/lit/ - Literature

File: 56 KB, 478x355, dark-ages.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Mon Sep 21 16:57:14 2020 No.16412611 [Reply] [Original]

Don't worry, I've seen the ""refutations"" to this image, and how the Catholic Church was totally the greatest source of support for science (according to the Catholic Church), in the medieval period.
No, let's discuss something we all have equal access to.
In 2020, do you believe the Church, and religions as a whole, to be hindering the progress of science? We all have access to this happening in real time so it'll be easier to discuss than medieval times shit.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 21 17:00:10 2020 No.16412622 no

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 21 17:01:08 2020 No.16412631 Not at all, but if the Church wasn't cringe it would be doing just that lol. Contemporary "science" is a reductio ad absurdum of positivism - itself a farcical and terribly outdated ideology.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 21 17:01:23 2020 No.16412633 no, but they should

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 21 17:02:30 2020 No.16412644 >>16412611 rome would have fallen with or without christianity's help

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 21 17:04:03 2020 No.16412654 Personally no, but I don't believe they help much either. And this includes the more modern "scientific realism" as I believe it's called; which I view to be a religion in of itself.

Anonymous Mon Sep 21 17:04:05 2020 No.16412655

it's an error to assume technological progression is inevitable.
regardless whether you believe the "dark ages" were an intellectual dead-zone, you cannot deny the fact that the we went through that time period and still wound up where we are when others have not.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 21 17:04:08 2020 No.16412656 >>16412611 You should be held to the ground and forced to swallow hundreds of small stones.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 21 17:05:28 2020 No.16412663 File: 52 KB, 600x314, tower-of-babel-2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >the age of the heavy plow and steel is somehow less """""advanced""""""' than the bronze age when horses were hot new technology What a stupid image

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 21 17:07:43 2020 No.16412676 >>16412644 and on the same coin Europe thrived despite Christianity not because of it

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 21 17:09:48 2020 No.16412688 >>16412611 The lack of spiritual life in the modern west leaves a vacuum for the genuinely anti science conspiracies that people to invest in

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 21 17:11:32 2020 No.16412699 >>16412611 Christianity is just such a weak and flabby religion. We should have religions like the old Greek and Roman ones with jacked as fuck gods doing a bunch of based shit

Anonymous Mon Sep 21 17:11:51 2020 No.16412701
File: 1.25 MB, 3630x1615, file.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>16412611
Don't worry, I've seen the ""refutations"" to this image, and how the Hyperwar was totally the greatest source of support for science (according to the PIE peoples), in the post-hominid period.
No, let's discuss something we all have equal access to.
In 2020, do you believe Maldek, and religions as a whole, to be hindering the progress of science? We all have access to this happening in real time so it'll be easier to discuss than medieval times shit.

Anonymous Mon Sep 21 17:11:57 2020 No.16412702

So basically everyone in this thread thinks forcing kids to study creationism at school, or forcing schools to only teach creationism period, does not hinder scientific knowledge at an early age and drastically affects the chances of those kids becoming scientists or contributing to science?
That's just one example, but I just want to understand if this is the common view held here.

Anonymous Mon Sep 21 17:12:15 2020 No.16412705

>>16412676
>despite, not because
Every horned-fedora LARPagan I interact with can provide no evidence of his retarded claim.
If Christianity were holding us back, this modern descent into Godlessness would have given us more than an infinity of corn-fed niggers, plastic-choked oceans, and Kessler syndrome.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 21 17:12:56 2020 No.16412715 File: 276 KB, 408x572, 1588182388634.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>16412701 At last I truly see...

Anonymous Mon Sep 21 17:13:33 2020 No.16412724

>>16412611
>In 2020, do you believe the Church, and religions as a whole, to be hindering the progress of science?

it is my opinion that the status quo is what slows progress - people who make their living peddling what they know and understand

an example is light, there was a time when nobody understood it, nobody studied it, it just existed and people went on with their life

you can see it in the artwork, shadows do not follow the rule/law we understand with light today, but at one point someone noticed how shadows work with the light and began to incorporate it into their work (he has a name and there are dates but I do not remember the details)

welp, the famous artist of the day incessantly declared the man to be wrong, it would have made all their older works obsolete in terms of aesthetic beauty, they wanted society to remain status quo on the subject, they did not want the change

that artist passed on what he understood of lighting/shadows to his apprentice and died before it became common place

its a few years after his death and his peers you begin to see in all western artwork appropriate lighting/shadows

but what delayed it? status quo faggots worried about their careers

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 21 17:13:38 2020 No.16412726 >>16412702 >Christian moral ethos is public school Creationism Double-digit IQ Americans need not participate in this conversation.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 21 17:13:46 2020 No.16412727 >>16412701 What about the hyperborean renaissance?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 21 17:14:47 2020 No.16412733 >>16412702 >catholic >creationism What are you even doing here?

Anonymous Mon Sep 21 17:15:03 2020 No.16412736
File: 909 KB, 1632x1224, IMG_4153a.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>16412663
No, no, you don't understand: every age subsumes the progress of the ones before EXCEPT the "Christian Dark Ages" where the rigorous, clear and meaningful term "Scientific Advance" was not only stifled but they got rid of shit they used to have... Oy Vey. For fuck sake they had gunpowder in the 'dark ages,' while the neo-classicism of the Renaissance wasn't exactly an advance in architecture for at least two reasons.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 21 17:16:19 2020 No.16412743 >>16412736 >they had gunpowder in Who was "they"? Pray tell, it wasn't the Catholic church, was it?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 21 17:17:30 2020 No.16412757 >>16412743 Jesus Christ in Heaven, for just a single moment can you stop talking like a high school freshman who's just argued his parents into letting him sleep in on Sundays?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 21 17:19:41 2020 No.16412777 >>16412743 >people weren't advancing in the medieval period >>yes there were here's some things they made >it doesn't count because the church didn't invent them

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 21 17:19:45 2020 No.16412780 >>16412644 probably yes. the race mixing was already taking a heavy toll but christianity caused decadence on an entirely new level

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 21 17:21:01 2020 No.16412792 >>16412757 >>16412777 >A culture not hindered by the Catholic Church invented magnetic compasses and gunpowder in the dark ages. >REEEEEEEEE THIS DOESN'T PROVE YOUR POINT SHUT UP

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 21 17:22:58 2020 No.16412808 >>16412743 A variety of feudal lords, and through the monk Roger Bacon the Catholic Church had a reliable formula. How it came to be in Europe is still disputed, so you couldn't possibly know despite your sterling credentials.

Anonymous Mon Sep 21 17:24:47 2020 No.16412816

>>16412792
The heavy plow was invented in europe retard. The single most important advancement of human material condition since the fucking domestication of animals. It literally freed societies from being stuck in the ultra metopolitan settings of previous eras. It's the entire reason why people were able to build civilizations of great worth without needing them to be next to a big ass body of water.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 21 17:24:55 2020 No.16412818 >>16412792 See >>16412808 You retarded fucking horned fedora I am mocking you because mockery is the only tool that effects change in the mindsets of the very, very stupid

Anonymous Mon Sep 21 17:24:59 2020 No.16412820

>>16412780
pick any subject that had breakthroughs in that time period and I'd bet dollars to donuts there was someone who made a living teaching the opposite and wanted nothing more than to kill the new idea for sake of their income and position

im sure the church was hit left and right with contradicting discoveries and you could say they denied these things for sake of maintaining validity but if you preach the truth what do you care if someone believes you or not, you know its the truth regardless what they say? so its ultimately boiled down to them doing it to maintain their position/power/authority/money in this world, to maintain their status quo

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 21 17:26:42 2020 No.16412827 post the correct version of OP's pic. You know the one.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 21 17:27:36 2020 No.16412831 Stupid computer, I wanted to browse 4chan, not r ddit

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 21 17:28:10 2020 No.16412835 >>16412633 dangerously based

Anonymous Mon Sep 21 17:28:38 2020 No.16412840

>>16412611
Absolutely not. The disconnect between science and religion is that science, as the secular and religion-hating authorities that control science and the peer-review process (by design) contend, explains natural phenomenon under an assumption that there is no Creator. Religion explains the same phenomenon as an observation of the Creator's form. In other words, they are describing the same things, but "scientists" allege that Christians believe in magic, which isn't true. Christians believe that all the science that we have as yet discovered is just our human understandings of God's process. True science does not undermine the religion, and vice versa; in fact, "science" today is largely political and based in far less scientific fact than bias ends.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 21 17:28:44 2020 No.16412841 >>16412780 >Christianity >decadence Are you fucking retarded?

Anonymous Mon Sep 21 17:29:25 2020 No.16412848

why is it that in a lot of "western canon" or "great books" reading lists they go from the romans like ovid and virgil + the bible and then jump like 1000 years ahead to dante? Was it just a thousand years of just arguing about theology or am I being retarded?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 21 17:29:46 2020 No.16412851 >>16412827 See >>16412701

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 21 17:31:07 2020 No.16412863 >>16412633 Basado

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 21 17:31:36 2020 No.16412871 >>16412840 I know the majority of the astronauts that have been onboard ISS are religious, likewise with many of the people who wrote the laws of physics we understand today (newton for one example)

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 21 17:45:18 2020 No.16413000 >>16412631 would you expand on that, anon also, any author that talk about it?

Anonymous Mon Sep 21 18:27:35 2020 No.16413438

>>16413000
You can try Evola's "Ride the Tiger". He has a chapter on modern science. The tl;dr is that modern science does not even remotely deal with "knowledge" and in fact explicitly and doctrinally rejects the idea that knowledge can exist. What modern science does is it tries to achieve some formulaic abstraction in regards to a given problem, then use that formulaic abstraction in order to provide a technological or conceptual solution to it. String theory is a good example. It's completely nonsensical and incoherent, but it's a well liked theory in the "scientific community" because it offers a good mathematical model that "explains" things, no matter how ridiculous the explanation may actually be. The current "empiricist" methodology is extremely flawed, non-scientific, biased and based on widely acknowledged fallacies that would be completely inadmissible in any serious philosophical project.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 21 18:58:20 2020 No.16413696 >>16413438 >>16413000 Yes, listen to mysticism and esotericism, anon. Stop using all those pesky scientific "non-knowledges" immediately. Get off the internet and start contacting the occult through magic, you hypocrite hylic!

