/lit/ - Literature

>>19550836
τὸ γὰρ αὐτὸ νοεῖν ἐστίν τε καὶ εἶναι.

>>19550836
>Desk-heart!
>budd-huh?

>>19550836
Read Spinoza

>”GOD thought, therefore I AM”

>>19550836
>I am, therefore I think
What even is this?

>>19550889
hopefully your razor becomes self aware


>>19550836
i could BE without self reflection - i might say "i perceive therefore i am" - regardless of ones opinions on perception and aesthetics - saying "i perceive" is an act of self awareness of one's perceiving and there being a one who perceives - it is to insert the cogito - I THINK - into the stream of thought. The quiddity of I, the quiddity I BEING and THINKING.
I am I and I am thinking and my thinking makes me see both my I and my thinking - so I think therefore I am.

not all I AMs think i suppose, nor are they self reflective, but all I AMS that THINK, know that they AM.

>>19550890
I suppose it's the idea of an eternal observer that is just "there" and from that thought can occur. Read the upanishads and the bhagavad gita. Basically the opposite idea of 1600ish century euro philosophy.

>>19550852
Can you say that in English anon?

>>19550889
Sorry, who is that? He looks like the ultimate neckbeard! He is clean shav3n on the face but has a full beard on his neck?
Two questions:
A) who is that?
B) Where is his fedora?

>>19550916
But I think that's the argument of conciousness, existance and thought. Does being mean anything if you can't think? Lao Tzu would maintain that you can be all knowing and all conscious but it's hard to do if you're thinking: because thinking is creating illusions.

>>19550950
>Does being mean anything if you can't think?
Yes, I distinctly remember being an infant, or maybe 1-2 years old, without thinking. I was without reflecting that I was.

>>19550859
Buddha is very: huh?

Never quite thought of Descartes as a desk. More like a drunk Frenchman who likes cheese.

>>19550956
Right. I do agree. And I think that's a point Descartes and many euro philosophers seemed to overlook.
The upanishads are pretty trippy with talking of all that jazz.

>>19550956
But also, to play devils advocate: if you 'remember' hen you were thinking, just that your memory wasn't very good.
But good enough to know. If you can't remember something did it happen? I mean sure, I'm sure it did. But, does that mean anything to you? Is there being outside of you? Lao Tzu on this point would disagree.

Both attitudes stem from valuable reflections depending on what relation between our consciousness and 'anything else' we find helpful/appealing/needed. The way I see it, if you unpack this concept further you can ask yourself whether consciousness and existence is the same, different, unrelated or merged in the same way everything which is of some shape has some color, and every colored item is of a shape, but they are not identical qualities. In the case of 'thinking and being', its not like the two cause each other to be but thinking is what let's you observe your predicament. 'Being so thinking' illustrates a belief in an eternal ever-present consciousnesses that is then an inherent feature of the whole universe as One Thing, including (You)

>>19550836
The Buddha's statement is, "I am not therefore I think", or in Michelstaedter's words:
non-entia coagito, ergo non sum.

>>19550970
>And I think that's a point Descartes and many euro philosophers seemed to overlook.
Yes, and this segues into their views on animals, since animals can be without necessarily reflecting that they are (as we know it).

Euro philosophers are demiurge compliant cyborgs, it's no wonder they can't extrapolate from their own non-cognitive awareness to the inner life of animals, because they never had any. Who they are emerged with their cognitive capacity. Weininger talks about this, or at least hints at it.

>>19550985
Instead of a line, imagine a pointillism: I am at every point, even if I don't necessarily "remember" being what I was at a previous point. I don't think it's an oblivion, actually the precise opposite: aren't we describing a flow state? Being so attuned to life, it isn't leeched by memory/reflection?

I once read that trees are not dumb and mute, but rather they APPEAR dumb and mute just because they're that more alive, more immersed in the Present, than any of us. "Phenomenal immediacy is a kind of darkness."

>>19550990
That's seems a fair assessment. What I draw from this as a fundamental discrepancy, (if I'm to play the pessimistic role) since you did the positive, and to stay on topic:
Someone like Descartes believed in the self and that you are a moving part in relationbto everything else, if you think/observe you can break a concept into small components and understand the inner workings. That's perhaps practically why Europeans were expert clockmakers.
However, someone like the Buddha would maintain by trying to divide anything into smaller pieces you completely loose track of the whole. You create illusions, one layer at a time building a maze for yourself.
No wonder the buddhists weren't expert clock makers. But: they sure knew how to treat a fellow human being.
If I cut you into small pieces with a knife can I understand you? Probably not, probably missing the ball.

