This thread is to discuss anti-rationalist thinkers like Shestov, Klages, Bodhidharma, Buddha, Lao Tzu, and many others. Not a single positive thing has come instrumental reason or discursive thought. Only an empty mind is an enlightened mind.
>"So, whenever a bhikkhu here is self-conscious, he then goes step-by-step until he gradually attains the summit of perception. When he has attained the summit of perception, he thinks in this way: ‘Intentional thinking 9 is bad for me. It would be better for me to have no intentional thinking.’ But if I were to go on producing intentional thoughts and mental constructions, these perceptions might pass away in me, but other, coarser perceptions might arise. Suppose I were not to produce intentional thoughts and mental constructions?’ Thus, he neither produces intentional thoughts nor mental constructions. Then, for him, producing neither intentional thoughts nor mental constructions, these perceptions pass away, but other, coarser perceptions do not arise. He attains cessation. Thus, he attains deliberately, step-by-step, the cessation of perception."
Reason was a mistake.
I, too, was once addicted to drugs.
I don't take drugs.
Tell me. For what purpose do you advocate this view? Is there some sort of cause of your attitude on the thing? If not, why not?
IIRC Cioran was like a graduate assistant or just generally hung around Klages' lectures at some point. He also despised the "systematic" character of certain philosophies. And yet...
I forgot to mention Graham Priest:
http://www.autodidactproject.org/other/priest-limits-2.html
"The absence of both understanding and not understanding is true understanding."
- Bodhidharma
If you're going to respond with vacuous garbage, then I can do the same.
>vacuous garbage
Nothing I said what vacuous, it was pretty clear and reasonable. At its most basic I merely said that someone who is tired of life and suffering will find Buddhism and the like attractive — something I’m sure you agree with.
I myself was very engaged with Buddhism and Taoism for a few years based on personal experiences with ego-death. I still have fondness for it. I wasn’t coming at it from the angle of a simple detractor, but rather someone who has engaged thoroughly with it and has critique based on experience and time
>At its most basic I merely said that someone who is tired of life and suffering will find Buddhism and the like attractive — something I’m sure you agree with.
Nope. I don't agree with it at all. Look up muditā for example.
>rather someone who has engaged thoroughly
More like you engaged with it shallowly.
Everything I’ve said is “vacuous” and my engagement with the philosophy you champion was “shallow,” yet I’m supposedly the arrogant and pompous one? Look in the mirror, Buddha Boy.
You’ve got a long way to go.
People who are truly committed to these philosophies don’t have snarky debates about them online, they’re in a monastery cultivating no-thought. Join them or drop the LARP and move on
>Everything I’ve said is “vacuous” and my engagement with the philosophy you champion was “shallow,” yet I’m supposedly the arrogant and pompous one?
Yes.
Principle of non-contradiction and sufficient reason are not adequately equipped to deal with all ontological questions. A non-vacuous post would address questions like these rather than engage in cringe psychoanalysis. You are an icchantika.
Enlightened trolls are better than pseud vampires like you.
Kant argues that human knowledge is limited to the realm of possible experience. He distinguishes between phenomena (things as they appear to us) and noumena (things as they are in themselves). Kant asserts that while we can know the world of phenomena, we cannot have knowledge of the noumenal realm.
Is this essentially your belief?
My belief is closest to Julius Bahnsen's realdialektik. I was learning German solely to read him and Fritz Baumgarten's picture books, but I lost the energy due to other obligations. I learned about him through a past German friend.
"Julius Bahnsen's more persistent claim is that the nature of actual existence is bipolar, that objects and events conflict with one another and (since they possess opposed properties) also with themselves and that existence therefore eludes being grasped by formal logic."
Bahnsen was influenced by Schopenhauer like Nietzsche. I should have mentioned Bahnsen in OP.
>namedrops Nietzsche yet rejects the Nietzschean argument that philosophy is instinctual and confessional
holy shit kek
That’s moronic just like most eastern philosophies there is no connection between life and it’s spiritual essences and the objective reality of objects. Nature is grasped by formal logic via physics newtons natural philosophies are the end of that point.
I mean I guess it’s not moronic but it’s already understood so it seems kind of silly.
What will bridge quantum physics and general relativity is aporia.
Once I make a cult to grift and take people's money, then yes.
"So don’t be a damned fool! Go and make money. That’s the only thing that impresses me – cash on the barrel! I told my grandparents this even as a little boy"
-- UG Krishnamurti
There is no self, there is only a void experiencing. But you can and should choose beliefs about yourself, your beliefs about other people, and your beliefs about the world. That is the enlightenment. Plain and simple.