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 21 19:07:02 2020 No.16413766 >>16413696 Mysticism is deviant, anon - solar spirituality is based on higher knowledge. The rest is spot on though.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 21 19:11:49 2020 No.16413809 >>16412780 >christianity caused decadence You don’t know what that word means.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 21 19:15:38 2020 No.16413844 >>16412702 Shut up. The smart ones snap out of once they hit their teens, or even earlier.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 21 19:19:36 2020 No.16413879 >>16413809 Nah he's right, Christianity is too humanitarian to take a serious stance for spiritual values, so it exhausts itself and becomes overwhelmed by degenerates.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 21 19:22:58 2020 No.16413908 >>16413879 > becomes overwhelmed by degenerates. This might be the case for some in the modern west, but in the Roman era through the Medieval world? Get the fuck outta here with that.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 21 19:26:16 2020 No.16413929 >>16412611 Science is fake God is real

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 21 19:28:32 2020 No.16413944 >>16413908 Bro I don't know how to break this to you, but Christianity was the degeneracy in the Roman era and was only superficial adhered to in the Medieval Era until mass literacy became a thing.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 21 19:31:53 2020 No.16413964 >>16413944 >illiterates who have to hang on every word of each sermon because they can't even read >not devout The atheist leaps through higher and higher hoops each time. When will he fall?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 21 19:32:34 2020 No.16413967 >>16412611 this image gave me cancer

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 21 19:33:13 2020 No.16413975 >>16413944 >i know nothing about christian history: the post

Anonymous Mon Sep 21 19:35:17 2020 No.16413996

>>16413944
>but Christianity was the degeneracy in the Roman era

Really hot take, dude.

> was only superficial adhered to in the Medieval Era

By some nobility, I’m sure, but religion was the centerpiece of everyday life for the majority of people, and anyone not taking it seriously was ostracized. Hit me up with some more revisionist hot facts.

Anonymous Mon Sep 21 19:35:31 2020 No.16413999

>>16413964
I am not an atheist. The thing about Christianity is that it was only truly understood by the clergy and monastics. It was also blindly followed by peasants who would follow just about anything they're told to follow. The aristocracy and warrior caste on the other hand were only very superficially Christian. Even then, Catholic and Orthodox Christianity were very different and adapted forms of the original creed.

Anonymous Mon Sep 21 19:39:40 2020 No.16414028

>>16413975
Classical Age: characterised by heroic spirituality, military valour, discipline, the hunt for glory, respect for strength, honour is considered the highest principle, dignity in high esteem
Christianity: need for salvation, meekness, humility, charity, kindness, psychotic zeal that tolerates no alternate points of view
The original Christians were little different from the Bolshevik revolutionaries. It's no coincidence that the Alexandrian Neoplatonic Academy remained functional in Islamic Egypt all the way into the 1500s but the Christians closed theirs about a millennium earlier.
>>16413996
>this guy thinks the opinion of the masses matters literally ever

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 21 19:43:30 2020 No.16414061 File: 313 KB, 674x859, 1600600070205.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>16412611 I would infinitely rather live in the Christian "Dark Ages" than in today's modern technological dystopia.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 21 19:46:39 2020 No.16414076 >>16412611 Who cares. Why is science at all beneficial? I would prefer to live in the middle ages. Life had meaning then. We have become so distant from any sort of purpose in life.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 21 19:56:01 2020 No.16414145 these people pretend they don’t treat science as a religion then make posts like the OP

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 21 19:59:18 2020 No.16414164 >>16414028 >he thinks himself an enlightened aristocrat unburdened by the morality of the masses >a random wagie/underageb& wasting time on 4chan You would certainly benefit from some humility you too-big-for-his-britches retard

Anonymous Mon Sep 21 20:02:44 2020 No.16414196

>>16413999
You are an atheist. If you were not, you would believe in something, anything, with the unflinching and irrepressible zeal you attribute to Christendom- not whimper online about how rah-rah bad it was that Christ was taken into the heart of Europe.

Anonymous Mon Sep 21 20:17:43 2020 No.16414290

>>16414164
I don't know if I am an enlightened aristocrat but I definitely feel myself unburdened by the morality of the masses desu. It's 2020. It's not very hard.
>>16414196
The Romans had a strong enough connection with their gods to consecrate every victory and sacrifice with the divine name. This, somehow, did not stop them from extending religious toleration to their many enemies and subjects. This is because the Europeans of the Classical Era still felt themselves great enough that they felt no need to agonise over what some plebs may or may not believe. Christians, on the other hand, were just that sort of people.

Anonymous Mon Sep 21 20:21:59 2020 No.16414309
File: 2.93 MB, 1716x1710, science vs scientism.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>16413000
Watch this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7r1RLCir3bw&feature=emb_title

I would say that "scientism" as a philosophy is pathetic and has nothing meaningful to say about metaphysics, ontology or ethics. Contempary science has already refuted classical materialism meanwhile it still can't answer the hard problem of consciousness.

Anonymous Mon Sep 21 20:24:01 2020 No.16414325
File: 94 KB, 672x737, nick land meme.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>16413696
I hate this argument so much. Modern Technology is addicting and 99% of people don't have the will power to turn it off for long, it has nothing to do with the greatness of tech and everything to do with how insidious it is.

Anonymous Mon Sep 21 20:25:19 2020 No.16414336

>>16414309
Science in its strictest form of repeatable controlled experiments is an incredibly powerful thing. It can't answer many questions we have but it was never meant to, it has a limited range of use. Of course the way people use the word 'science' is much broader than this actual core group of subjects that can be properly researched through repeatable controlled experiments.

Anonymous Mon Sep 21 20:27:27 2020 No.16414354

>>16414290
>unburdened by the morality of the masses
Euphoric and enlightened by your own intelligence, yes. Your behaviors are a fine example of why humility is virtuous.
What little noble blood remains in your veins has thinned to an anemic trickle of water. You are not noble and never will be- your attempts to ape the philosophies of people you see as aristocrats or heroes of mind and might are the LARP of a lost soul only slightly too smart for airport bookstore self-help books.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 21 20:30:45 2020 No.16414376 >>16412816 The heavy plough was invented in China when Rome was still in a staring contest with the Carthaginians

Anonymous Mon Sep 21 20:31:17 2020 No.16414382

>>16414354
I really couldn't care less how "smart" or "not smart" I am bro, I want to do the right thing and even if I'm too stupid or spiritually weak to do so, that's no excuse for not trying. I don't expect you to understand though, since you seem to be a huge sucker for slave morality. Here's the thing anon - the masses have, broadly speaking, never been right. Look around you. It should be crystal clear to you that the "morality of the masses" today is not your own. It is not Christian. They are just doing whatever is easy, simply, beneficial and convenient. Any evil deed is considered good so long as it is for the right cause. It's disgusting, but they have always been this way. I don't feel bad for feeling uninterested in their so-called morality.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 21 20:35:34 2020 No.16414411 >>16412699 Why do you want to worship a bunch of honosexuals?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 21 22:16:16 2020 No.16414927 >>16412699 They were just anticipations of marvel superheroes. You can still worship them today, you need to just buy right funko pops and place them in honorary place in your house.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 21 22:17:48 2020 No.16414936 >>16412611 >n 2020, do you believe the Church, and religions as a whole, to be hindering the progress of science? No, not at all in fact.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 21 22:46:33 2020 No.16415122 >>16412633 extremely based

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 22 02:35:20 2020 No.16416189 File: 1.91 MB, 1033x1033, 150282.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>16412633 Unfathomably based

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 22 02:37:04 2020 No.16416199 >>16412701 uugggh...what could have been

Anonymous Tue Sep 22 04:17:59 2020 No.16416514

>>16414309
Something to consider here is the guilt of modern philosophy. The field is heavily populated by pretentious retards which leaves most modern philosophy sounding like
>"What if it's all a simulation?"
>"You just don't GET it"
>"No, the point is to not understand"
>*Overly prolonged bong rip*
>*Cough* "Oh yeah I'm understanding everything now"
There was a time when philosophy was based in understanding what we don't know. And when science split off as a significant body of its own, philosophy became understanding or answering that which has no easy answer or none at all. Now philosophy has become a Haven for those wishing for obfuscation and ignorance using the inability to find an answer as an excuse to never look. Fuck modern philosophy, I wouldn't associate myself with it if at all possible.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 22 04:25:24 2020 No.16416540 >>16412848 This interests me as well.

Anonymous Tue Sep 22 07:20:16 2020 No.16417184

>>16412611
Did you know, guys, that picture is based on wrong chronology? When you fix chronology there is no dark ages.
Created finally in the XVI century A.D. and accepted today chronology and history of the ancient and medieval world, evidently contains big mistakes.

>Many outstanding scientists understood it and discussed during a long period of time. But it appeared to be a difficult task to build a new, non-contradictory concept of chronology.
>Starting from 1975 a group of mathematicians, mainly from the Moscow State University, were engaged in the development of this problem. Interesting results were received and published both in scientific periodical print and in separate monographs. We underline, that new concept of chronology is based, mainly, on analysis of historical sources WITH THE METHODS OF MODERN MATHEMATICAL STATISTICS and vast COMPUTER CALCULATIONS.

Anonymous Tue Sep 22 07:21:22 2020 No.16417191

>>16412611
>>16417184
http://chronologia.org/en/index.html
>The task of chronology is to put in order the events into proper way on a temporary scale based on the available information. This task naturally fits into the field of applications to modern mathematical statistics, theory of information. The methods of humanities, one of which is history, are not enough for solving chronological issues. New chronology imposes another psychological picture of perception of the antiquity. Now the word "antiquity" should be connected with XV-XVII centuries A.D. that is with the events, distant from us on 300-400 years. Expression "high antiquity" should now relate to the XIII-XIV centuries A.D. And the words "the highest antiquity" – are already the XI-XII centuries A. D. BEFORE THE X-XI CENTURIES A.D. THE EPOCH OF SILENCE OF WRITTEN DOCUMENTS COMES. (See the book RECONSTRUCTION).
>Our analyses of the chronology and history opened a striking circumstance. Based on the applied by us mathematical methods it was proved, that the Scaligerian chronology, and therefore also the Scaligerian history of the "antiquity" and the Middle Ages, is totally wrong. Moreover, it appeared that our history right up to the end of the XVI century was consciously falsified at the epoch of the XVII-XVIII centuries.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 22 07:40:34 2020 No.16417271 Do modern historian believe in the "Dark ages" thought that was mostly an enlightenment meme, plus its a very eurocentric take of the world

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 22 08:26:18 2020 No.16417445 >>16412611 No, not in the slightest >>16412633 A little too based

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 22 10:02:33 2020 No.16417865 >>16412633 Ah, a good sprinkling of based on my morning toast. Thank you, anon.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 22 10:04:50 2020 No.16417881 >>16412701 Bros we could have been Centaurian waifus, why did Maldeks have to shit the bed and cut off the transit to pleroma? I'm not okay with this.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 22 10:05:52 2020 No.16417887 >>16412743 It was Christians who identified as being members of Catholic Church, yes.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 22 10:07:27 2020 No.16417895 >>16412780 >Race mixing caused Rome's downfall A vegetable in a medically assisted coma could make better posts than this.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 22 10:09:04 2020 No.16417907 >>16412840 /thread The science/religion dichotomy is a complete falsehood and only pushed by pseud retards on both sides of the mess.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 22 10:11:43 2020 No.16417925 >>16413438 This is the first post to make me interested in Ride the Tiger.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 22 10:36:02 2020 No.16418066 >>16417271 Eurocentrism is the way

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 22 11:01:12 2020 No.16418193 >>16412701 >Early hominids had better technology than people during the renaissance really makes u think

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 22 12:13:18 2020 No.16418637 >>16418193 We really hit the ground running

Anonymous Tue Sep 22 12:22:01 2020 No.16418703

>>16412611
What I like most about OP's image is that it basically just admits that Western White European's were the only possible way for the entirety of our species to ever progress and that them holding themselves back for about a thousand years put the rest of the planet on hold because they just weren't capable of making any progress until White Europeans started doing things right.