>>19551012
t. not anon to who(m) you replied by I agree I think

>>19551026
What

You have misunderstood Descartes' claim.
First of all, the "I" is not the psychological I (what people call personal identity). In this case the I is just the phenomenical subject of a certain series of representations (if there's a representation of a blue sky, the cartesian I is simply the subject that is representing said blue sky). Since Buddhists do not deny the phenomenological I (which is part of the Five Aggregates), there's no contradiction here between buddhism and cartesian philosophy.

Secondly, the sentence "I think therefore I am" is not meant to express any causal phenomenon. Descartes is NOT saying that we are because we think (this, at best, is a consequence of what he's saying here, which will have to be motivated with other arguments), as if we make ourselves exist out of nothing with an act of thinking. It helps to remember when Descartes says this sentence. He says it when he's examining his hyperbolic doubt, in which he tried to imagine to what extent an evil demon could have tricked him into believing in certain items of knowledge. Descartes realized that the demon could have tricked him about the truths of the world, of morality, and even mathematical truths. Suddenly he realizes that the demon could not have possibly tricked Descartes into believing that Descartes exists, since, if Descartes is capable of being tricked, then he already exists. In this sense "I think, therefore I am" can be read as "I think, therefore I can be sure of my own existence".

>>19551001
You're not wrong. But being and non being are essentially just negatives of each other. So syntax is of no consequence unless you've established relatable point.
Music, for instance: can be played in one key transposed to another. The key is the tone, but the relations are the journey. Much like not being and being. You can't be one without the other.
I think it's a misunderstanding of westerns. I spoke to a buddhist monk and he said he was nothibg but that he was very much something. Something all the time.
What do I know though. I'm just a nerd, not a monk.

>>19551019
Yeah I like your clock context I think about it sometimes too, the Westerners cognition became perfectly suited for things like clocks and arranging your life around a clock, measuring time more and more accurately so as to conceptualize the flow of change and maybe rationalize it. If I were to have best of both worlds, I would like to be able to tell the time and not care what the hour is, or rather be satisfies whatever hour it is

>>19551033
>I agree, I think*
I think I agree with your comment, with what you typed, I liked the way you described it

>>19551043
That's what I thought. All good.

The intuitions about Euro phil itt are sound. Read European philosophy, understand it, know it, taste it, but never sell your soul to it. It is demonic.

>>19551012
There may be something to that pointilism think. Eastern philosophy puts a stress on experience. And I remember in my early 20s doing copious amounts of mushrooms and LSD. I remember a few moments of not doing anything sitting absolutely still and somehow being everywhere. The world was moving but I was still. Only because I was still, did I notice. Had I moved mayne everything else would be still.
I've noticed this is lesser degrees, but noticeable none the less in meditation.
I can't do psychedelics anymore, can't even drink coffee. I'm way to wired in my natural state these days.

>>19551061
Like I said, "phenomenal immediacy is a kind of darkness." The more conscious you think you are, the more you're shutting out receptivities that can only come to the fore when you sit still. Now do you understand? What an honest-to-god DEMONIC program modern life is? Its obsession with prodoocing, min/maxing time, etc.?

>>19551037
Yeah it's interesting. Not to get too off topic, but I have a friend who is super versed in philosophy, very sharp guy, conservative American patriot in the war.
He hates the metric system of Europe:
He thinks it's just a way to build a pyramid power structure.
When I asked him why he preferred the American system which is muxh more problematic and random, he said:
"Yeah, a foot was as long as it wanted to be because we have a constitution".
I don't find it practical but I found it interesting how ones views/outlook on life even affect mathematics and calculation.

>>19550950
if i am busy being, i cant bother with lao Tzu being bust about being

>>19551057
It never teaches you how to get laid or make friends. I had more women and friends at the age of 16 than Schopenhauer and Nietzsche put together. Which means 1 woman would suffice.

>>19551093
oh wow you got good feelies in your dickie, epic bro, schope and nietzsche were a thousand times the soul you'll ever be.

>>19551071
I do. I was there today. I make good money at work but I wasn't the perfect cog, I work in engineering and decided to make some improvements (which are better) but I'm going into a hearing on monday for a 'security breach' thing. I could get fired. I've been drinking wine all day to calm my nerves. I know I'm getting personal, but again:
Experience right. It's a perfect example of the demons of the modern world.

>>19551092
Or you can't bother thinking about him or you being?

