/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.14122692]

“Philosophers can never hope finally to formulate these metaphysical first principles. Weakness of insight and deficiencies of language stand in the way inexorably. Words and phrases must be stretched towards a generality foreign to their ordinary usage; and however such elements of language be stabilized as technicalities, they remain metaphors mutely appealing for an imaginative leap.”

[Anonymous No.14122958]

retroactively debunked

[Anonymous No.14122969]

He was retroactively refuted by Guénon and Parmenides. Not worth listening to his nonsense.

[Anonymous No.14122985]

>>14122692
Wittgenstein was hilarious.

[Anonymous No.14122991]

based

[Anonymous No.14123129]

Very based that he notices the inadequacies in language yet subvertingly still does metaphysics. The linguistic turn was so fucking cringe.

[Anonymous No.14123565]

bump

[Anonymous No.14123635]

>>14122969
>Guenon
Guenon is incapable of refuting the mucousal burblings of a snail. The basis of all of his argumentations are complete drivel, and in the only interpretations where his writings aren't baseless trite, they are completely arbitrary deviations from what he argues against in the first place.

Citing Guenon as a valid authority is grounds for throwing out your own argument.

[Anonymous No.14123668]

>>14123635
Guenon is a mathematician and taught western philosophy for years kek. Open any of his books and he dismantles western philosophy with actual arguments, examples, quotes etc... what more do you want? Oh, you've never read him. Far worse, you started reading philosophy late/ after high school so you feel to need to clinge to 'notorious' philosophers because of your own lack of experience in philosophy. you need intellectual credit; you are a pseud. Contrary to myself, I've been reading the canon since I'm 8 so I can read Kant then Guenon then whomever I wish because I actually read according to my own intellectual inclinations, not for external factors. Too bad you are dumb.

[Anonymous No.14123671]

>>14122692
ok boomer

[Anonymous No.14123693]

>>14123668
SHLOP SHLOP SHLOP SHLOP SHLOP SHLOP SHLOP SHLOP SHLOP SHLOP SHLOP SHLOP SHLOP SHLOP SHLOP SHLOP SHLOP SHLOP SHLOP SHLOP SHLOP SHLOP SHLOP SHLOP SHLOP SHLOP SHLOP SHLOP SHLOP SHLOP SHLOP SHLOP SHLOP SHLOP SHLOP SHLOP SHLOP SHLOP SHLOP SHLOP SHLOP SHLOP SHLOP SHLOP SHLOP SHLOP SHLOP SHLOP SHLOP SHLOP SHLOP SHLOP SHLOP SHLOP SHLOP SHLOP SHLOP SHLOP SHLOP SHLOP SHLOP SHLOP SHLOP SHLOP SHLOP SHLOP SHLOP SHLOP SHLOP SHLOP SHLOP SHLOP SHLOP SHLOP SHLOP SHLOP SHLOP SHLOP SHLOP SHLOP SHLOP SHLOP SHLOP SHLOP SHLOP SHLOP SHLOP SHLOP SHLOP SHLOP SHLOP SHLOP SHLOP SHLOP SHLOP SHLOP SHLOP SHLOP SHLOP SHLOP SHLOP SHLOP SHLOP SHLOP SHLOP SHLOP SHLOP SHLOP SHLOP SHLOP SHLOP SHLOP SHLOP SHLOP SHLOP SHLOP SHLOP SHLOP SHLOP SHLOP SHLOP SHLOP SHLOP SHLOP SHLOP SHLOP SHLOP SHLOP SHLOP SHLOP SHLOP SHLOP SHLOP SHLOP SHLOP SHLOP SHLOP SHLOP

[Anonymous No.14123715]

>>14123668
>weak argumentation
>projective attack on character
>projective attack on character
>projective attack on character
You certainly have done an excellent job of discrediting yourself further. I suppose I should thank you for that, but I wouldn't want to come across as sincere.

[Anonymous No.14123742]

>>14123635
Pseud.
>>14123668
Pseud gets destroyed.

[Anonymous No.14123758]

>Oh, you've never read him. Far worse, you started reading philosophy late/ after high school so you feel to need to clinge to 'notorious' philosophers because of your own lack of experience in philosophy. you need intellectual credit; you are a pseud. Contrary to myself, I've been reading the canon since I'm 8 so I can read Kant then Guenon then whomever I wish because I actually read according to my own intellectual inclinations, not for external factors. Too bad you are dumb.