It's funny when you see this interpretation of a graph that's highly Eurocentric and then just extrapolate that information to the rest of the world, because we as a species do not live in a vacuum.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 22 12:35:49 2020 No.16418810 >>16418703 The first civilization on that list were Africans

Anonymous Tue Sep 22 12:40:40 2020 No.16418850
File: 536 KB, 1027x585, Kepler.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>16412840
>>16412871
exactly, almost every great scientist was inspired by the work of God, that was the mindset: to know and try to understand the work of God, in fact that is all we humans are doing, we are here interacting with the cosmos(order) but the universe is not our creation! we did not make it!, this is a fact, and "the first cause" for all made things for all of nature is called God, could God be a quantum fluctuation in the infinite void? I don't know the bible start by saying he is "logos" this means a logic or a "logic and an action" as when we speak a "word"

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 22 12:47:05 2020 No.16418900 >>16412840 Complete pseud Deist take. Miracles and magic exist.

Anonymous Tue Sep 22 12:54:48 2020 No.16418944

>>16417925
It's a good book if you're open to Traditionalist ideas and find modernity lame. Evola's aim in RtT is to provide confused but nonconformist men with the kernel of a worldview. He gets that done in 4-8 chapters depending on how you view it and the rest of the book is spent on commentaries on the various aspects of modernity and how they may be useful or useless to nonmodern men.
>>16418810
>Egyptians
>Africans

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 22 12:59:19 2020 No.16418975 >>16414382 Your morality is the morality of the masses, retard. You simply have a slightly larger vocabulary with which to articulate that same retarded desire.

Anonymous Tue Sep 22 13:04:46 2020 No.16419017

>>16418975
>"you follow the morality of the masses retard!!!"
>the morality of the masses is liberal, libertine, humanitarian, moralist (they'll lynch you for disagreeing with them), "socialist", egalitarian, universalist, etc. etc.
>meanwhile I reject morality as a concept in favour of transcendence
>meanwhile your Christian morality is also humanitarian, moralist. "socialist", egalitarian and universalist but is slightly less liberal
The absolute state of (You).

Anonymous Tue Sep 22 13:10:56 2020 No.16419049

>>16419017
One moment you call them self-serving and giving lip service to higher ideals they do not live up to, just like you- but when compared to them, you accuse them of authentic humanism.
You embarrass yourself in life and your death will be even more embarrassing.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 22 13:12:33 2020 No.16419059 >>16419049 Literally what the fuck are you talking about? Did you reply to the wrong person?

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 22 13:14:17 2020 No.16419068 >>16419059 Your behavior, you shifty little faggot.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 22 13:16:06 2020 No.16419079 >>16419068 Speak in complete sentences if you want to converse with me. What's the issue? Did you fail to understand that "humanism" is a pejorative? Seriously, what is it, I can't tell.

Anonymous Tue Sep 22 13:22:39 2020 No.16419116

>>16419079
Despite your best efforts, you still write like a mad little bugman.
Yes, I know you treat it as a pejorative.
Your politics and philosophy are an attempt to 'reclaim' a power which you never possessed and do not deserve.
Good rulers do so with forbearance- where your every word dribbles with the weak man's spite.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 22 13:23:56 2020 No.16419126 >>16412633 Based and checked

Anonymous Tue Sep 22 13:24:53 2020 No.16419133

>>16419116
We're on a Tibetan basket weaving forum. There's no power to be "reclaimed" here, nor any requirement for "forbearance". Yeah, I think humanism is cringe. Yeah, I think you're cringe too if you disagree. Yeah, that makes me fucking based. Read a book. Move past the 17th century, buddy.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 22 13:26:11 2020 No.16419141 >>16419133 All philosophy derived from one's willpower is cringe if held by weaklings, which you are unless you post physique, fag.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 22 13:28:43 2020 No.16419161 File: 312 KB, 601x471, 3.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>16419141 Here you go. Enjoy. Also just FYI, you don't need to follow Nietzsche in order to reject liberal humanitarianism. I do so on a different basis.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 22 13:29:11 2020 No.16419166 >>16414076 Fucking this. Image is wrong, OP is a fag and Ted did nothing wrong, everything since the industrial revolution was a mistake.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 22 13:31:48 2020 No.16419178 >>16419161 >he didn't post 'zeek Confirmed scrawny little fag with le /pol/ face and thin framed glasses. I am better than you by your standards, by mine, and by those of God.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 22 13:32:32 2020 No.16419187 >>16412611 The Catholic Church fought voluntarism, the theological inspiration for modern science, so the refutation you cite isn't even to the point.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 22 13:32:51 2020 No.16419190 Not literature.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 22 13:33:12 2020 No.16419194 >>16412611 The decline of science in the Greek world happened between 200 and 150 bc, its in this period Greek science stops developing and we see a slow return to traditional religion among educated Greeks and Romans.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 22 13:33:31 2020 No.16419196 >>16419178 Maybe. But you are also an illiterate queer.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 22 13:35:26 2020 No.16419207 >>16419196 Uh-huh. Post shelf, fag.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 22 13:36:18 2020 No.16419217 >>16419207 I am too poor, I can't afford a shelf. I do have thousands of e-books, however.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 22 13:38:01 2020 No.16419223 >>16419217 Get yourself physical editions of those you'd consider your most important books. Staring into a screen all the time is bad for the soul and the eyes both.

Anonymous Tue Sep 22 13:41:30 2020 No.16419242

>>16413438
>completely nonsensical and incoherent
>a good mathematical model that "explains" things
Choose one. Also, what`s alternative? Research at quantum mechanics using insight, otherwordly experience and intution? Meditation? Philosophical word-play? How else you can find realible data if not through mathematic?

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 22 13:41:56 2020 No.16419244 >>16412611 Yes, of couse.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 22 13:42:06 2020 No.16419246 >>16419223 I read too much wrongthink for that to be a possibility. Plus I have really good eyes, apparently, so I'll be good for a long time to come.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 22 13:42:20 2020 No.16419250 >>16419178 >by those of God Completely false. Though he does come off as a pretentious faggot. >>16419217 Post e-shelf, fag.

Anonymous Tue Sep 22 13:44:50 2020 No.16419266

>>16419242
The mathbrain is so thoroughly fucked by maths that he can no longer comprehend basic fact unless it is presented to him mathematically. Hell, he would not be able to comprehend it even then. In his mental hierarchy, the mathematical explanation precedes the basic fact it is describing in terms of importance, relevance and truthfulness. Unless something can be written into a formula, it can not possibly be true. Only things that can be written into formulas can possibly be true.
You're asking for alternatives, but until you reject the whole field of superficial "study" of "reality" (defined in a materialist-positivist way exclusively), no progress can be made at all.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 22 13:45:00 2020 No.16419267 >>16419246 Come on, there are plenty of used book stores and online booksellers that deal in moral exotics. It's important that you learn the value of physicality, or at least redundancy.

Anonymous Tue Sep 22 13:48:51 2020 No.16419288

>>16419250
Lately I've been reading a lot of Junger, Evola, Carl Schmitt and even a bit of Dugin, if that's any help. In the rest of my time I like reading about socialist economics (both old Marxist and new generally leftist works) and various kinds of history.
>>16419267
It's not that I can't find the books I read, it's more so that storing them would be difficult without raising a lot of eyebrows.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 22 13:53:12 2020 No.16419305 >>16419288 Roommates? Parents? College dorm? Just put them in a chest or your sock drawer or whatever.

Anonymous Tue Sep 22 13:54:24 2020 No.16419314

>>16419266
>Only things that can be written into formulas can possibly be true.
No - things can be true without formula and they are. But we speaking there about human brain, which is quiet a biased and incorrect instrument. You can describe things without mathematics, but you will be increaseangly prone to logical fallacies, confirmation bias and simple errors. Formulas help there a lot.
Also, sorry - there is no single proof of other "reality" except materialistic. Why one need waste resources on some made up bullshit when entire insanely complex creation is behind him?

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 22 13:54:35 2020 No.16419315 >>16419305 Why are you so insistent that I should get physical books when digital ones work just as well lol

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 22 13:55:24 2020 No.16419321 >>16412633 HOLY SHIT IS THAT A VAGUELY CONSERVATIVE OR TRADITIONALIST OPINION HAHA BASED BASED HE SAID SOMETHING TRADITIONAL BASED

Anonymous Tue Sep 22 13:58:15 2020 No.16419341

>>16419314
>But we speaking there about human brain, which is quiet a biased and incorrect instrument.
Why are we speaking about the "human brain"? Because your materialist-positivist science tells you that is the be all and end all of consciousness? You see the problem.
>You can describe things without mathematics, but you will be increaseangly prone to logical fallacies, confirmation bias and simple errors. Formulas help there a lot.
Formulas are literally the only tool left to modern science because it has degenerated into such incoherence that there is absolutely no other way to present information within its limits while even remotely making sense.
>Also, sorry - there is no single proof of other "reality" except materialistic.
There is also no proof of a materialistic "reality" if you follow a robust epistemology. Fortunately, modern science has no need of such things. "Default to best explanation" may be a fallacy in philosophy and serious thinking, but since science is literally based on this fallacy, its arms are unbound.
>Why one need waste resources on some made up bullshit when entire insanely complex creation is behind him?
Because your method of acquainting yourself with "reality" and "complex creation" is literally just a step above pure guesswork.