>>19551107
Then you understand. And that's just a shitty job situation, imagine the absolute ocean of suffering that makes all this senseless farting around for funko pops possible. I'm not saying be a rock and sleep in your own shit, but there are limits.

Whatever. I got out. The rat race is a dim memory for me. I live a quiet, humble life and I couldn't be happier.

>>19551099
Yeah well hopefully I won't cry in front of a horse and go into a mental i institution and kill myself.
They were unhappy nerds. I wanna be happy and I'm getting married and like life.
Don't get me wrong I respect Nietzsche and Schopenhauer, read then etc. But they're neckbeards bro. The buddha and Plato were way more chill.

>>19551099
By the way anon: you don't know me. You're making yourself look stupid by assuming you know the first thing about me. I'm somehow bad because women like me: okay bro, cool.

>>19551129
monks ;like pusy fyi

>>19551124
hahaha you're a child man, nobody cares that you rode a pipeline precision engineered to funnel midwits like you into suburbia with your white picket fences and ikea furniture. they were unhappy because they felt and saw more than you'll ever did.

>>19551129
>uuuh but nietzsche and schopenhauer, they were totally [modern american social phenomenon]

Save it, retard.

>>19551122
Very nice. May I ask how you live or what you're doing? I'd feel more rude hadn't I shared a few personal details myself. I am curious.

>>19551135
Thanks anon. Lol

>>19551146
I am self-employed. I just mostly mind my own business, make a bit of money, exercise, read, and write. And I don't wear the mask.

>>19551142
You seem angry. I'm sorry. Again, just because I have something that I'm passionate and good at, I admit. Why do you think I'm about the white picket fence life?
I could have sworn I put a good word in for Plato, a serious philosopher, not a perv. And he was a stoic.
Why do you feel the need to insult me? You don't know me, I didn't say anything about you and thirdly: you can't seem to understand I was making a joke.
Are you one of those "cancel Dave Chappelle" guys? Cause lemme tell you: Dave Chappelle ain't going nowhere but to the bank.

>>19551156
Nice. I should exercise more, I use my mind more than my body (unless it's with my wife) and doing that is probably a sin (the one over the other thing, that is).
You don't do the mask thing, is that a metaphor or in relationbto the pandemic thing?

>>19551193
It's just about control, control, control. I hate these people and the lives they lead, why would I sacrifice my bodily autonomy to help prop up a system I disagree with on every thinkable level?

>>19550836
I think, therefore my thoughts exist

>>19551198
You should join the libertarians. I somewhat fancy myself one. As long as you're not hurting anyone, your life is yours.
Or, I suppose you're living as one whether you'd use the label or not.
I live in a very socialist city, mainly for work. There is little thought of anything beyond tribalism and the group. Except when the money jams then it's all capitalism; and the pigs run out to roost.

>>19551203
But why?

one ontologically equates being with thinking while the other epistemically says that if you think, you can be SURE that you at least are. they dont have anything to do with each other

>>19551219
Is this John Searle? Very nice to meet me sir. Sorry you were wrong about your chinese box experiment. Better luck next time.

>>19551034
Damn you all ignored me :(

>>19551259
No! Give me a second anon. I shall reread. A post like that deserves a second gander.

>>19551214
I truly hope you live to taste the freedom I've tasted, even I admit I still depend on a globalist infrastructure (though I've taken pains to minimize this dependency) and even if it makes me sound like kind of a humblebragging stooge like exactly the kinds of people I detest (I'm working on it). All I'm saying is that it doesn't have to be the way it is, and people who try and tell you otherwise are suspect.

>>19551034
That's a lot to unpack. Descartes was a weirdo in no uncertain terms. He said that an angel told him him that 'the conquering of nature shall be in measure and number'. Which is weird in and of itself for several reasons:
1) Why should nature be conquered? (You absolute drunk French perv).
2) Kind of a main point tying into the hilarity of the first: Descartes was really bad with specificity for being a guy who believed in specificity. He was very concerned with angels and demons and bible stuff. (Not that that essentially is bad, but ya know..).
3) He did believe that you were an object in the world interacting with the rest of it. Antithetical to eastern philosophy.
I understand what you mean, but in practice it has the same effect, mincing words aside.

>>19551277
I wouldn't accuse you of that anon. If anything I'd accuse you of being a very private person and generalizing instead of sharing stories. But you are on 4 chan, yet because you are no one will be any the wiser if you share. Bo matter the setting I've only met anon on this site.
And anon: good to meet you sir.
I have experienced freedom. Especially while drunk. It's an evil but liberating thing.

