/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.13474986]

Is Metaphysics nonsense?

[Anonymous No.13474994]

>>13474986
Hume is low IQ and looks like a Butch dyke.

[Anonymous No.13475006]

>>13474986
>lmao i cant see so it doesnt exist.

[Anonymous No.13475050]

>>13474994
this

Hume was the biggest pseud of the last 500 years

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.13475111]

>>13474994
>>13475050
Take your fairy tales and priestly denial, I'll take the world for what it is.
>>13474986
Not only is it nonsense OP, it is intensely detrimental to your wellbeing.

[Anonymous No.13475118]

>>13474986
all philosophy is nonsense
>lmao you can't understand x until you ask y
>no, we haven't figured out y, but you need us lol

[Anonymous No.13475297]

>>13474986

Has this man said anything that is not actually, literally retarded?

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.13475303]

>>13475297
Hume is responsible for the modern sciences. If that's retarded, then what isn't?

[Anonymous No.13475316]

>>13475303
science is fake and gay

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.13475326]

>>13475316
Great post anon.

[Anonymous No.13475357]

>>13474986
Yes, make ontology the prime meta-category of philosophy be done with it. As things stand, too many appeal to the mere existence of the branch 'metaphysics' as grounds for presupposing the validity of dichotomies and abstractions which lack actual supportive indications.

[Anonymous No.13475375]

Yes, Kant showed so and BTFO metaphysics and more specifically ontology forever, nowadays its just larping fags

[Anonymous No.13475425]

>>13475297
>I am the better pleased with the method of reasoning here delivered, as I think it may serve to confound those dangerous friends or disguised enemies to the Christian Religion, who have undertaken to defend it by the principles of human reason. Our most holy religion is founded on Faith, not on reason; and it is a sure method of exposing it to put it to such a trial as it is, by no means, fitted to endure.

[Anonymous No.13475432]

>>13475111
*world for what it is is dependent on your senses and what they can perceive*
oh no!

[Anonymous No.13475499]

>>13474986
Yes.

All christfags, deists, and pagan larpers ITT are just mad their inane ramblings serve no purpose in real world issues asides from further inculcating their own schizophrenic delusions.

[Anonymous No.13475504]

>>13475303
How in the flying fuck do you figure that anon

[Anonymous No.13475507]

>>13474986
>do you consider that to be objectively true or subjectively?

>>13475375
You've never read Kant have you?

[Anonymous No.13475521]

>>13475375
FYI he ended up accepting a Spinozian "ether/One" in the end of his life and wrote about it in his last work but it was hidden away until the 20th century. The idea that Kant btfo or rejected speculative metaphysics doesn't align with reality.

[Anonymous No.13475532]

>>13475507
I Kant read Kant.

I just Kant

[Anonymous No.13475547]

where does one start with hume? he seems based and not pseud

[Anonymous No.13475560]

>>13475521

>he ended up accepting a Spinozian "ether/One" in the end of his life and wrote about it in his last work but it was hidden away until the 20th century

sauce?

[Anonymous No.13475597]

>>13474986
That's a bad argument for why metaphysics is nonsense.

Also, it isn't nonsense, but what IS nonsense is thinking that the metaphysical is independent of the physical, aka Plato. Observe someone else in thought and realize that their body is contributing to the formulation of their thoughts; then realize that your body just contributed to the formulation of that thought, and the next one as well, and so on.

[Anonymous No.13475605]

>>13475547
enquiry on understanding

[Anonymous No.13475633]

>>13474986
>Is Metaphysics nonsense?
Of course.

“It is in this very fathom- long physical frame with its
perceptions and mind, that, I declare lies the world, the
arising of the world, the cessation of the world, and the path
leading to the cessation of the world”
- Rohitassa Sutta , S.I.61

“Friend, that by which one has a perception of the world and a
conceit of the world , that in the discipline of the noble ones, is called
the world? By what friend has one perception of the world and a conceit
of the world.?
By the eye" friends, one has a perception of the world and a
conceit of the world, by the ear …………. by the nose …………. by the
tongue…….. by the body ………… by the mind, friends, one has a
perception of the world and a conceit of the world . That friend by
which one has a perception of the world and a conceit of the world,
that in this discipline of the noble ones, is called ' the world'.
(S iv 95)