Anonymous Tue Sep 22 14:00:46 2020 No.16419354

>>16412701
FACT: Hyper-Finn and Hyper-Gook leadership retreated to inter-brane bunkers early in the hyper-war. They funded the Taliban """Terrorists""" that translated the Orthoplex into Maldek. The fact that people STILL believe that Centaurian Hubris or Maldek Incompetance led to Maldek's doom is beyond me. Consult the fucking tablets.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 22 14:02:47 2020 No.16419364 >>16412701 UGH, what could have been... the christchads took this from us!

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 22 14:03:16 2020 No.16419368 >>16419315 They don't work just as well, zuum zuum.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 22 14:03:46 2020 No.16419372 >>16412736 They first had gunpowder in the 13th century. Before the New Aristotle, not much was happening in Latin Europe intellectually speaking after Boethius.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 22 14:04:21 2020 No.16419377 >>16419368 They seem slightly more convenient desu since you can read them anywhere. I've read some of Marx's books on the bus that way.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 22 14:06:28 2020 No.16419394 >>16419377 >you can read them anywhere They're called trade paperbacks zumí

Anonymous Tue Sep 22 14:06:39 2020 No.16419398

>>16414076
Science gives us options.
In the middle ages, the meaning of life for most people boiled down to "Eat, work, sleep, and have kids because God said to." Believing otherwise was, if nothing else, a great way to be avoided by everyone. It is entirely possible to still believe this, surrounded by like-minded others, just as it's possible to drop everything and buy a farm in the middle of nowhere, and live a peaceful life away from technology. Of course, nobody does it because most people don't like being THAT shackled to a belief, and farming is tough as hell.
You, like most people, are just a dumbass who doesn't know how to handle those options. You COULD live a life similar to that of the middle ages, but you CHOOSE not to, and blame your immediate surroundings for the fault. Your surroundings, which the individual has more control over than ever before in history. If you don't find "meaning" in your life, whatever that even is, that's your own damn fault.

And saying "Life had meaning then" is bullshit. Regardless of actual belief, the entire existence of Ecclesiastes in the Bible shows ennui is hardly new, and that such feelings even back then were perfectly common.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 22 14:10:18 2020 No.16419428 >>16412611 We are exploring the galaxy, we use big fancy telescopes.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 22 14:13:16 2020 No.16419440 >>16419321 Ya fumin'?

Anonymous Tue Sep 22 14:13:34 2020 No.16419444

>>16419341
>all and end all of consciousness?
Ok, lets take cosciousness. How you define it for yourself? How it is different from brain, its sole substrat? All things in your mind is a product of complex chemical and electric reactions.

>the only tool left to modern science because it has degenerated into such incoherence that there is absolutely no other way to present information within its limits while even remotely making sense

please, enlight me, what other tools science forgot?

>no proof of a materialistic "reality"

I guess my brain is too low for you, because why do you need epistemology if you can record a pure natural data which will prove that reality is real? You even have machines for that.

>a step above pure guesswork
Yes, but very plausible one. Your method is pure lucid dreaming.

Anonymous Tue Sep 22 14:20:03 2020 No.16419484

>>16419444
>Ok, lets take cosciousness. How you define it for yourself? How it is different from brain, its sole substrat? All things in your mind is a product of complex chemical and electric reactions.
I don't "define" consciousness, I know consciousness. It's your experiential self.
>please, enlight me, what other tools science forgot?
Take your snark elsewhere, it's not my problem you're too low IQ to understand what I'm saying.
>I guess my brain is too low for you, because why do you need epistemology if you can record a pure natural data which will prove that reality is real? You even have machines for that.
You need epistemology precisely to define what "pure natural data" is. You, personally, do this by pretending epistemology doesn't exist so therefore your definition of "pure natural data" is automatically correct and is the only possible correct definition.
>Yes, but very plausible one.
Not an argument.
>Your method is pure lucid dreaming.
Read a book.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 22 14:33:43 2020 No.16419546 >>16419484 Based POV. Can you explain what you mean by science degenerating/ formulas being its only remaining tool? As opposed to what? That lost me.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 22 14:42:08 2020 No.16419606 >>16413944 >pagan temples literally abandoned in '''''pagan'''' empire >akchualyy christianity was degeneracy!

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 22 14:44:10 2020 No.16419626 >>16412633 unironically this

Anonymous Tue Sep 22 14:52:38 2020 No.16419698

>>16419546
I am not an expert on this so you should acquaint yourself with a more authoritative source. I was introduced to this perspective by the Traditionalist school. The fundamental claim is that science and metaphysics go together and that the original manifestation of science was sacred science. Pythagorean sacred geometry might be of interest. Anyway, in this model man plays an active part and introduces a qualitative factor to scientific study rather than simply being one of many objects. The degeneration of science has been traced, specifically by Evola though probably also by other Traditionalist, as that of Classical (and then Medieval) sacred science which is fully in tune with metaphysics through a phase of mechanistic science (Newtonian conception of the world) and finally into an incoherent formulaic abstraction with the major point of introduction being Einstein's theory of relativity.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 22 14:53:50 2020 No.16419707 >>16419606 Nice one bro but Christians actually killed and drove off pagans, destroyed their temples and murdered their spiritual and intellectual leaders fairly often, so no, they weren't "abandoned".

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 22 14:56:02 2020 No.16419721 >>16419707 >Christians killed pagan leaders Was this before or after they were thrown to lions by the aforementioned pagan leaders, you historically illiterate horned fedora?

Anonymous Tue Sep 22 14:59:27 2020 No.16419752

>>16419484
>It's your experiential self
which is product of my brain.

> too low IQ to understand what I'm saying
Okay, i get it, you don`t know.

>You need epistemology precisely to define what "pure natural data"
I don`t need epistemology to describe all physical properties of material objects. Summa of those properties is "pure data". Kinda primitive but it is like that.

>Not an argument.
As i already said - give us better alternative.

Anonymous Tue Sep 22 14:59:50 2020 No.16419754

>>16419721
>every pagan is a Roman Emperor
Btw just for context, the Roman Empire extended religious tolerance to every people it conquered. Christians provoked an authoritarian response when they used their faith as an excuse to be political subversives and reject the authority of the empire. At that point you reap what you sow.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 22 15:01:38 2020 No.16419762 >>16419698 >introduces a qualitative factor to scientific study No, that`s simply mean mix of mysticism and science. It is ok for Ancient Greece tho

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 22 15:02:10 2020 No.16419766 >>16412633 Based

Anonymous Tue Sep 22 15:04:04 2020 No.16419781

>>16419752
>which is product of my brain.
You are completely incapable of producing any proof of that.
>Okay, i get it, you don`t know.
Can you point to the strings out of which the universe is made of, retard? If I went back in time to ancient Greece and asked Greek scientists to produce an atom, they would physically show me what they define an atom to be. Why can't you do that with your concepts? Right. Because they're retarded abstractions with solely mathematical basis. That you're even so dumb and arrogant to ask me to list every other possible way of interacting with reality that isn't mathematical speaks for itself. Outrageously stupid.
>I don`t need epistemology to describe all physical properties of material objects. Summa of those properties is "pure data". Kinda primitive but it is like that.
>"I don't need epistemology to use bad epistemology to promote my perspective"
Thanks bro, hard hitting take.
>As i already said - give us better alternative.
The better alternative is to at least acknowledge the enormous, gigantic, disgustingly dishonest flaws in your shitty, stupid system. Let's start there.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 22 15:05:18 2020 No.16419790 >>16419321 >I FUCKING LOVE SCIENCE

Anonymous Tue Sep 22 15:05:33 2020 No.16419793

>>16419698
Is this sacred science just alignment of the practical empirical benefits of science with the human telos? As opposed to the modern inclination to keep creating and refining scientific achievements regardless of whether those achievements serve human ends.

I sort of get the issue of incoherent formulaic abstractions- that being said Einstein’s theoretical developments did unlock practical technological progress- nuclear weapons, computing, traveling to the moon had to factor in relativity etc. so that being said, the formulaic science still brings practical benefit and power to manipulate the world. Is it then all bad?

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 22 15:05:58 2020 No.16419796 >>16419754 >render unto Caesar what is Caesar's Whoa, how subversive

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 22 15:06:36 2020 No.16419802 >>16419762 Metaphysics =/= mysticism. Both of those words have very deep meaning that modern people are completely ignorant of. There was zero mysticism involved with Greek science.

Anonymous Tue Sep 22 15:07:00 2020 No.16419804

>>16412611
Does anyone have the Baptist parody of this image? Instead of “scientific progress” it’s “soul-winning efforts”, and the events are stuff like
>God gives Moses the first five books of the KJV
>John becomes the first Baptist
>the hole left by the Catholic trail of blood
>God recreates the King James Bible in 1611

Anonymous Tue Sep 22 15:07:37 2020 No.16419807

>>16419707
There is no archeological evidence supporting destruction of pagan temples in the way media and public education taught you. Sorry to make you actually go after facts but what about reading books with archeological informations?

>The Archeology of Late Antique Paganism by Luke A. Lavan and Michael Mulryan
Read it. There were many abandoned pagan temples, christians only occupied them by state decrees.

>Christians actually killed and drove off pagans
Cite me numbers and source. From what I know it was pagans who were murderers, from the beginning.

> murdered their spiritual and intellectual leaders
Which ones? Paganism was dead in Roman Empire, no theology, no metaphysics. Nothing.

