/lit/ - Literature

>>4818265
Catholicism isn't counter-enlightenment, the enlightenment is its natural successor. The reformation and the enlightenment are inevitable consequences of monotheism. The vile and disgusting practice of humanism that taken over is based on a misreading of Genesis - when god made man in his image. This overly anthropomorphic view of God in the Western tradition, perpetuated by a greedy catholic church which resulted in the great schism (which no one fucking talks about anymore)
has led to all of this.

Arguably, modernity is just an extreme example of platonic idealism gone wrong. By placing 'whatness' above 'thatness,' and opening up the entire pandora'x box of object relations, Plato sent us on this downwards spiral.

History is a christian invention, don't you see why Evola turned to Hinduism.

Look at the early caste system, or early model of the hindu family. Look at the freedom of sexual expression to see why sexuality doesn't represent degeneracy but this highest spiritual calling.

Understand that the entire western trajectory Plato --> Jesus --->Reformation/Enlightenment --->Monolithic Capitalist Globalism

has been leading upto the thinly veiled logical positivism of the day.

Abstract thinking is being dismantled and it is our greatest asset. I am anti-humanist, but I understand that the greatest gift we ever received was the ability to question our own being, and we fucked it up.

The call of enowning is the essential swaying of the truth of be-ing in the shape of the last god.

What we can learn from esoteric christian dogma and even the Kabbalah is a method of escaping LINEAR history and samsara. We only need to hear the call of the truth of being, i.e the unhiddenness of beings in the openness of the world.

And yes, EvolaKid brings disgrace to Evola's name.

Should I trip or not?

>>4760947
It's honestly useless to debate, because she isn't willing to engage in that sort of conversation. I'm open to being changed or convinced, but the hostility to which she clings to her ideas doesn't show confidence, rather it shows an insecurity and a rabid, hellbent need to hold onto whatever centre she can.

>>4760943
That's the joke. I am willing to accept and promote science as a positive thing that needs to be re-assessed. I believe ultimately, science as we know it is doomed, but there might be a chance for its redemption. On the other hand, the people who are against me don't have the right to argue based on the fact that they don't know what they're arguing about or against.

>>4760893
Good job in undermining the work of Franz Fanon, Stuart Hall, Chinua Achebe, Pablo Mukherjee, etc

This is nothing to do with race.


And your ideas fit the capitalist model perfectly. You're a worker bee anon, and happy to be so, I made no indication of how successful you are.

>>4760858
>Chemists stand in their labs and do chemistry. That's what they get paid for and that's how science is done

Can everyone reading see now how anti-intellectual THIS poster is being. Standing, and doing your work in a lab, without any critical inquiry into why you are doing it, or the implications of doing it. This mindless, robotic existence is completely terrifying for me.

Progress of what? New ways to drain resources, to scour the earth, new ways to kill people and extend the lives of the rich? What is this progress that we are marching towards.

The last point just shows how wilfully ignorant you are of any philosophy you come across. You are a dawkinsite and you are too far gone at this stage to honestly become critical again.

>>4760853
ok, well last time you said that, and this time it's about race, whatever and whoever you are, you dogmatically worship what you see as an infallible subject and fail to allow any re-assessment of what it is - furthermore you define philosophy by the small tradition of philosophers that you have read and come into contact with.

You are a narrow-minded, anti-intellectual thinker, which I am loathe to even call you.

You're as fundamentalists as those you rally against and in doing so, you miss the point of philosophy and science completely. You are the capitalist dream.

>>4760832
So there isn't a philosophy of chemistry? Germ warfare, technological advances, and the neuro-chemical impulses - none of these have philosophical implications and become areas for discussion.

Philosophy never wants to destory science, just re-assess its position of power within society.

I'll post this shit again..

''The withdrawal of philosophy into a "professional" shell of its own has had disastrous consequences. The younger generation of physicists, the Feynmans, the Schwingers, etc., may be very bright; they may be more intelligent than their predecessors, than Bohr, Einstein, Schrödinger, Boltzmann, Mach and so on. But they are uncivilized savages, they lack in philosophical depth – and this is the fault of the very same idea of professionalism which you are now defending.''

>>4760818
Classic STEM Undergrad. You clearly won't make it to PhD level. But its ok.

I do call for everyone to ignore the crazy arrow lazy, because in the thread I had a month or so ago, (find it on the archive) you can see how I step by step completely demolished her scientific world-view.

I wonder what has caused this irritating return, but regardless, we do need one radical scientism-promoting fundamentalist to make the board interesting.

Let's wait until she posts something new/interesting. But then again, as she says, she doesn't need to engage in philosophy..

>>4760752
Another Gem from Sammy boy

Harris observes when the medial prefrontal cortex of the brain shows a similar pattern of activity when people are asked about their mathematical beliefs and when they were asked about their ethical beliefs - he concludes, as any genius would:

'This suggests that the physiology of belief may be the same regardless of a proposition's intent. It also suggests that the division between facts and values does not make much sense in terms of underlying brain function...This finding of content-independence challenges the fact/value distinction very directly: for if, from the point of view of the brain, believing 'the sun is a star,' is importantly similar to believing 'cruelty is wrong,' how can we say that scientific and ethical judgements have nothing in common.'