>>19551288
I truly think Descartes and his ilk represent a kind of "topological revolution" in the order of being: the man was smart, this mode of understanding the world doesn't just fall out of the sky. I can't believe it was purely cultural, historical, there was just something to how they experienced the world that can't be accounted for in those terms.

>>19551306
Why evil? I'm curious. Most people, if you rip the ground under the feet, sink. Fighting that gravity is a struggle, I agree, and I know what you mean, but it doesn't have to be evil. Purity is a kind of anti-gravity: falling upwards. Weil writes about this.

>>19551314
Do you drink? I fancy myself of the 'in vino veritas' kinda dude. It's a terrible thing, especially if you're a man with opinions and ideas. They spew forth and you don't give a shit what anyone else thinks. I suspect it's a fake freedom, a kind of ego fortifying stillness. It's a strong gama amino buteyric acid agonist. Yet it's also sugar based. Basically sugar injection to the brain.
The world becomes still, but you don't. If you do drink you'd understand. If you don't I hope it makes sense.

>>19551335
Everything I've been telling you I've learned from drinking and getting fucked up and being disgusted at the depths it revealed to me. It is a real freedom, but it liberates demons as much as it does angels.

>>19551288
>3) He did believe that you were an object in the world interacting with the rest of it
From what I can tell (I have only read a few books by Walpola Rahula, so I might be wrong) Buddhists do not deny the existence of objects (since they do not deny the existence of the Five Aggregates), rather, they deny their permanence. Since the cogito argument, by itself, does not say anything about the permanence of things like personal identity, memory and consciius continuity, I don't think that that argument, by itself, says anything that a (Theravada) Buddhist might have to disagree with. In this sensel I don't think I'm mincing words.

I must admit that I do not really get what you mean by the bit about angels, but I doubt it is necessary for the defense of the Cartesian cogito argument. In general I can think that Cartesian philosophy can easily be detatched from any link to distinctly christian theological notions

>>19551309
Perhaps. But I think Kant picked apart Descartes pretty well, and the Buddha before any of them were born. Descartes was a genius for his time, perhaps not for the future.
I think Leonardo Da Vinci should "learn to code" if you get what I'm saying.
I could probably teach him how to use a computer, I think he'd double right click initially, just like my dad did, and he's a certifiable genius.
It's all about how you look at it.
I think Charles Bukowski is probably one of the smartest men that ever lived. And he was a drunk writer.

>>19551341
Okay anon, thanks for sharing you were previous a little vague with where you were coming from, but okay, you know then.
I've lost many people I've loved to the drink. I kinda wish I could still do mushrooms. I was always happier and nicer on those. I suspect alcohol is low key heroin. Then again maybe substances are just a cheap way out. And you always come back. Sonetimes worse than before. Everything has it's price.

>>19551343
I guess I'm saying that it mattered in a different way to Descartes than to Buddha. Descartes was trying to search to find. The Budhha was searching to un-find in a way.
One believed, as he said in 'measure and number', Descartes, the other, the Buddha believed you were only creating obstacles by trying to define anything.
Look at eastern/western life/culture at the time.
One knew to to make clocks/watches, tje other knew how to be at peace.
Diving into pragmatism: it's whatever works for you.

>>19550929
>Basically the opposite idea of 1600ish century euro philosophy.
This is so wrong it makes me wonder how /lit/ has fallen so low.

>>19551403
Bold claim. I'd agree with him fully.
Bold claims need to be explained.
Anon: you're up! What's your take then?

>>19551403
It's true bro. Europe was all about dissecting and finding the "atmos", the easterners put an emphasis on the whole. You should read up on both worlds. I can recommend some books if you want.

>>19550836
> Any thoughts my chan friends?

good morning sirs

read Sri Shankaracharya

>>19550836
If you don’t perceive, you don’t exist.

>>19551426
Does he have a cell phone in his hand? He should check his face book post and cover up that nipple.

>>19551435
I think he is holding a bundle of scriptures

>>19551431
I think OP already covered that extensively and even threw some caveats. Scroll up. You're not wrong.
Hit up OP, he ain't half stupid.

>>19551438
It was a joke anon. What is not a joke: he should cover up those nipples.

>>19551370
Sure thing, but this is a practical difference, not a theoretical one (at least as long as we keep talking specifically about the cogito argument, and not Descartes' philosophy in general). Basica.ly, my point is that it's not the cogito argument the element that distinguish Descartes from the Buddhist tradition. Imho a better point of contention could have been Descartes' belief in a transcendent God, which seems to be incompatible with Theravada Buddhism. God's personality is also another point of contention (which was already criticized by Spinoza)

>>19551443
What is colloquially termed ‘thinking’ is simply a subset of perception, one that is only a construction. I didn’t read the thread because discussions about Buddhism here range from boring an predictable to irritating.