Anonymous Tue Sep 22 15:11:34 2020 No.16419833

>>16419793
>Is this sacred science just alignment of the practical empirical benefits of science with the human telos?
Yes, you could put it that way. The job of Traditional science is to create a world that is intelligible, sensible and conducive to the metaphysical, personal growth of the individual. Knowledge must have meaning, it can not be reduced to mere phantoms and "models". The rabbit hole goes deeper, though, if you're willing to engage with it, but I am far too poorly read on the matter to go any further than this. Go to the source.
>I sort of get the issue of incoherent formulaic abstractions- that being said Einstein’s theoretical developments did unlock practical technological progress- nuclear weapons, computing, traveling to the moon had to factor in relativity etc. so that being said, the formulaic science still brings practical benefit and power to manipulate the world. Is it then all bad?
This is correct, but the point of contention is that science only produces technological advances, not "truth" in any sense of the word. The Traditionalists are also to an extent anti-technology, because to them power is something that one must gain through inner growth and inner strength. Technology grants power to modern man, but does not qualitatively improve him - on the contrary, it often debases him.
>>16419796
>Jesus said that you should pay taxes when the pharisees were trying to get him arrested for state subversion therefore all Christians were model citizens of Rome

Anonymous Tue Sep 22 15:11:59 2020 No.16419836

>>16419754
>extended religious tolerance to every people it conquered
>The perfect Maximus, who had alternately attempted to bribe and then rason the veteran Julius into (avoiding execution) was told the money he was offering was ''the money of Satan'' and that ''neither it nor your crafty talk can deprive me of the eternal light''. ''If you do not respect the imperial decrees and offer sacrifice, I am going to cut your head off''. Julius replies boldly that ''to live with you would be death for me''. He is beheaded.

so tolerant

Anonymous Tue Sep 22 15:18:37 2020 No.16419866

>>16419807
>Read it. There were many abandoned pagan temples, christians only occupied them by state decrees.
I wonder what could have possibly caused them to become abandoned.
>Cite me numbers and source. From what I know it was pagans who were murderers, from the beginning.
Do you want me to give you a video reel too? Go read the Bible and see for yourself what the encounters between Christians and pagans often boiled down to. Many, many parallels with today. You have people who want to protect their way of life from foreign people with foreign creeds who are ignored by the state and then you have the Christians.
>Which ones? Paganism was dead in Roman Empire, no theology, no metaphysics. Nothing.
Hypatia, for one. IDK how you can claim that paganism had "nothing", it was an extremely rich and pluralistic world of thought in comparison to Christianity - both contemporary and post-Roman. The Christian challenge even brought about a further strengthening and purification of pagan metaphysics with the cult of Sol Invictus, one of the greatest, if final sparks of glory in Rome.
>>16419836
>all the other people offer sacrifices
>Christians don't
hmmm what could possibly go wrong

Anonymous Tue Sep 22 15:19:55 2020 No.16419871

>>16419781
Yes, anon. Ask these nihilistic moderns what matter is and they will collapse. They will always find refuge in more abstractions like ''matter is field'' and when you point how field is extended, sharing in qualitative conditions they will abstract even more into ''there is only time and space''. This is the level. These people don't know what they are talking about.

Anonymous Tue Sep 22 15:25:47 2020 No.16419925

>>16419866
>Hypatia
>he does not know what preceeded and followed the event.
Do you really want to know? A christian, disciple of Cyril (iirc), was murdered in a POLITICAL confusion. The enraged mob of christians (yes it is always mentioned christians were enraged, but the reason obviously concealed) attacked her. Later, pagans took siege of a temple and tortured some christians. Also, Hypatia had christian students.

Roman paganism was degenerate. Deities were state deities, emperors and other leaders were venerated as gods. Platonists continued their own intellectual production far from any support to the roman degeneracy. It is very interesting that ''neo''Platonism flourished right when Christianity was declared the official religion.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 22 15:25:49 2020 No.16419926 >>16419871 What matter fundamentally is, though scientific materialists don’t know it, is a noumena that structures phenomena. Even though scientific materialists are fucking retarded, their underlying metaphysics is worth preserving and adapting.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 22 15:30:56 2020 No.16419966 >>16412633 Hello based apartment? We got another one

Anonymous Tue Sep 22 15:31:36 2020 No.16419971

>>16419925
I don't see how your story is supposed to make this any better. I am familiar with the background. It's still cringe.
>Roman paganism was degenerate. Deities were state deities, emperors and other leaders were venerated as gods. Platonists continued their own intellectual production far from any support to the roman degeneracy. It is very interesting that ''neo''Platonism flourished right when Christianity was declared the official religion.
It is interesting, but probably for the exact opposite reason of what you think. Also, there is literally nothing degenerate about venerating leaders as gods. This is perhaps the single oldest Indo-European tradition and it has illustrious spiritual heritage.
>>16419926
Your definition of matter can also be used to define spirit, though.

Anonymous Tue Sep 22 15:35:51 2020 No.16420001

>>16419866
>I wonder what could have possibly caused them to become abandoned.
Don’t be passive aggressive, say what you wanna say. Why were they abandoned?
>Do you want me to give you a video reel too? Go read the Bible and see for yourself what the encounters between Christians and pagans often boiled down to. Many, many parallels with today. You have people who want to protect their way of life from foreign people with foreign creeds who are ignored by the state and then you have the Christians.
Saint Paul preaching at them and stoics and epicureans telling him they’re interested?

Anonymous Tue Sep 22 15:38:52 2020 No.16420024

>>16419971
>Your definition of matter can also be used to define spirit, though.

Exactly. It can also be used to define, 'a', an empty variable I just created. Or 'dog', if I decided that I now define dog as the aforementioned definition.

You could write the bible or Newton's principia using simple variables like 'a' 'b' '1' etc. The words are political. The underlying order the words are trying to convey is what matters.

Anonymous Tue Sep 22 15:39:14 2020 No.16420030

>>16420001
>Don’t be passive aggressive, say what you wanna say. Why were they abandoned?
Christian and pagan communities were basically segregated. The retreat of paganism was accompanied by a retreat of the ethnic and religious demographics that inhabited the newly Christianised regions.
>Saint Paul preaching at them and stoics and epicureans telling him they’re interested?
Sure, the intellectuals are always interest, which is kind of based in its own way. I was thinking to a specific story about the goddess Artemis, though I can't remember the chapter. I believe Saint Paul was again the protagonist. The events were hilariously reminiscent of the mood today, though back then at least the pagan Greeks had the nerve to go and protest about all the foreignness encroaching on their land.

Anonymous Tue Sep 22 15:41:24 2020 No.16420046

>>16419833
I agree we need an anthropological teleological ethical revival. But scientific metaphysics isn't going anywhere, you cant put the genie back in the bottle. Science needs to be incorperated into the new philosophical movement, its a source of truth and power that mankind needs to realize the final end of universal attainment of eudaimonia.

Anonymous Tue Sep 22 15:41:57 2020 No.16420049

>>16420024
This is also why materialists will never use your definition, though. Your model is nothing like any standard materialist conception of the world. If it can be used to describe an idealist world, then it will necessarily not be received well by the materialists. I wouldn't even call it materialist.

Anonymous Tue Sep 22 15:43:12 2020 No.16420058

>>16420046
That's the thing about scientific metaphysics and modern science, though - modern science is NOT source of truth. It is a sort of technological power, but nothing more than that. You can examine the Traditionalist arguments more closely if you wish, but you should be mindful not to concede too much to materialist science.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 22 15:49:01 2020 No.16420087 >>16417925 Revolt against the modern world is a better jumping off point.

Anonymous Tue Sep 22 15:50:08 2020 No.16420094

>>16420058
To say that modern science is not a source of truth is a stretch. Its a model of the underlying causal order of reality such that mankind can more efficiently realize his ends. There are different forms of truth, such as moral truth, and science does not advance that particular truth. But to say that isn't truth in any sense is to split hairs on the definition of truth. What would you call this power science has? Would you deny the existence of a consistent underlying causal order? Would you deny that mastery of this order is in any sense truth? Genuinely I'm curious what you'd define that as.

>>16420049
Materialists don't use my definition because they are ignorant and don't even know the nature of the concept they are defending. This is more politics. Politics is an important question, and if you're trying to manipulate people through their ignorance I suppose more power to you. But here I am not concerned with politics but Truth. And the truth is that 'matter' as a concept is inherently flawed. Is this desk matter? No its my mind- its qualia in my mind. Matter then is a hypothetical underlying order which I can myself sense or interact with. Matter is more akin to Kantian noumena. The fact that most materialists don't understand this does not change the truth of it

Anonymous Tue Sep 22 15:51:17 2020 No.16420099
File: 307 KB, 1280x813, the creation of adam deus ex homo.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>16412631
>>16413438
Science is first and foremost an animalistic behaviour driven by semantic, volitional, sensual etc cravings. Nature is composed of sufficiencies and excess, it is supremely pragmatic and so is science.
Scientist need to eat, they need to pay bills, they thirst for hidden wonders and mental exertion.
Truth is the path to predictive and transformative power, we seek truth for power, power for self-expression, to imprint our psyches into the foreign body that is this world.

Knowledge is health, it is the result of semantic consumption, when it stops your mind diminishes and so do your impressions of reality.
You're complaints about modern science is merely due to a difference in mental "dietary" needs, how meaningful is the Monstrous moonshine theory to a lab technician? an engineer? a physicist? and to you? theoretical mathematicians are okay with it, they extract meaning from those kinds of a priori processes and use it to continue searching in those realms.
Science isn't catering to you're needs so science is bad, the analysis is right because it's personal, the solution is too but is presented as panacea for others especially those who would likely suffer from it.
Humans have inhuman beginnings and endings, let science march on, maybe it will spawn a breed that finds truth without science.

>>16414325
That is because humanity is already living in a trans-human world.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 22 15:51:33 2020 No.16420101 >>16416514 Philosophy, much like pretty much everything else we associate with higher learning, used to be the realm of the solely elite.

Anonymous Tue Sep 22 15:51:58 2020 No.16420104

>>16412611
>In 2020, do you believe the Church, and religions as a whole, to be hindering the progress of science? We all have access to this happening in real time so it'll be easier to discuss than medieval times shit.
No, the biggest opponents of science now are Anglophone leftists who are basically spiritually opposed to Catholicism

Anonymous Tue Sep 22 15:53:03 2020 No.16420115

>>16420030
>The retreat of paganism was accompanied by a retreat of the ethnic and religious demographics.
Give me a single source about this. You have no idea about what you are talking and you ground your ''understanding'' of history on modern political issues, you even admitted it yourself. You should start reading books and turning off your computer.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 22 16:00:34 2020 No.16420187 >>16412633 /thread

Anonymous Tue Sep 22 16:02:26 2020 No.16420203

>>16420087
I haven't read Revolt yet but afaik Men Amongst the Ruins is just a more complete and mature version of it so you can just read that.
>>16420094
>To say that modern science is not a source of truth is a stretch. Its a model of the underlying causal order of reality such that mankind can more efficiently realize his ends. There are different forms of truth, such as moral truth, and science does not advance that particular truth. But to say that isn't truth in any sense is to split hairs on the definition of truth. What would you call this power science has? Would you deny the existence of a consistent underlying causal order? Would you deny that mastery of this order is in any sense truth? Genuinely I'm curious what you'd define that as.
Science is "truthful" insofar as it is useful for actualising a certain type of (technologically induced) change in the material world. It does not provide a truthful description of what "is" - this is impossible without metaphysics. Does that answer your question?
>Materialists don't use my definition because they are ignorant and don't even know the nature of the concept they are defending. This is more politics. Politics is an important question, and if you're trying to manipulate people through their ignorance I suppose more power to you. But here I am not concerned with politics but Truth. And the truth is that 'matter' as a concept is inherently flawed. Is this desk matter? No its my mind- its qualia in my mind. Matter then is a hypothetical underlying order which I can myself sense or interact with. Matter is more akin to Kantian noumena. The fact that most materialists don't understand this does not change the truth of it
I think our differences here might boil down to a simple difference in vocabulary. I agree with the example of the desk that you have provided, but I would describe the situation differently. Obviously, material objects are just different forms of projected spirit, but in my perspective matter is the phenomena in all cases. Spirit is the noumenon which structures phenomena (matter). Any seeming autonomy of matter beyond it just occurs on a level of spirit deeper than what can commonly be perceived.
>>16420115
No, this is an observation I drew only much after I got acquainted with data about the classical and the modern world. I come from an aggressively Christian background and my skepticism towards it developed alongside with my skepticism towards materialism, completely unlike the typical case. To reach my conclusions I have used reliable data presented to me by good and trustworthy friends, though I won't blame you for not believing me as I can not provide you with any sources on it right now.