[Anonymous No.14123790]

@14123758
>gets BTFO
>knee jerk reaction is to post basedjak

[Anonymous No.14123799]

Russell, I know this will be hard for you to hear, but after a couple months of using the ol' noggin I've completely dismantled your entire Axiomatic System. In fact, I dismantled almost all axiomatic systems, but I used yours as an example, because I thought people would intuitively understand that the Principia Mathematica was wrong. It makes sense, at a deep level, that your life's work just doesn't actually work at all, and I think the public connected with that. Tell Alfred that his process philosophy is trash, if you have a moment. I'd devote a single theorem from a single paper to destroying it like I did the PM, but nobody really cares about Alfred's work so its not worth my effort. Anyways, I'm going to go on and show the world that Immanuel "all-destroyer" Kant was practically a pacifist once I tear apart all of Western mathematics core ideals and obliterate the Faustian Spirit. Spengler was right that the West was dying, but his "philosophy of history" isn't the deathblow, I am. I am the Pythagoras who discovered the irrational number and plunged Greece into chaos. I am Bhaskara II, who has discovered the infinitesimal and drawn all of India into the endless void. I am the stumbling block of Western Mathematics, and you are nothing Bertrand, nothing at all. You are an addendum to my story, and I hate that my biography is sullied by your footnote, you worthless fucking brainlet.

[Anonymous No.14123807]

>>14123790
>@
cringe

[Anonymous No.14123814]

>cringe

[Anonymous No.14123822]

>>14123799
kek based

[Anonymous No.14123828]

>>14122692
Great philosopher. Doesn’t get the appreciation he deserves. Maybe because he wrote on the cusp of a paradigm shift to post-modernity and became overshadowed. In music he would be the equivalent of a Max Reger or Richard Strauss, great late-Romantic composers, but got swept by the tide of atonal and dodecaphonic music.

[Anonymous No.14123830]

>>14123828
Maybe he doesn't get any attention because he was refuted by Guénon.

[Anonymous No.14123838]

>>14123799
Fuck, I miss gödel-posting.

[Anonymous No.14123840]

>>14123828
Who is the equivalent of Scriabin?

[Anonymous No.14123844]

>>14123830
Guenon didn't refute him, though he certainly liked to believe he helped point out a retroactive refutation.

[Anonymous No.14123846]

>>14123799
>Spengler was right
into the garbage your post goes

[Anonymous No.14123867]

>>14123840
a mix of nietzsche and a mystic

[Anonymous No.14123887]

>>14123840
>>14123867
Evola?

[Anonymous No.14123936]

>>14123887
no. fuck off.

[Anonymous No.14124182]

Bump

[Anonymous No.14124211]

>>14123936
Uh ok fag

[Anonymous No.14124235]

>>14124211
evola has no discernible talenf

[Anonymous No.14124282]

STAND ASIDE HUMAN

[Anonymous No.14124290]

>>14124282
Give a tl;dr

[Anonymous No.14124303]

>>14124290
read the text inside the grey squares

[Anonymous No.14124345]

>>14124290
Sophist 238c8–c11: “Are you not aware that it is impossible to express or to say or to conceive of non-being in and of itself, since it is unthinkable and ineffable and inexpressible and unspeakable?”

Republic [508e] “Yes, it does,” “This reality, then, that gives their truth to the objects of knowledge and the power of knowing to the knower, you must say is the idea1 of good, and you must conceive it as being the cause of knowledge, and of truth in so far as known.2 Yet fair as they both are, knowledge and truth, in supposing it to be something fairer still3 than these you will think rightly of it. But as for knowledge and truth, even as in our illustration [509a] it is right to deem light and vision sunlike, but never to think that they are the sun, so here it is right to consider these two their counterparts, as being like the good or boniform,1 but to think that either of them is the good2 is not right. Still higher honor belongs to the possession and habit3 of the good.” “An inconceivable beauty you speak of,” he said, “if it is the source of knowledge and truth, and yet itself surpasses them in beauty. For you surely4 cannot mean that it is pleasure.” “Hush,” said I

[Anonymous No.14125038]

Bump

[Anonymous No.14126122]

>>14122692
>Philosophers can never hope finally to formulate these metaphysical first principles.
>first principles
Dogmatism. I hate how Whitehead acts like Kant never happened.

[Anonymous No.14126142]

>>14126122
?