/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.13567547]

>He doesn’t create his own metaphysical realm, epistemology, ethics and God(s)

>Instead he lazily relies on other already established works like Christianity, Islam and Buddhism


Why are people on /lit/ intellectually lazy?

[Anonymous No.13567564]

>>13567547
The truth is supra-individual so it would be necessarily false, read Guenon.

[Anonymous No.13567602]

>>13567547
> “The true method of discovery is like the flight of an aeroplane. It starts from the ground of particular observation; it makes a flight in the thin air of imaginative generalization; and it again lands for renewed observation rendered acute by rational interpretation.”

-Alfred Whitehead

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE No.13568193]

>>13567564
>The truth is supra-individual
Okay, yeah.
>so it would be necessarily false
What?

>>13567602
Mmkay. And?

[Anonymous No.13569137]

>>13567547
That's precisely what I do, though. I have a private notebook filled with writings on the Divine, involving things like personal arguments in favor of a soul/non-biological dimension to us, and so on. When I define myself as "spiritual without religion", I am immediately mocked by those whose entire worldviews came directly to them by thousand-year old institutions, trying to make me feel deficient in some manner, when it's clearly them who lack the ability to independently reason of reality's nature. The very fact they presume that I must be a "New Ager" when I call myself spiritual but areligious, rather than including New Age religion as among the doctrines I am not attached to, demonstrates how constricted their minds are, only able to see things in the popular boxes presented to them. Namely, if a group of people who call themselves "spiritual but not religious" are often found to be new age hippies, it must mean that all people describing themselves by such fit such a profile. And it's also untrue that my views on reality disagree with all existing doctrines: I agree very closely with the original teachings underlining Buddhism, for example. I also think Platonism is correct. But rather than define myself by either term, I'll simply explain my viewpoints rather than give myself another label to identify with.

[Anonymous No.13569153]

>>13567547
I do, but realized they were the same

[Anonymous No.13569160]

>>13568193
Read Guenon

[Anonymous No.13569168]

>>13569137
Christianity isn't as far away from those things as one might think. Try approaching the works of monks and ascetics if you can.

t, Christian who agrees with you

[Anonymous No.13569176]

>>13569168
And mysticism, as it's often called. It unfortunately seems to be less common in western churches and displaced by political religion.

[Anonymous No.13569368]

>>13567547

[Anonymous No.13569373]

>>13569168
>>13569176
Since I am a spiritual person, I have plenty of agreement with much which is found within Christianity - especially the aspect of asceticism, which I am trying to align my life towards (unlike before, where I valued such a lifestyle but was too concerned with societal norms and therefore put aside such a manner of living - living more superficially because I was insecure in myself being judged by others). I'm sure I'd agree with Christian saints and mystics a lot. The difference is that I don't believe the Divine is outside and separate from us, but is our fundamental nature, which we were in contact with prior to our birth-incarnation (hence why "the fall" is such a resonant allegory to our species, because we indeed came down to Earthly reality from a Heavenly one) and will return to after death. I don't believe in a God with desires and decisions, nor scriptures and prophets. It's sad, because when I mention any criticisms of Christianity here or elsewhere, the one I speak with automatically presumes me an atheist, without any spiritual foundation to myself - when really, me and them are likely very aligned in our viewpoints, the only difference being that I do not attach myself to any one cultural-ideological institution. It's more sensible to believe in "general" spiritual realities, than to believe in ones that are dependent on specific cultural formulations - like that of Christianity, Islam, or Vaishnavaite Hinduism, for example. I'm spiritual but not religious because I believe that the Divine is constituted by essences like the Good, the Beautiful, the True, the Free, the Just, and the Pure, and that these represent the universe's and our consciousness's fundamental essence and reality (hence my Platonism) which all Earthly life should be lived by, and that we only have mortal knowledge of because we were closer to them prior to birth (hence why the Baby is the paragon of these Divine Essences), but also don't know what exactly their manifestations resemble in Earthly life (beyond a certain, basic point), and don't claim to know in the manner religious folk proudly do. I wish more people believed in the Divine, discussed of its nature, and sought to live by it not because of any external construct like a God, but the recognition of your own nature as being sourced in such a domain. And worst is that while a Christian has to simply state their denomination to sum up their worldviews to others, I have to provide a lengthy explanation for it. I wish there were an easier way to summarize my viewpoints to others. Buddhism is probably the closest though, but I'd be dishonest to call myself one. I also don't like the tribalism inherent to religious identity, or any other, hence why I prefer to remain unaffiliated with any.

[Anonymous No.13569381]

>He doesn't create his own grammatical syntax, etymology, dialects and language(s)

>Instead he lazily relies on other already established languages like English, Chinese and redditspacing
why does op suck cock