"Thus, monks, a Tathàgata does not conceive of a visible thing as apart from sight; he does not conceive of an unseen; he
does not conceive of a 'thing-worth-seeing'; he does not conceive
about a seer.
He does not conceive of an audible thing as apart from hearing;
he does not conceive of an unheard; he does not conceive of a
'thing-worth-hearing'; he does not conceive about a hearer.
He does not conceive of a thing to be sensed as apart from
sensation; he does not conceive of an unsensed; he does not
conceive of a 'thing-worth-sensing'; he does not conceive about one
who senses.
He does not conceive of a cognizable thing as apart from
cognition; he does not conceive of an uncognized; he does not
conceive of a 'thing-worth-cognizing'; he does not conceive about
one who cognizes
- AN 4.24"

[Anonymous No.13475675]

>>13474986
Lmao imagine being an empiricist

[Anonymous No.13475734]

Well it just is.

[Anonymous No.13475808]

>>13474986
>matter of fact and existence

I WISH Hume could have passed into sophistry and illusion once his fat ass stopped being a matter of fact and existence.

[Anonymous No.13475844]

>>13475050
I agree. He even admits that reason itself is pointless and only serves base passions. Explains his gluttony. This is why it shocks me that young Schopenhauer held any affinity toward him.

[Anonymous No.13475860]

>>13475633
>but dude I can remember my past lives because I'm like so enlightened and because of that you should accept this elaborate metaphysical scheme involving rebirth lmao!!! Also you should totally check out these later Buddhist thinkers who constructed even more elaborate systems of metaphysics!!!
Buddhist-posters have so little self-awareness (no-pun intended) that it's sometimes astonishing

[Anonymous No.13475892]

>>13475560
In his last work that wasn't published until 1936 (and which was ignored by many scholars/thinkers who wanted to be fashionably "post-Kantian") he ends up accepting ideas somewhat similar to the Spinozian substance, Neoplatonic One, eastern equivalents etc

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opus_Postumum

https://www.quora.com/Is-the-Opus-Postumum-neglected-by-Kant-scholars-If-so-why

[Anonymous No.13475977]

>>13474986
METAphysics

>>13475111
>I'll take the world for what it is.

Stay in your lane betaphysics

[Anonymous No.13476023]

my only experience with metaphysics so far is plato and yes it seems bullshit

[Anonymous No.13476080]

>>13475860
t. thinks metaphysics = "woo woo mysticism"

[Anonymous No.13476092]

>>13475006
No the point of metaphysics is you can see it but you’ve taken it for granted. Metaphysics is the obvious obvious, but people are stupid. This thread for example. Nobody here actually reads lol

[Anonymous No.13476114]

>>13476092
But seeing is subjective

[Anonymous No.13476119]

>>13476114
Touché

[Anonymous No.13476125]

>>13474986
It was once widely accepted that the Earth was the center of the universe, and also that it was flat. The arrogance of rational materialism in its total rejection of any metaphysical notion is on full display here. Who is to say that a similarly paradigm shifting discovery wouldn't radically change how we view the world? Yes, we seemingly live in a physical material world, but the rules of mathematics and physics bend considerably at sufficiently extreme speeds and temperatures. Perhaps one of the most pertinent questions regarding metaphysics is the origin of consciousness.

[Anonymous No.13476150]

Is Science even a science?

[Anonymous No.13476155]

>>13474986
"Nonsense" is an entirely metaphysical construct. Try again

[Anonymous No.13476285]

>>13475844
Reason itself can never be the impulse to any action or thought... We only reason about something or the other because we first feel some way about things. Reason is indeed a tool which, although capable of reciprocally directing and refining our 'passions', cannot truly precede them. This observation is in no way an assertion that "reason itself is pointless"... What a ridiculous strawman.

[Anonymous No.13476397]

>>13474994
second half of this

[Anonymous No.13476454]

>>13474986
No, and Hume actually did metaphysics and he actually admits it. What he opposes is the 'metaphysics of the schoolmen' aka Scholastic stuff, and that of the moderns (really meaning Cartesian/Lockean people).