Anonymous Tue Sep 22 16:05:46 2020 No.16420235

>>16420099
>You're complaints about modern science is merely due to a difference in mental "dietary" needs, how meaningful is the Monstrous moonshine theory to a lab technician? an engineer? a physicist? and to you? theoretical mathematicians are okay with it, they extract meaning from those kinds of a priori processes and use it to continue searching in those realms.
If the issue were purely personal it would not be such a problem, but it is an issue that pertains to the character of civilisation and thus applies not only to the whole of the mass (quantitatively) but also to the possibilities open to any member of the mass (qualitatively). Traditional civilisation acknowledged hierarchy and what I am describing ranks far higher than the need for simplistic mental exercise that results in empty formulaic abstractions.

Anonymous Tue Sep 22 16:11:23 2020 No.16420284
File: 88 KB, 702x1074, 1868_Lawrence_Alma-Tadema_-_Phidias_Showing_the_Frieze_of_the_Parthenon_to_his_Friends_.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>16420203
>Science is "truthful" insofar as it is useful for actualising a certain type of (technologically induced) change in the material world. It does not provide a truthful description of what "is" - this is impossible without metaphysics. Does that answer your question?

Somewhat. I think our main issue is our own personal languages- the words and conceptual webs we've developed through our personal study- are different. But I think the underlying structure of our linguistic webs is the same. Which I suppose is a more complicated way of saying what you already said.

Can you give me an example of what 'is'? a metaphysical statement? Do you mean an axiom, like 'being is' ?

>I think our differences here might boil down to a simple difference in vocabulary. I agree with the example of the desk that you have provided, but I would describe the situation differently. Obviously, material objects are just different forms of projected spirit, but in my perspective matter is the phenomena in all cases. Spirit is the noumenon which structures phenomena (matter). Any seeming autonomy of matter beyond it just occurs on a level of spirit deeper than what can commonly be perceived
would you consider pain, pleasure, thoughts, etc matter as well? All phenomenal things are matter in your definition?

Anonymous Tue Sep 22 16:22:46 2020 No.16420370

>>16420284
>Can you give me an example of what 'is'? a metaphysical statement? Do you mean an axiom, like 'being is' ?
When I was a kid I was very strongly drawn towards history, because I believed that it would let me understand the world, everything that exists. When I matured further, I realised my error and turned to Philosophy. When that too proved insufficient, I looked for answers to theology. Finally, I realised that only metaphysics holds the key to "everything" and can explain what "exists". The issue is that at that point, to speak of "things that exists" is to already infuse metaphysics with preconceived biases. Metaphysics does not describe that which exists. Metaphysics describes that which "is". Ontology is interesting since it studies Being, but metaphysics goes even deeper than that, though the terminology they use is similar.
>would you consider pain, pleasure, thoughts, etc matter as well? All phenomenal things are matter in your definition?
This is a very difficult question. My persona, subjective answer is that pain, pleasure and thoughts all fall under what one would call "samsaric life" and can therefore be counted as "matter". Though can be ennobled by spirit, but I am not sure about pain and pleasure. I think the main concern with pain and pleasure is what spiritual attitude and response is adopted in the face of them, rather than the feelings in and of themselves, so I think they still fall under the passive, materialistic category. All this is very contentious though, I haven't drawn my final conclusions on this specific question yet.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 22 16:24:11 2020 No.16420383 >>16420203 Yes. I couldn't expect much from someone who employed based and cringe in this sort of discussion.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 22 16:27:10 2020 No.16420399 >>16420383 ok sexi have fun chatting up people who aren't as based as me

Anonymous Tue Sep 22 16:27:26 2020 No.16420402

>>16420370
I appreciate the story but its all very cryptic. Can you tell me what this metaphysics you speak of does, or is, or where its located? Is it the unconveyable experience of being itself? Genuinely want to get to the heart of this. Or do you have recommended reading on the subject at least?

Is this a sort of Atman trapped in Maya POV you have? Seems very Eastern philosophy/theology

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 22 16:28:57 2020 No.16420413 >>16420402 Not that guy, but what's confusing to you? >The issue is that at that point, to speak of "things that exists" is to already infuse metaphysics with preconceived biases This is pretty straightforward.

Anonymous Tue Sep 22 16:31:14 2020 No.16420426

>>16420413
No you're right I just caught it. But then how does one approach metaphysics at all? We are always approaching life through a metaphysical lens, and yet we seem to come closer to the true nature of things if we seek it. I'm just skeptical whenever people throw out the mystical 'it cannot be spoken of' line. It must be spoken of. We have work to do.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 22 16:32:59 2020 No.16420436 >>16420426 >But then how does one approach metaphysics at all? That's a pretty hard question, I'm not sure if there's a satisfying answer. Did you read Aristotle's "Metaphysics"?

Anonymous Tue Sep 22 16:37:02 2020 No.16420456

>>16420402
>I appreciate the story but its all very cryptic. Can you tell me what this metaphysics you speak of does, or is, or where its located? Is it the unconveyable experience of being itself? Genuinely want to get to the heart of this. Or do you have recommended reading on the subject at least?
Everything exists within metaphysics and follows the rules of metaphysics. Nothing exists outside metaphysics. This is how I understand it. What "the universe and the laws of physics" are to a physicist, "metaphysics and the laws of metaphysics" is to me. It is the all-encompassing reality. Metaphysics has room both for physical reality and the spirit, but spirit takes precedence in the hierarchy. Like the ontological concept of Being, it adopts a different character depending on the context, but metaphysics also carries the implication of order which is not inherent in ontology.
>Is this a sort of Atman trapped in Maya POV you have? Seems very Eastern philosophy/theology
Something like that. It is worth noting that the Buddha thought that once one arrives at Nirvana, Nirvana and Samsara become the same thing. Similarly, Maya is not the only possible way to interpret the world and the Tantric interpretation of "world-as-Shakti (power)" can be just as valid depending on the circumstances and context. Evola's "The Yoga of Power" is an enlightening read on the topic, if you are interested.

Anonymous Tue Sep 22 16:37:18 2020 No.16420457

>>16420436
>>16420436
I don't think there is a satisfying answer. I personally believe I've reached deep metaphysical understanding of the world through intense personal study and rumination, but when I talk to others they either lack the capacity or the drive to reach the necessary epiphanies for understanding. I'd say my journey to deeper truth has been a journey from epiphany to epiphany, and epiphany is involuntary. I don't even know how I've come to my own understanding.

>Did you read Aristotle's "Metaphysics"?
Yes. why do you ask?

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 22 16:40:19 2020 No.16420475 >>16420457 >Yes. why do you ask? What are your thoughts on it?

Anonymous Tue Sep 22 16:41:35 2020 No.16420485

>>16420235
>Traditional civilisation acknowledged hierarchy and what I am describing ranks far higher than the need for simplistic mental exercise that results in empty formulaic abstractions.
The need for mental exercise birthed that hierarchy you so dearly love, what you're describing doesn't rank were you'd want it to in other peoples minds.
What value is there to acknowledging a hierarchy that is mere temporal and satisfying to it's hosts.

Anonymous Tue Sep 22 16:41:57 2020 No.16420490

>>16420456
>>16420456
>Everything exists within metaphysics and follows the rules of metaphysics. Nothing exists outside metaphysics.

Gotcha I get it now. Pretty odd that we are composed of fundamental reality and yet have so much trouble coming to understand its nature. Seriously I'm ready to die and see what's behind the curtain at this point.

>once one arrives at Nirvana, Nirvana and Samsara become the same thing.
This is the impression I got from listening to Alan Watts. Are you seeking Nirvana because its supposed to be a bitchin' phenomological experience? is that your life goal or focus in studying all this?

Anonymous Tue Sep 22 16:48:37 2020 No.16420528

>>16420475
>What are your thoughts on it?

Its one of the greatest works of human thought. Are you looking for a recommendation or a summary? You can't really summarize the metaphysics. The most valuable things that come to mind are Ousia and Aristotle's usage of potential/actuality. Also the unmoved mover was a bit mind blowing, considering Aristotle somehow has this reputation as the empiricist to Plato's idealism/rationalism. Aristotle is incredibly mystical and 'far out' in his thought, projecting essentially an 'eternity' concept that holds up all temporality.

If you want more specific information let me know. Overall I'd say the book is 100% worth the read if you're interested in philosophy, and you will never get from me or any summary what you will get from intense reading of the book itself.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 22 16:52:44 2020 No.16420552 >>16419866 >boohoo my poor greekoid whore The only notable thing Hypatia did was to be killed

Anonymous Tue Sep 22 16:54:43 2020 No.16420564

>>16420528
Thanks for the input, anon.
>If you want more specific information let me know
How about a rundown of all the books? I've read the work and am kind of confused as to the purpose of specific parts, especially the ones discussing the numbers
My favorite part was book IV, Aristotle really nailed the principle of non-contradiction. Also, do you think that any of the philosophical puzzles which he named in book III were solved by now?

