that he a bitch ass nibba

>>14581412
Not him but Guenon quite liked Aquinas, he just liked Shankara more.

For me, it's the Saint Augustine.

>>14581280
*refutes you*
wow that was easy

>>14581758
City of God was pretty neat, and my favorite roman is Julian.

>>14581280
Aquinas himself admitted his work was shit and tried to burn it

>>14581772
*refutes you, heliocentrism, materialists, and ends the reign of quantity while rehabilitating a genuine trinitarian non-dualist gnosis in the sense that Saint Paul understood it, not the fake and gay gnosticism, via a thomist understanding of quantum mechanics*

>>14581800
mein kampf did all that but better

>>14581287
>waaaaaah they’re word games because I can’t immediately refute them

>>14581800
that actually sounds interesting as fuck. what do i need to read before i can understand it?

>>14581940
>what do I need to read before I can understand nonsense
nothing, chow down on some paint chips and crack it open

>>14581280

>“I can do no more. Such secrets have been revealed to me that all I have written now appears to be of little value” - Thomas Aquinas

>>14581800
Even if I know no quantum mechanics or physics beyond basic newtonian mechanics? THen it must be a shit book

>>14581287
Literally not an argument

*AHEM*

>>14582553
my brain is infinitely empty. check mate

>>14581287
>NOOOOOO!!!! YOU CAN'T JUST SAY THAT GOD ISN'T A MAGIC MAN SKY FRIEND!!!! HOW CAN I REFUTE THAT IN MY HIGH SCHOOL ATHIEST CLUB IF I ACTUALLY HAVE TO READ AND UNDERSTAND PHILOSOPHICAL ARGUMENTS THAT EXTEND BEYOND SURFACE LEVEL BULLSHIT????????

>>14582612
>anyone who doesn't agree with my preposterous metaphysical system is a 17yo hysterical atheist
if God were real, he'd be disappointed in you

>>14582584
Based.

>>14581412
>>14581302
Guenon praised Aquinas and nearly wrote a whole book on him. The Reign of Quantity is based almost entirely on Scholastic Metaphysics. He just said that Aquinas needed to go further into the realm of non-being (a dubious claim that he doesn't expound upon)

>>14582612
>God pilled
>Onions posting
pick one

>>14583116
this

Since Aquinas is getting brought up I want to mention I find his theory on werewolves interesting. He says demons can transmute flesh consistent with the Bible describing the staffs turning into snakes in Egypt. However, he says the soul can only be transmuted by God. Therefore, a werewolf would have full human agency and mind. Does /lit/ agree with this?

>>14581280
If you ignore 700 years of philosophy and science. It's very christian of you to stop engaging with anything past the middle ages.

>>14583116
>He just said that Aquinas needed to go further into the realm of non-being (a dubious claim that he doesn't expound upon)
Guénon is right, the claim is hardly dubious. Aquinas and Aristotle are correct that we can deduce that there must be an 'unmoved mover' first cause and that explanations for the universe such as a beginningless series of cause and effect and other solutions involving infinite regresses are not sufficient explanations for how and why the world comes into being. However, Aquinas ends up positing a fundamental and irreconcilable dualism between creator vs. creation; in some of the writings of Advaita Vedānta such as Gauḍapāda's Māṇḍukya Kārikā (and in Śaṅkarācārya's commentary on said text) they delve much deeper into the metaphysics of non-being, (or of the unmanifest and Universal Possibility if you will) than Aquinas does to show that dualism is really incoherent when one examines all of its implications closely enough, it's the Biblical background of Aquinas that makes him still end up with a dualistic metaphysics despite what else he gets right. But the idea that the eternal and immutable Infinite can give rise to the world as a real created product existing separate from It isn't very logically consistent for various reasons. The official position of the Catholic church differs from Aquinas insofar as they accept creation ex-nihilio (which Vedānta explains is not coherent) whereas Aquinas disagreed with creation ex-nihilio and accepted the existence of a "primordial matter' co-existing eternally with God from which God shapes the world, but any God co-existing eternally with something else is not truly Infinite in a metaphysical sense; in order for this to be true it would have to admit of absolutely nothing existing as something separate from God, or He would cease to be completely infinite via Him being delimited by that very thing not included within Him. Such issues among others indicate some of the flaws of Aquinas' metaphysics and why Guénon considered it to be admirable in certain regards but otherwise incomplete. Guénon considered the metaphysical position of Advaita Vedānta (i.e. non-dualism) to be fully correct, with perhaps the closest western system approaching it being that of Eriugena, who comes very close to it in his writings and whom Guénon cites in his book on Vedānta. Reading this short article summarizing some of Guénon's metaphysical views may help clear things up a bit.