This is how experiments are carried out. This is the challenge to philosophy.

>>4760717
I will update if no one else does.

>>4760683
Aha it's you - the lady of the arrows.

Glad to see you picked up on my ad hominem then told me to go back to /pol/ - wonderful logic skills.

If you honestly believe you can compare the difference between science and philosophy (again, are you ruling out Hume, analytical philosophy, other atheistic philosophers, speculative realists...) is comparable to the difference between astrophysics and astrology (two things which don't overlap at all really) then you have severely misjudged the argument.

Harris is not presenting a scientific formula or statement for morality, he is trying to philosophically assert that Science is the objective arbiter for morality - that is a question of philosophy. By disregarding some of the most important discussions on morality - because he finds it boring no less, - shows how incomplete and fallacious his thinking is.

Have you read this book?

Love the arrows btw xxx

>>4760645
So this thread isn't derailed completely from the start I'm going to petition readers to ignore this user. By describing philosophy (big term buddy) as psuedo-eloquent empty talk you dismantle whatever argument you were trying to make and prove to all reading that you're a troll who got me to respond or someone who hasn't read any philosophy.
The question of morality has always been in the philosophical domain, to wrestle it away using science he must of course engage with the very thing he is rallying against.

Anyway, ignore this poster please, he will contribute nothing of value.

>>4760616
Psychoanalysis is the medicine for the modern man. Lacan has something to say I'm sure, but I'm having trouble deciphering what. Reich's work on armour and obesity is interesting as well, and explains some of the problems with America.

>>4760624
Haha, I'm reading it at the moment, this gem was the footnote to the first chapter. I'm hugely against Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens (the most insufferable fool there was) and Harris and everything else in the nu-atheist movement. The quote I posted just shows you the pedigree of these thinkers.

I'm still completely boggled he put it in.

>>4760603
Dunno why I tagged you.

>>4760603

Manga and Comics are relatively new forms and have had little time to properly cement themselves as artwork. They've also been born in an era completely comprised of capitalist consumerism so it is hard for them to get off the ground. Critics have a point, but they can be enjoyable and of some use.

Personally I like Claymore, Uzumaki, Shamo (probably the best - until after the Sugawara fight), Monster (though I really hated 20th C Boys) and Hajime no Ippo (big boxing fan though..)

I don't read a lot of it, but I had some big weaaboo friends and they recommended me some really, really good stuff. Manga and Anime have the worst western fanbases, beaten only by videogame enthusiasts.

Psychoanalysis still reigns supreme as an intellectual study into the processes of the mind. Only neuroscience poses a somewhat vague threat at this stage and it will fizzle out or champion the nightmare prescribed my Ray Brassier. Either way, Positive Psychology, or anything that treats the brain like an object is just utter rubbish and should be discounted.

inb4 all the pop-freud critics bashing me without knowing anything - I feel like schooling some people today

"Many of my critics fault me for not engaging more directly with the academic literature on moral philosophy...[but] I am convinced that every appearance of terms like 'metaethics,' 'deontology'...directly increases the amount of boredom in the universe."

Sam Harris 'The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values


>being an atheist

What a cretinous thread

Aristotle's four elements = Catudhatu
-Hume's bundle theory = Anatta.
-Kant's theory of knowledge = Buddhist perception
-Schopenhauer's will = Tanha
-Derrida's deconstructionism = madhyamaka
-Godel = Indra's net
-Hegel = Sunyata
-Mereological Reductionism = Buddhist not-self

The plebs are out in full force today

>>4696348
Sorry, I'm unfamiliar with Vygotsky and Piaget et all - could you give me an in? Seems interesting.

And yeah behaviourism is a fad.

If you read Positive, Evo Psych Books you will get a decent, explanation of some recorded evidence concerning the behaviour of humans. These books treat humans and their minds like an object and therefore measure what has happened in these studious experiments.

If you can get past the fact that Psychoanalysis is not a science and hasn't claimed to be since Freud (who had every right to claim it as a science) then you will also find a rich and rewarding set of texts that will enlighten your view of human behaviour.

Do not take Freud at a pop-level. Oedipus Complex is not what it seems, and when it explained properly, it makes perfect sense. Then you have the language based psychoanalysts, such as Lacan - who present sociological, religious and psychotherapeutic information of a whole host of subjects.

If you want recommendations, then ask me - my main areas of knowledge are Freud, Laplanche, somewhat Zizek and other little bits here and there (Reich, Butler, Kristeva, Lacan, Guattari)

Ultimately, Freud is hard to penetrate without a clear understanding of his life, because it feeds into the genesis of his theories - the mistakes he made, the insight he gained, and the temporal logic that encases psychoanalysis.

Positive psychology, pills and CBT will ultimately be seen as a disgusting practice in a future where anti-intellectualism doesn't prevail.

>>4693497
you've said this before

but ok yeah sure

>>4693586
>>4693602
Thank you.