>>19551494
Perhaps. But at the end of the day philosophy should mean something in the practical world to avoid the neckbeard syndrome, if you know what I mean. The easterners do it with swimming colors. The Buddha reached Nirvana, Nietszche killed himself. Proof in the pudding. I have much respect for Descartes, he's probably a smarter man than I'd be if I was his contemporary. However, I was born much later and hind sight is 20/20. Then again you have men that were much more spot on like Plato or Aristotle, and they were much earlier, so I won't time fetishize.
As much as I respect Descartes, I don't think he makes the team of big boy philosophy. But he did help unleash unrepentant capitalism. So, huzzah to him; I guess. I liked his views on booze.

>>19551198
We got a pro choice guy here: shocker.

>>19551519
Nietzsche didn't kill himself, he had a brain tumor (which is not something he can be criticized for). Also, the idea that Buddha has reached Nievana seems to be an article of faith. I have no idea whether Nirvana is an actually attainable state in this life.

>>19551628
He gave up everything he had. So, I assume he'd gain something. I can only relate in very mild terms; but the system works. If you dont get drunk you won't be hung over.

>>19551628
By him I mean the Buddha of course. Nietszche was well, Nietszche.

>>19551663
Well put.

>>19551683
Maybe today. I may get drunk tomorrow. Never assume I'm not full of shit anon. Even though I am perfectly correct, I can't promise to maintain the fort.
Im not the Buddha, but neither was Nietzche.

>>19551694
We're all full of shit. How many promises to not get drunk have I broken? Only God knows. The scroll is a very long one.

>>19551663
Again, this seems to be an article of faith. From an outsider perspective the Buddha was a massively influential person who was revered by thousands of traveling disciples, respected by kings and commoners, and who had to never be concerned about his own material well being. To assume that he gave up on everything I would have to take traditional Buddhist interpretations at face value.
>but the system works
It doesn't, if Nirvana is not attainable. Or at least, this is what I think (but I might be wrong, and I dont exclude this possibility)

>>19551705
Then let us toast. At least I will. The world has been against me this week and I can't handle it I told myself: so I shall drink. "In Vino Veritas".

>>19551721
My poison is a good blunt, maybe a shot or two of liquor beforehand. Let us toast. I wish I was a Buddha but I am not. All I can do is ingest my poison and not let it carry me away like I used to. Cheers.

>>19551711
There can be much lost in interpretation. But the Buddha lived his life to let go of everything. He eventually found the middle way, that that was merely the diplomat in him. He also had something to give. Jesus figured it out at a much younger age. Buddha does not compare, but I often wonder what a genius would be made if Buddha studied under our lord. It would be something grand, I'm sure.

>>19551725
Cheers friend. I'm a little jealous. Weed used to be a perfect solution for me in college, now it gives me nothing but anxiety and paranoia and the feeling of not breathing. I used to be a speed fiend also, (now that was some good shit) still like it but the anxiety afterwards is unbearable: so, I stick to the good old drink. Alcohol, designed by God and for those that have a weird conception of him.

>>19551735
Wait, if you're Christian then what do you have against Descartes? I thought you were criticizing him from a Buddhist perspective

>>19551748
It is what it is for the both of us. I've been in this game too long to know I'm not making excuses for a relapse, but again: it is what it is. I can only get as better as I have it in me to get better. At least we've both made progress, I have no doubt about that.

>>19551805
I have doubt for myself. Bless you for your confidence. I have my life made atm, but I feel I'm gonna do something stupid.

>>19551887
We'll be fine, boss. Just keep struggling. I've got it made right now too but I refuse to rest on my laurels. The only peace is in the grave.

>>19551775
Initially I was, but the thread evolved. Jesus was much like the Buddha but smarter. He knew what he was walking into while Buddha was discovering as he went, and he did so well. But no one else can be Jesus right? That's borderline beyond man (but not impossible).

>>19550836
Read Nishitani

>>19550836
I experience myself thinking therefore I know myself to exist

>>19551370
>One knew to to make clocks/watches, tje other knew how to be at peace.
I feel like this is a a generalization so broad that it is almost absurd.

>>19550836
>'I am, therefore I think'.
I don't see how this is representative of Buddhism, which usually presents a theory of momentariness. You almost certainly have not started with the jeets.