http://traditionalhikma.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/The-Logic-of-the-Absolute-the-Metaphysical-Writings-of-Rene-Guenon-by-Peter-Samsel-.pdf

>>14581280
When Thomas was a young monk he was often mocked by his colleagues. Some day at the library one of them said "Look! There's a donkey flying in the sky". Thomas rushed to the window, causing much laughter among the other monks. Then he said to them "I have less trouble imagining donkeys can fly, than I have imagining monks can be liars".

>>14581800
based

>>14581280
B A S E D

>>14582584
>all phenomenological conclusions are applicable on his own theory therefore it has 0 value

cucked himself by trying to cuck metaphysics

>>14581794
Thats what every self aware creative does

>>14586102
not every

>>14584846
Wrong

>>14581280
what do I need to read before I'm ready for Aquinas?

>>14581412
Scholasticism was considered by Guenon the gold standard of metaphysics for the west (the east went further though).

>Thomas “a kike” -enas
>muh essence
>muh substance

>>14585674
so aquinas forgot that non-being is a thing?

i don't get it

>>14587883
You'd have to study Vedanta to see where the divergence is and why Guenon takes the position that he does

>>14581772
Just might be the gayest post of this thread.

what christian author is next in reading order after him

>>14588673
Christian authors simply cease to exist once you get past medieval times.

UNDEFEATED LADS

>>14588116
so you can't explain it but you can assure me it's important and has massive ramifications if neglected?

>>14581800
Interpretations of quantum mechanics is my specialty, but Wolfgang Smith doesn't really add anything to the table. He gives his take on some superficial issues that aren't really paradoxical or problematic, and completely avoids addressing the core problem of nonlocal causation.

>>14588819
if you want to understand Guenon

>>14588673
Duns Scotus & William of Ockham

>>14588673
Just read mystics and enter the void to be with Him

>>14588841
what have you read by him?

>>14581280
His argumentation only makes sense if one already believes in one absolute divine being. Operating under a polytheistic or atheistic worldview, his claims lose all meaning.

Also, does god have a personality, a character? If so, did he form that himself and has been therefore a time without it? Or has he always had his character and as such a not totally free will?

Don’t bump garbage threads

I've bumped your mom. This is high art in comparison.

Who published the best version of Summa Theologica?

>>14584846
gb2 reddit

>>14584846
>empty will before the universe
>personal power beyond form
Watch me Hegel my way out of these handcuffs

>>14581876
My diary desu did mein kampf but better

ON

>>14587135
Many.

>>14581772
>>14584846

>he thinks the unmoved mover argument was about setting the universe in motion like a set of dominos

>>14584846
>>14581772
>>14592130

>>14590919
this

Aquinas (pbuh) was a based Guénonian chad (pbuh).

>>14582553
That's not really a refutation of his work, though. "Eye has not seen, and ear has not heard", etc.
>>14585674
But Aquinas did teach creation ex nihilo, and that such a formless matter did not exist.
>>14590898
He answers these questions, not doing your research doesn't speak for your arguments.

>>14581280
*blocks your path*

>>14595150
yike

>>14581302
Nope.
Guenon metaphysical system is absurd.
The all possibility thingy he put at the top of his system inverts the Aquinas system.
So of the two or Aquinas is wrong or Guenon is wrong.
But Aquinas system is logically strict, the God he describes must be only God possible, there can't be any other "kind" God but that one by the very definition of God.
Whatever Guenon thought to describe wasn't God.
Reading all Guenon shows the nihilistic nature of his ideas.

>>14584510
The official stance of Catholicism is that such transformation is purely illusory.

>>14596485
Imagine being this incorrect.

>>14583165
The onions meme is literally atheists

>>14591276
THE