Anonymous Tue Sep 22 16:57:47 2020 No.16420580

>>16420485
>The need for mental exercise birthed that hierarchy you so dearly love
I thought you were tradpilled because of what you said earlier, but you're clearly a material reductionist.
>what you're describing doesn't rank were you'd want it to in other peoples minds.
Also a democrat.
>What value is there to acknowledging a hierarchy that is mere temporal and satisfying to it's hosts.
None. Which is why Tradition speaks of a different type of hierarchy.
>>16420490
>Gotcha I get it now. Pretty odd that we are composed of fundamental reality and yet have so much trouble coming to understand its nature. Seriously I'm ready to die and see what's behind the curtain at this point.
If you feel open to my schizoposting, make sure to read Evola's Introduction to Magic first and unlock a deep and substantial connection with transcendence. Otherwise on death your soul will dissolve and your spirit will animate another body rather than returning to Brahman as a differentiated being.
>his is the impression I got from listening to Alan Watts. Are you seeking Nirvana because its supposed to be a bitchin' phenomological experience? is that your life goal or focus in studying all this?
Honestly, I'd love to achieve any of the forms of enlightenment. I jumped too deep into the rabbit hole so now my only choice is enlightenment or absolute nihilism (which sucks). Nirvana is one form of direct contact with transcendence, so reaching it or a similar qualification would simultaneously answer all of my questions, provide my spirit with immortality and also enable me to make the correct choices on this earth and make the most out of this life.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 22 16:58:53 2020 No.16420589 >>16420552 >"boohoo my poor Levantine saints and martyrs" Do not throw rocks from a glass house.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 22 17:03:01 2020 No.16420617 >>16420589 I'm not a christcuck, so I am perfectly comfortable jeering at how people are so obsessed with this random dead woman.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 22 17:03:46 2020 No.16420625 File: 93 KB, 364x370, wataki.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>16412736 I wish we could go back to neoclassicism today, and get rid of this soulless contemporary garbage.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 22 17:04:41 2020 No.16420633 File: 177 KB, 1000x1000, CD7F9EA3-DDDE-402D-BDF5-432084A33B71.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>16412611

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 22 17:09:24 2020 No.16420658 >>16412633 Based as fuck

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 22 17:15:51 2020 No.16420702 >>16420617 Then don't butt in lmao

Anonymous Tue Sep 22 17:18:01 2020 No.16420723

>>16420564
no problem.
>How about a rundown of all the books?
Bruh. I read it about 6 months ago. The section on numbers went over my head. I don't remember the puzzles very well, but my general impression is that Aristotle himself, in his own eyes, solved them.
I'll just give my own general understanding:

The forms exist in reality- as in 'oneness' exists when it is actualized in a thing, i.e. one finger that exists is composed of oneness, one tree is composed of oneness. number is not something outside of reality but is fundamental to reality, sort of permeates space and time and is latent within it. Aristotle also says the same about forms in general, that they are a part of actual things, but he also speaks of 'potential.' In the sense that, a billion years ago, men did not actually exist but still existed in potential. I subscribe to a sort of 'mainframe' theory, that there is a mainframe of all potential things outside of manifest actual reality. Essentially inside the unmoved mover is all potentiality, unto eternity, and actualization/ the manifest world draws from potentiality all that it actualizes. In this sense the forms do exist in a sort of platonic way, but not as abstract ideals, but as every single possible form that could ever be. A dog, and that same dog missing a single hair, and that same dog missing 2 hairs, and that same dog with a scratched nail, etc. All potential forms exist.

I don't know if that helps. More specific questions would be nice.

>>16420580
I don't think I'm going back to Brahman in this life, I'm too committed to the world. I might check out the book if I get the time, I've got a long list.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 22 17:24:00 2020 No.16420763 >>16420723 >I don't think I'm going back to Brahman in this life, I'm too committed to the world. It's okay bro, so am I. The aim is to return to Brahman as a differentiated spirit after your job on earth is done. Not before. Best of luck to you!

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 22 17:30:10 2020 No.16420793 >>16420763 Appreciate it man good talking to you.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 22 17:42:48 2020 No.16420875 >>16412611 Do you know that dark ages had this name because there little documents about his age, right? This doesn't mean that they have less technology.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 22 17:45:08 2020 No.16420887 File: 1.22 MB, 3072x2160, 1482199440622.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] When we unite with the Monad, does our consciousness become absorbed, and so our individuality erased? If so, I find this terrifying

Anonyme Tue Sep 22 17:46:56 2020 No.16420894

>>16420580
>I thought you were tradpilled because of what you said earlier, but you're clearly a material reductionist.
I'm not a material reductionist, i'm a solipsist with pragmatic dispositions who is honest enough to acknowledge
>Also a democrat.
Think you can prosper and die by glamour alone?
Not that it matters.
>None. Which is why Tradition speaks of a different type of hierarchy.
So you're not selling me a car you're selling me a subaru!! wow.
The hierarchy of reformations? how many have there been now? There are 6 digits worth of questionably useless cults on this planet.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 22 17:50:52 2020 No.16420922 >>16412633 BASED

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 22 17:51:56 2020 No.16420928 >>16419321 I FUCKING LOVE SCIENCE TOO BRO

>>	Anonyme Tue Sep 22 17:52:33 2020 No.16420936 File: 144 KB, 600x800, Baruch Spinoza.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>16420887 Gotta die some day bro, death or change oblivion is the end result. Don't fuss over it.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 22 17:55:03 2020 No.16420957 File: 1.23 MB, 1061x582, 1585595605155.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>16420936 Of course my friend, I should be grateful I have this life at all

>>	Anonyme Tue Sep 22 17:56:33 2020 No.16420969 >>16420894 I'm not a material reductionist, i'm a solipsist with pragmatic dispositions who is honest enough to acknowledge --- the power of the most dominant method for learning truth---

Anonymous Tue Sep 22 18:01:39 2020 No.16421011

>>16420887
>>16420957
Shift your center onto the spiritual plane and death on the material plane won't kill you, anon. Also fuck Spinoza.
>>16420894
>>16420969
>I'm not a material reductionist, i'm a solipsist with pragmatic dispositions who is honest enough to acknowledge --- the power of the most dominant method for learning truth---
It's literally not truth. If only you understood that, you'd get over the hurdle of material reductionism.
>Think you can prosper and die by glamour alone?
None of these depend on mass opinion.
>So you're not selling me a car you're selling me a subaru!! wow.
Nope. Not all hierarchies are equal. This is true on the basis of the very premises of hierarchy. Materialist hierarchy is just a question of power. Spiritual hierarchy is a question of divine truth.

Anonymous Tue Sep 22 18:05:26 2020 No.16421041

>>16421011
I am just wondering that in the variety of traditions that believe in a union with monad, does such a union destroy our individuality and consciousness utterly? I have heard Orthodox Christians say that Theosis does not cause our consciousness to be swallowed, but is retained in some form. Nevertheless I have heard conflicting opinions on this, and I want to know if my very self will be lost if I ever manage to achieve such a liberation.

Anonyme Tue Sep 22 18:13:03 2020 No.16421081

>>16421011
>It's literally not truth. If only you understood that, you'd get over the hurdle of material reductionism.
It literally is, truth is the path to power.
>>16421011
>Nope. Not all hierarchies are equal. This is true on the basis of the very premises of hierarchy. Materialist hierarchy is just a question of power. Spiritual hierarchy is a question of divine truth.
What is this divine truth?

Anonymous Tue Sep 22 18:14:14 2020 No.16421089

>>16421041
It depends on what exactly you are referring to when you say "monad", but if theosis is the example you give, then the answer is a definite no. It's more like unlocking a different layer of yourself that is above yourself. With that said, will you remain the same if you achieve a form of enlightenment? No. Every qualitative advancement requires that something be left behind. This is not something to be mourned. Would Hercules, having ascended to godhood, regret that he has lost his human life? Think of it along those lines. Even if your "individuality" changes, it is not so much a cessation of it as it is an awakening of a true individuality that is truly yours.

Anonymous Tue Sep 22 18:16:13 2020 No.16421097

>>16421081
>It literally is, truth is the path to power.
Yes, but also no. In the context of modern science, you have this backwards. Modern science is based on power and on that basis lays its claim on truth. It's an unconvincing claim.
>What is this divine truth?
Tradition as a quality of being spiritually awake and in touch with your nonmaterial self. Read the Traditionalists (or any of the great spiritual thinkers like the Buddha, the Tantrikas etc) if you want a holistic review of the concept.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 22 18:18:00 2020 No.16421107 >>16421089 I see. Thank you for that, it does put things into perspective. I will be honest, my concerns are less for myself, and more for someone I hold close, I do not want to lose those I love in my journey, even if one I must take alone

Anonymous Tue Sep 22 18:24:25 2020 No.16421143

>>16421107
In that case I must specify, there is no general requirement that you must leave your loved ones behind, but at some point your pursuit of enlightenment may call on you to do so. In such a case, refusing to do so would have certain consequences on your journey, because your actions will have prioritised earthly attachment over pure enlightenment (unless your attachment is itself a sacred source of enlightenment, which is possible in certain circumstances and traditions). The negative consequences of such attachment can range from a slowing down of progress, to a temporary block, reversion or even cessation of your quest. It is not worth it to panic over those things, but you should be prepared for the possibility that spiritual progress may require you to put your loved ones behind you.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 22 18:27:36 2020 No.16421163 >>16421143 I truly hope it does not come that, it was part of the reason I started this to begin with. They deserve salvation far more than I do. Thank you for you time anon, I will not trouble you any further

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 22 18:29:12 2020 No.16421172 File: 10 KB, 225x225, butsrslywtf.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>16412611 what does the Y axis even represent, quantitatively? How do you assign a number to something as nuanced and esoteric as "scientific advancement"??

Anonymous Tue Sep 22 18:34:13 2020 No.16421207

>>16421163
No worries. One last parting thought - if you do not deserve enlightenment, you will not find it, but if you find enlightenment, you will have deserved it purely for being yourself. Do not dismiss yourself so casually, you are a lot more than you know.
>>16421172
It's just materialists doing what materialists do, bro.
>muh quantitative worldview!

Anonyme Tue Sep 22 18:34:19 2020 No.16421208
File: 215 KB, 400x524, glasses.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>16421097
>Yes, but also no. In the context of modern science, you have this backwards. Modern science is based on power and on that basis lays its claim on truth. It's an unconvincing claim.
You seek a deeper authentic reality but you do so in an effort to gain power over your life, you are no different from the scientists.
>Tradition as a quality of being spiritually awake and in touch with your nonmaterial self. Read the Traditionalists (or any of the great spiritual thinkers like the Buddha, the Tantrikas etc) if you want a holistic review of the concept.
Tradition is not an intrinsic quality of being spiritually awake and the non-material self isn't any less a concept than matter.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 22 18:36:35 2020 No.16421219 >>16412611 Nope

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 22 18:38:47 2020 No.16421235 File: 3 KB, 500x353, 500px-Haskell-Logo.svg.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>16421089 Does Jesus understand monads?