This anon gets it.
Before enlightenment, chop wood, carry water.
After enlightenment, chop wood, carry water.
The end result of enlightenment is simply ending up back where you started.
>There is no self
Evidently untrue. Source: Me.
>Nature is grasped by formal logic via physics newtons natural philosophies are the end of that point.
that's just a dumb take by people who fricking love science and yet never done anything in science
>there is no connection between life and it’s spiritual essences and the objective reality of objects.
This is literal schizophrenia.
Are you enlightened?
>Principle of non-contradiction and sufficient reason are not adequately equipped to deal with all ontological questions. A non-vacuous post would address questions like these rather than engage in cringe psychoanalysis. You are an icchantika.
Based, but thinking and feeling cannot truly be separated because creativity is the ultimate category and not Bahnsen's aporia. I think you should read Whitehead already iccantikagay.
>Principle of non-contradiction and sufficient reason are not adequately equipped to deal with all ontological questions.
But what kind of deranged moron would present this as a dichotomy? Either reason and logic can account for everything or it's a "mistake"? Logic itself fricking declares by how its rules work that it can't possibly account for everything. If you only believe what pure logic tells you then you'll believe logic can't answer every question.
Philosophy is instinctual.
Ascetic philosophy, especially, is championed by those with certain goals.
ie, the man who finds thinking to be laborious, or too painful, will indulge in anti-thought philosophy.
the man who finds life too hard will flee to anti-life philosophy.
Your beliefs are confessional.
There is no real truth observed in your position. Rather, you merely admit to us that you are wary of life, weak, and attempting to disguise it as a positive virtue.
I see no reason to entertain this.
It is my experience that those who fall into buddhist/taoist worldviews (ones that consider cessation of thought a worthwhile goal) usually do so out of an excess of pain and misery in their own lives, or immense feelings of inadequacy, and are simply salving their soul.
Philosophy is instinctual.
Rationalist philosophy, especially, is championed by those with certain goals.
ie, the man who finds thinking to be noble, or meaningful, will indulge in pro-thought philosophy.
the man who finds life too hard will flee to anti-life philosophy.
Your beliefs are confessional.
There is no real truth observed in your position. Rather, you merely admit to us that you are wary of life, weak, and attempting to disguise it as a positive virtue.
I see no reason to entertain this.
It is my experience that those who fall into logocentric worldviews (ones that consider proliferation of intentional thought a worthwhile goal) usually do so out of an excess of pompousness and arrogance in their own lives, or immense feelings of narcissism, and are simply salving their soul.
I know you think this was really clever but this was moronic as shit.
With all of that, you'll arrive at the exact same destination as the one who stopped serious investigation right at this moment. You're just going to burn a lot more gas is all.
Holy projection
If your premise is that an empty mind is an enlightened mind, and your conclusion is that, therefore, reason is a mistake, you're reasoning. In fact, your writing itself is still mostly enslaved to the rationalist dogmas of coherence and structure.
purple monkey dishwasher
If your premise is that my premise is an empty mind is an enlightened mind, and my conclusion is that, therefore, reason is a mistake, you're reasoning about my reasoning. In fact, your writing about my writing itself is still mostly enslaved to the rationalist dogmas of coherence and structure.
purple monkey dishwasher
Holy shit what a troll — as if there was any doubt left that you’re deeply moronic.
You truly are suited to non-thought!
Yes, I'm not the one saying reason is bad.
But then, a response this moronic would be consistent with rejecting reason, so good on you.
thread's theme
Without reason you would not be able to utter a single sentence. You would not be able to read or listen to the words of those thinkers you like so much. Without reason there is no means of expression.
I count 14 sentences in your post, OP. All those words strung together with reason. Who are you kidding?
Words having any real meaning is an illusion.
They are signs pointing to other things. You use reason to encode and decode them. That's how you're able to have this conversation.
You literally used words to write that sentence you absolute fricking moron
Not that anon, but that isn't accurate, we can do all that without reason in the same manner we express hunger or anger, reason is a by-product of having a brain, not the deliberate action of using it in some freewill manner, i mean reason is suspended when responding to danger plenty of times as has been demonstrated by neuroscientists and psychologists
>shitposting is my blood, memes are my heart
>schizophrenia is my head
Sounds like a moron found an excuse for being an incoherent moron who can't grasp reason.
You can't even put together a semi-coherent one line post and you don't recognize any of the historical contexts informing the concepts you use.
>everything is founded on reason because....... IT JUST IS, OKAY?!
