/lit/ - Literature

What area of metaphysics have you studied, OP?

>>16270542
Mainly Ontology and Causality
Heidegger and Wittgenstein were by far the authors who gave me most insight

>>16270520
Enhanced pattern recognition

>>16270551
Interesting. Have you looked at all into more ancient metaphysics? Say, what do you get out of the emerald tablet, for example?

>>16270597
I'm going for Aristotle next. So far I've only read Nietzsche, Heidegger, Sloterdijk, Evola and Wittgenstein

>>16270520
>read so much pseud shit that now he sees a black cock in every cigar
I'm afraid your intelligence diminished instead.

>>16270520
Check out Bergson, Spinoza, Whitehead or Deleuze. They’re process metaphysicians and you’ll love it

>>16270615
You didn't start with the Greeks? Mein gott!

>>16270620
all of those people were retroactively refuted by Guenon, Shankara and Parmenides, if anyone loves them they surely must do so out of pity

>>16270551
It confuses me a little when people say the study 'ontology' generally, as it is almost synonymous with metaphysics. Identity, persistence, philosophy of time, universals, mereology, modality, all basically count as 'ontology' ie. 'what is'. If we're to take ontology as seperate of those, we're basically left with "are there non-natural objects?" "Are there nonexistent objects?" But even these are best left for their specific areas.
But then there's a lot of thing people call metaphysics that I don't understand.

>>16270653
And all of those people were retroactively refuted by De Bopha. Try to keep up.

>>16270615
Weak tier

You need Plotinus, Hegel and Nagarjuna at the very least to really unlock the good shit. Otherwise you've just beating around the bushes.

>>16270620
>Spinoza
Not a process metaphysician

>>16270689
literally who

>>16270725
De bopha these nuts

>>16270729

>>16270729
kek

>>16270615
>I'm going for Aristotle next
good
you should then read Kant. I dont know why you havent if you jumped in at Wittgebstein, seems like starting near the end.

>>16270520
Wait till you study higher mathematics.

>>16270653
Chad Being vs virgin Becoming

>>16270854
Being is for deterministic losers.
I'll be becooooooming until I die nigga

>>16270720
He believed the one substance was a changing one and his entire philosophy was one of immanence.

>>16270615
NO! Read Plato first, then the presocratics, then Aristotle. And the presocratics are very small.

But then you must also educate your heart, so you should read Homer, Hesiod, Aeschylus, Sophocles and Euripides at some point of reading the Greeks. I might even go so far as to so no other poets are more important, and very few philosophers are in regards to the Greeks either.

>>16270865
That's not what Heraclitus said bro, you're misunderstanding the river metaphor.

>>16270965
He is not a process philosopher
Problems with Spinoza:
1)no clinamen
2.)no will to change (conatus)
3)atemporal (sub specie aeternatis)
4)one substance negates pluralism

>>16270694
Casual shit. What he really needs to ascend is Bohme, Girard and Damascius

>>16271028
Too esoteric. Not that their stuff doesn't have value, but you're not trying to read metaphysics for spiritual brownie points, you're trying to unlock the universe ASAP.

>>16270520
True

>>16270520
Congrats you've into'd meaningful science.

>>16270520
blessed thread

>>16271037
speak for yourself I literally only care about spiritual brownie points
>>16271028
which works specifically would you recommend?

>>16270520
you are living in your head now more than ever. be careful anon.

>>16271932
Good. Finally I have some secession from normie shit

>>16270865
>I'll be becooooooming until I die nigga
>I'll be
>I
>be

>>16272012
I'm becoooming being

>>16272022
>I'm becoooming being
>I'm
>I
>am

>>16272012

The finite verb in that sentence is will, not be. Brainlet.

>>16270729

>>16272029
nigga

>>16270668
Ontology is the being of objects, metaphysics is the framework of the material universe, like physics, and immaterial. To understand the metaphysics is to understand the framework or mechanism to get to the conclusions. The ontology is understanding the being of one thing (which takes metaphysical axioms like how material things come into existence, ontological dimension, the proper way things relate w each other etc).

>>16271010
Why Plato before the Presocratics?

>>16272130
It has more conclusions from his metaphysics. You can see it plain and obvious how many fields his metaphysics covers. Parmenides/Heraclitus are metaphysical extremists but they don't have a lot of surviving work and were from an earlier time before philosophy took a great hold due to plato

>>16270551
>tfw you go from wittgenstein and heidegger to a systematic chronological reading of ancient philosophy

>>16270520
>>16270619
>consume so much /pol/ and take all the pills until you start seeing politics in everything
>mom tells me to clean my sheets
>call her a hygiene kike roastie

>>16271013
A man cannot walk into the same river twice, as the river is not the same and the man is not the same. This would show a constant “becoming” of something that isn’t what it was before. Like how the slope of a line changes if the line is curved.