Anonymous Tue Sep 22 18:46:36 2020 No.16421267

>>16421208
>You seek a deeper authentic reality but you do so in an effort to gain power over your life, you are no different from the scientists.
Maybe not in terms of motivations, but certainly in terms of inner orientation. The type of power I am pursuing is also very different from the type of power that modern science pursues. They ignore their Selves and pursue power over nature (or rather, power of nature). I pursue power over myself.
>Tradition is not an intrinsic quality of being spiritually awake
It is, by the Traditionalist definition.
>non-material self isn't any less a concept than matter
This is true, both describe things that are real in their own way, but that hold different importance to the individual. Matter should be of instrumental value. Spirit should be of intrinsic value. You can reject this if you wish, but that is your failure to see, not a failure of reality to make you see.
>>16421235
According to Church canon, Jesus was one with God the Father (the One, monad, whatever you want to call him). So the answer would be yes. A non-Christian, but objective answer would be very similar and also return a yes.

Anonyme Tue Sep 22 19:51:09 2020 No.16421715

>>16421267
>Maybe not in terms of motivations
Absolutely in terms of motivations with power over your life (in it's totality not just empirical) as in having the appropriate means to achieving your goal of theosis.
>>16421267
>The type of power I am pursuing is also very different from the type of power that modern science pursues. They ignore their Selves and pursue power over nature (or rather, power of nature). I pursue power over myself.
That's because you think your being is not weaved within nature
>>16421267
>It is, by the Traditionalist definition.
yes and budhists say enlightenment is possible without budhic teachings, more subaru sales.
>>16421267
>This is true, both describe things that are real in their own way, but that hold different importance to the individual. Matter should be of instrumental value. Spirit should be of intrinsic value. You can reject this if you wish, but that is your failure to see, not a failure of reality to make you see.
It is both or neither, the failure is shared, as free will is a concept devoid of any descrptive power beyond egocentric action, it is inconsequential and superfluous therefore it's not practically real.

>>	Anonyme Tue Sep 22 19:52:55 2020 No.16421727 >>16421715 budhists say enlightenment is >NOT possible without budhic teachings

Anonymous Tue Sep 22 19:53:15 2020 No.16421731

>>16412611
Yes, I believe that organized religion is a roadblock to technological and scientific progress.
In both the way that it allows people to ignore earthly issues in favor of imagined afterlives, and in the way where people put religious messaging over the well researched information being put out by scientists and associated researchers.

Anonymous Tue Sep 22 19:56:56 2020 No.16421758

>>16412780
Social decadence did not cause the fall of Rome.
Overstressed governmental systems and overstressed populations that no longer got any benefit out of working to preserve the empire did.
Rome fell out of its own bloat and institutional weakness.

Not because the Senators at too much food or whatever 'decadence' means.

Anonymous Tue Sep 22 20:04:53 2020 No.16421822

>>16421715
>Absolutely in terms of motivations with power over your life (in it's totality not just empirical) as in having the appropriate means to achieving your goal of theosis.
I meant that I am no different to them in terms of motivation, but I am different in terms of focus.
>That's because you think your being is not weaved within nature
I do, but I refuse to ignore my qualitative character, which modern science denies to everyone.
>yes and budhists say enlightenment is possible without budhic teachings, more subaru sales.
The Traditionalist analyse and incorporate Buddhist ideas too.
>It is both or neither, the failure is shared, as free will is a concept devoid of any descrptive power beyond egocentric action, it is inconsequential and superfluous therefore it's not practically real.
Free will isn't real if it's reduced to the material world only. I refer to what I said earlier.
>>16421758
A decadent emperor literally killed "the last true Roman" in a temper tantrum bitch fit lmao. You're deluded if you dismiss decadence as a major factor in the downfall of Rome.

Anonymous Tue Sep 22 20:06:29 2020 No.16421833

>>16412701
I am of the mind that the hyperwar never ended.

>Finnish people subjegate jews through the illuminati
>The illuminati utilizes the jewish religion and derives Marxism
>Marxist hypermonist supermovement move east through the soviet union into China
>Korean turncoats join the red wave but are heroically stopped by korean allied US and Japan

Anonymous Tue Sep 22 20:10:32 2020 No.16421866

>>16412840
I have to disagree.
Religion, especially the Abrahamic ones, are built around humans not being able to understand things and needing faith to do it.
There is the famous quote in the book of Job of god talking about how only he understands where storms come from among other things.
This is directly against the work that scientists have done to understand the world.

If the Abrahamic religions are all about no knowing and not understanding the world, and needing to rely on god to do so, then their conflict with scientific research is inevitable and has and will continue to happen.

Anonymous Tue Sep 22 20:13:35 2020 No.16421883

>>16412848
Most of the stories of that time were oral tales. Legends like that of Charlemagne.
The issue is that we don't have complete records of many of these.
https://www.britannica.com/art/Charlemagne-legend#:~:text=Charlemagne%20legend%2C%20fusion%20of%20folktale,before%20his%20death%20in%20814.
For example.

Anonymous Tue Sep 22 20:14:38 2020 No.16421890

>>16419354
>Implying Centaurians could even create hyperspace travel and recover distant force from nebulas
>Implying taliban were not precursor diluvian paganists
>implying PIE people are not inherently inferior to hyperconfuscian Koreans
Seethe and cope like thre Phaetan you are.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 22 20:16:37 2020 No.16421906 >>16414076 What meaning did life have in the Middle Ages? If you weren't a noble or rich bugher, you were barely a person.

Anonymous Tue Sep 22 20:20:15 2020 No.16421926

>>16417271
The 'Dark Ages' is a term now prescribed carefully to the period between the fall of Rome and the Carolingian Renaissance, with some using it for a limited time afterwards.
Its used mainly to call to attention that we don't know shit about it.

There is very little writing from that time, and what we do know is all written far later by biased chroniclers.
Its 'dark' because we have no info about the time period.

What we can say is that its not 'dark' because lives were significantly worse or anything.
If anything life expectancy increased for men and women after the fall of Rome.

Anonyme Tue Sep 22 20:24:22 2020 No.16421944

>>16421822
>Free will isn't real if it's reduced to the material world only. I refer to what I said earlier.
then in what world does it exist?
So free will is real and i will find it if scry the spiritual realm.

Also i made i a typo >>16421727
budhists make the same argument as trads and 90% of other religions that you can only get salvation if you convert and obey their respective religions.

Okay i'm calling it quits for now, bye.

Anonymous Tue Sep 22 20:27:20 2020 No.16421963

>>16421944
>then in what world does it exist?
In this world, but in its spiritual dimension. Everything that is purely material is conditioned by circumstances and therefore not free.
>budhists make the same argument as trads and 90% of other religions that you can only get salvation if you convert and obey their respective religions.
You're the one who makes the decision of what you want to do. All I can do is point the way.

Anonymous Tue Sep 22 20:27:35 2020 No.16421965

>>16421822
No, Rome had survived brutal Emperors before.
That didn't matter.

What mattered was that life expectancy, if one survived to adulthood, was mid 30s at best for a poor worker. That the Roman machine was crushing its own people in order to keep moving.
What mattered was the increased decentralization resulting in near feudalism of the provinces meaning that any instability in the center could allow governors to break free.
What mattered was that Rome no longer had the ability greatly reform itself without some incredible social change in the minds of the rich and powerful - one that never came.

Rome was brought down by its material conditions and governmental bloat, not because of some loss of spirit.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 22 20:29:21 2020 No.16421981 >>16421866 This meme of religion just being caveman science needs to die.

Anonymous Tue Sep 22 20:34:19 2020 No.16422012

>>16421981
That isn't at all what I said.
The Abrahamic religions, the most relevant ones in the West, are built around accepting that you aren't going to know things. That you are going to put your trust in god and find truth that way.
This is in direct conflict with the scientific pursuit of finding the reason behind everything. That there is a how, when, and where to everything that you can figure out. If you can't figure something out, figure out why you can't first and then solve that to figure it out later.

The real division between these two paths is the 'why'. Science doesn't answer the why of things happening, religion does. Thats the reason a lot of individuals find a lack of satisfaction in science.
They need to be told 'why' things happen.

I wonder if there is a connection between people that need extrinsic rewards for things and those that are more aligned to religion and spirituality?
That would be an interesting survey.

Anonymous Tue Sep 22 20:34:24 2020 No.16422014

>>16421965
>Rome had survived brutal Emperors before.
The problem isn't brutality, the problem is being a little bitch. The more little bitches you have filling the upper ranks of society, the worse things get.
>What mattered was that Rome no longer had the ability greatly reform itself without some incredible social change in the minds of the rich and powerful - one that never came.
This is literally what decadence refers to. Obsession with private pleasure and gain (especially of the petty sort) paralysing any and all greater aspiration.
>Rome was brought down by its material conditions and governmental bloat, not because of some loss of spirit.
Loss of spirit can and will cause massive degeneration in material conditions if allowed to do so. The US is the richest world power in history and yet chaos rules the streets because its ruling class is too fucking decadent to give a shit about the very source of its power and wealth.

Anonymous Tue Sep 22 20:35:27 2020 No.16422021

>>16421866
>This is directly against the work that scientists have done to understand the world.
And yet they still don't know what exactly causes the storms (or at least they didn't 15 or so years ago, I might find this quote tomorrow if I won't forget). Good night frens.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 22 20:38:12 2020 No.16422038 >>16422014 >world power in history and yet chaos rules the streets because its ruling class is too fucking decadent to give a shit about the very source of its power and wealth. Sounds like golden age of Rome to me.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 22 20:43:47 2020 No.16422076 >>16422038 Don't even joke about this anon

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 23 01:09:40 2020 No.16423445 >>16414927 greekfags btfo

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 23 01:22:38 2020 No.16423498 >>16412611 >Doesn't include the Islamic golden age >Literally invented algebra Oh yeah, there was no scientific advancement whatsoever from 800-1300 CE

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 23 08:33:48 2020 No.16424915 File: 913 KB, 320x240, 7jYXJ54.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>16412633 based

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 23 08:35:32 2020 No.16424924 >>16412633 BASED A S E D

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 23 08:52:16 2020 No.16424987 >>16419321 Unironically the state of this fucking dead board.

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]