>>16272658
And yet it is.. Heraclitus and Parmenides were getting at the same thing

>>16271910
For Bohme:
Mysterium Magnum, Aurora, 40 Questions Concerning the Soul, The Threefold Life, The Signature of All Things, The Clavis
For Damascius:
Difficulties and Solutions of First Principles (I would also recommend reading Proclus' Elements of Theology, Plotinus' Enneads and Plato/Aristotle's Complete Works as pre-cursors)
For Girard:
Violence and the Sacred, Things Hidden Since the Foundation of the World, I See Satan Fall Like Lightning
Lacan, Freud, Foucault, Nietzsche, Levi-Strauss and Heidegger might all be helpful with Girard, being the Darwin of Sociology as Serres put it.

I'm currently reading Descartes Discourse on Method. It's cool. Once I finish it I'll start reading his Mediations on First Philosophy.

>>16270668
Quine divided metaphysics into Ontology (what objects exist) and Ideology (what is true of those objects). In the context of a formal system, ontology is the domain of discourse, and ideology is the set of atomic predicates.

>>16272658
>A man cannot walk into the same river twice
You're falsely assuming the man persists over time.

>>16273586
He literally says
>the man is not the same
Did you even read what he wrote?

>>16270854
>>16270865
AHHHHHHHHHH I’M BECOOOOOOOOOOOMINGGGGGGGGGGG

>>16273607
Persistence is supposed to occur in spite of change, not in the absence of it.

>>16271010
>Hesiod
>educate your heart
He was shit lmao

>>16270520
same desu

>>16270780
Because hes fucking retarded

>>16273244
Thanks breh

>>16271037
What is metaphysics and why would someone want to learn it?

>>16271910
Well, alright then.

>>16274196
It's like the name suggests. It's what happens "above" or "beyond" the workings of mere physical matter. It concerns things about the nature of existence, the nature of perception, how reality operates "under the surface" of our limited five senses, and so on.

Ask your average "rationalist" western thinker and they will, at best, say it's a nice endeavour but that it ultimately has no absolute answers, or whatever answers you can come up with are at best based on reasoned speculation. They would be wrong.

There are absolute, actual truths to how this universe operates that modern science and philosophy has yet to accept. Philosophy is not a mere thinkng game but a powerful too for spiritual, emotional and intellectual development. Metaphysics is key in all this because without it you're left trying to operate in a world that you fundamentally don't understand.

It's the actual redpill, so to speak.

>>16270729
R E K T
E
K
T

>>16275997
Fuck off back to r*ddit with your naive certainty

>>16270729

>>16272265
Kek

>>16273244

Girard is cringe

>>16276775

I don't have much to add to my shitpost except to say that Girard' philosophy is mostly scaffolding for his scapegoat theory, which plays into a style of socially fashionable postwar race and Holocaust moralizing. His interpretation of human nature is very one dimensional, and to suit his moralistic outlook, totally dismisses the influences if reason, beauty, inspiration, in human nature. He frames society as in essence a vicious competition between consoomers where moral norms exist only as a result of discharges if excess consoom energy upon an innocent bystander, like perhaps a negro or jew.

>>16276801
You didn't even read Violence and the Sacred if you think this, there is no moralizing element to it and the scapegoat theory relies on the surrogate victim and sacrificial rites. You are reading Girard wrong, he is more like a genealogist in the strand of a Foucault/Nietzsche. Where do you even find moralizing in his work at all? If anything all he does is deconstruct institutions like the law and morality as being nothing more than products of a coping mechanism to escape an inherent psycho-social death drive contained within the mimetic framework.
>reason, beauty, inspiration
nothing to do with mimetic drives. Beauty is explained away by desire.

>>16276412

implying naive certainty and folk psychology isn't banned, shadow banned and deleted from there

All you get is faggots sucking sciences dick

>>16275997
>There are absolute, actual truths to how this universe operates that modern science and philosophy has yet to accept. Philosophy is not a mere thinkng game but a powerful too for spiritual, emotional and intellectual development. Metaphysics is key in all this because without it you're left trying to operate in a world that you fundamentally don't understand.

I can only accept as an artform or theoretical discipline with a long tradition. But I can't take it seriously whatsoever. I'm a total materialist in every meaningful sense of comprehending human existence and the world. You need a certain temperament to get into it which I don't have.

>>16275997
Thank you. I asked in another thread and found their answer more understandable:
>>16275556
>It's like physics is framework for how material universe works, metaphysics is immaterial and material where you get into ontological dimensions like dualism vs monism vs pluralism and realism vs idealism, physicalism vs metaphysics (immaterial conception of reality). With a broad and true enough metaphysics you can have an opinion on everything from an overview including creation etc. You'll have a logic that follows, math, natural language, programming language... if it's good enough even an ai. Everyone has a framework for reality but most of ours are taken by contemporary biases and lead us down the same path and you can't criticize it which is why it's funny watching commies and nazis attack liberalism but effectively copy every liberal export imaginable (for example, worker bucks vs dollars as a means to get rid of capitalism etc). It all starts with a good metaphysics.

>>16270520
Or maybe you became more schizophrenic?
Do the patterns you see make sense to other people?

>>16277773
>Do the patterns you see make sense to other people?
I mean yeah, if properly expressed

>>16277864
Post an example.

>>16277958
Example of what?

Whenever I see threads like these I wonder what drugs the average anon here is on. Ive been reading Kant for a week now and it hast changed my life one bit, why would it anyways?

>>16278062
> Ive been reading Kant for a week now and it hast changed my life one bit
That’s because Kant is pseudo-metaphysics, read Guenon for the real redpill on metaphysics

>>16270551
What insight? Provide an example.

>>16270729
Got em

>>16271037
>unlock the universe
No one has ever done this, why would you be the exception?

>>16278091
>Guénon
>things were good 2600 years ago, now they're bad
>Indians said so so it's true
>there's nothing we can do about it
>no, we can't even reconstruct why it was better, we just know that it was
Great stuff, really "unlocking the universe"

>>16277155
>>16273244
does girard attribute to the emergence of the sacred solely the violent act? i do like and think it is insightful his connection between violence and the sacred, but i don't think it emerged and came to human consciousness solely thorough violence. also ahhh i want to read him but i really dont care about nietzsche and levi-strauss, and i'd like to read a lot of other things before lacan, freud and foucault. why do you thinkmy understanding of girard could be impaired without reading them priorly?

>>16270729
HAHAHAHAHA

>>16278124
>things were good 2600 years ago
actually they have always been shit, but much better than any period from ~1300 onwards. and yeah any period before that was better.

>indians said so so it's true
they knew a lot indeed

>there is nothing we can do about it
try reading his works. we can do things still
>no we can't even reconstruct why it was better
we can and he did demonstrate why it was better, again: try reading his works instead of 4chan posts about him

>>16278171
Literally the first two chapters of Crisis of the Modern World are about how the loss of tradition is a done deal, the cycle/pendulum is inevitable, and attempts to larp as "traditionalist" are embarrassing, misinformed, and counterproductive

>>16278793
apparently you haven't passed these first two chapters, right? he says afterwards that it does not mean that there is nothing to be done, but that we could still manage to preserve some traditional doctrines and in their genuine aspect

>>16278140
I mainly mentioned them as supplementary reading, realistically Girard is very accessible and requires little to no pre-reqs. He does bring Levi-Strauss and Freud up a lot in VnS, but you don't necessarily have to read either to grasp what Girard is getting at with them. Lacan is useful because his take on the concept of desire is eerily similar to Girard, but again by no means is it necessary to read him. Girard doesn't think that Violence and Ritual are merely psychological forces at play, there is a metaphysical aspect to his theories as well, read his work on Christianity if you want to further investigate this side of him. Regarding the sacred itself, he does believe that it emerges from the "Sacrificial Crisis" spurred on by mimetic desire, he sees this as the driving force behind Tragedy as well. Read the first few chapters of Violence and the Sacred for yourself and see if you agree with his thesis, I can't really elaborate on the full theory in one post.

>>16275997
>Ask your average "rationalist" western thinker and they will, at best, say it's a nice endeavour but that it ultimately has no absolute answers, or whatever answers you can come up with are at best based on reasoned speculation. They would be wrong.
Can you prove this?
>There are absolute, actual truths to how this universe operates that modern science and philosophy has yet to accept.
What are these truths?

>>16279007
So Violence and Sacred is a good starting point, I assume. I remember someone recommending Deceit, Desire and the Novel as a starting point. What do you think?

>Regarding the sacred itself, he does believe that it emerges from the "Sacrificial Crisis" spurred on by mimetic desire.
From what I skimmed over a while ago as well in addition to this, this idea of the sacred seems to be loaded with an evolutionary tool instead of something inherent in human consciousness and primitive metaphysical intuitions. I'm certainly interested in reading his books on Christianity too.

>>16277444
What do you think about the hard problem of consciousness?

>>16277444
what is matter to you

>>16270694
Based Mahāyāna Platonist poster

>>16279046
Either book is a good starting point, I personally read Violence and the Sacred first and has no problems with it. The Sacred is indeed "evolutionary" in the sense that it develops as a reactive force against the event of Reciprocal Violence. But to Girard, this evolutionary aspect isn't totally stripped of metaphysical significance; he is by no means a materialist and he is not positing a merely psychological explanation of human behavior. The nature of Violence and Desire play key roles in both his theology and his understanding of human behavior and institutions.

>>16279516
He'll probably get into the details of the emergence of the sacred in his Violence and the Sacred, I'll start with it. Thank you anon.

>>16279045
>Can you prove this?
I could give you all the philosophical arguments in the world (things like how truth necessarily exists, how materialism is based on flawed epistemology, etc.) but so long as you don't have direct experience of these truths yourself it'll all just be intellectual jargon floating around in your head.

>What are these truths?
Too many to count, but some things like:

>Consciousness/Mind/God is fundamental to reality, not matter
>Time is fluid and non-linear
>Language constructs reality
>Life and death are synonymous with each other
>There is a masculine and a feminine dimension to life

And so on.

>>16270520
There is no such thing as abstract patterns. If it is abstract, there is no pattern.
Read Heidegger.