I'm talking to someone who doesn't understand any of the words he uses inconsistently. There's no basis for any communication possible even if you weren't explicitly rejecting reason. You have no grasp on the tools you're rejecting so you're not actually rejecting them, just making excuses for why you're incapable.
Formal reasoning works when it does and doesn't when it doesn't. Using that as an excuse to undermine your own ability to reason or understand the logical structures behind a neural network triggering is the height of moronation, even more so when you try to formally express that sentiment incoherently using the tools you say you reject.
You're just a pseud pedant putting words in other's people mouths.
The less able you are to express yourself formally the more any reader has to assume and "put words in your mouth". You've abdicated power over your own expression by being an incoherent moron. This whole thread is about morons like you justifying self-sabotage. There's plenty to reasonably critique about rationalism and logic itself but you're incapable.
The subject is methods.
>Without reason you would not be able to utter a single sentence. You would not be able to read or listen to the words of those thinkers you like so much. Without reason there is no means of expression.
Yes you could make some grunts expressing some meaning without formal reason but not without a reason or some coherent structure only describable using appeals to logic. Whenever you want to express something slightly complex you must assume a shared framework of abstract logical thought which we absorb culturally. Almost every term you take for granted in English like the Latin term "criticism" rest on the tradition of formal reason. When you attempt to argue you're appealing to reason, I should change my position because of reason x.
First you describe conditioned reactions, then you undermine the term reason as traditionally used to specifically refer to conscious constructed thought over automatic conditioned thought. Then you forget that, use the traditional definition and reiterate that conditioned reactions exist.
You argued about the lack of a means of expression without reason and i refuted that by countering that expression does not rely on reason. Expression can be anything from wincing in pain after pricking your finger to whistling at a big bummed woman. You did not make any reservations for what that means. Just because you can spout complex words better than a monkey, doesn't make your expressions superior to that of a chimp. You don't need reason to communicate, animals have been doing this since before humans had a brain.
>You don't need reason to communicate
You need it to make any of these posts and do anything more complex than conditioned reactions. You're appealing to reason in every post including the ones trying to critique it, but the problem is you're too bad at applying reason to effectively critique it. Even if the goal is critiquing the tool itself it's the only tool you and I have available to do so.
>This is the sort of discourse you're postulating
Who are you quoting moron?
Here's an actual quote from the post you replied to presenting the exact opposite meaning:
>There's plenty to reasonably critique about rationalism and logic itself but you're incapable.
I'm seriously engaging while you're undermining both our abilities to engage with anything by for example replying to posts pretending they say the exact opposite.
no you don't, you may need reason to explain something but you don't need it to communicate, what i am doing is explaining, i can communicate in any other way that does not appeal to reason and you would understand this, morons on IQfy communicate by posting shit pics, do they display reason, known famous namegays can communicate by posting fullstops and dots and their audience would understand and call them schizos
You're presenting structured arguments that appeal to my ability to parse such structures using my conscious mind. Relying on a large established context like by posting an empty post under a name is assuming even more of the audience, it's an appeal to the large established context and your ability to conceive of all that in some form. It's true that a parrot can post the same kinds of posts but it's still parroting someone appealing to reason. The moron poster is like a faded echo of better, dead men.
the ability to parse structure is not always apparent, its not even an assumption we make when we use language, take literature for instance, how can you explain people understanding or trying to understand finnegan's wake? Or watching david lynch films? Understanding is context based, communication isn't. A chimp throwing shit at you is communication, you being disgusted, curious or indifferent is understanding, it depends on the context of person, location, and experience, you could even argue, that the sun shining is communication it doesn't rely on any human defined reason or even subject that we are supposed to understand.
>Understanding is context based, communication isn't.
This doesn't mean anything. When what you're expressing needs some established logical context to be consciously understood then you're appealing to reason. On the other hand when you communicate using impressionist poetic phrases or imagery meant to trigger conditioned associations then logically you're appealing to those conditioned associations, which is still a context which you either need to be consciously or intuitively aware of, the intended effect rests on them. Nobody is trying to communicate using appeals to intuitive or conditioned impressions like poetry or art in the thread, everyone is appealing to reason and concepts rooted in reason. You can't ask me to change my mind about something using appeals to how my mind is already conditioned, you can either give me reasoning to consciously think about or condition me over time by spamming which will usually backfire.
A chimp coming up with throwing shit on his own is more like impressionist art than theoretical physics but it does rest on some degree of understanding, it's not a purely conditioned learned response. It's communication within a shared context with some intuitive understanding that we share that context. Describing or discussing any of this like anything slightly complex rests on having a mind trained to consciously reason things out and formalize / interpret intuition.
>intuitive understanding that we share that context.
A chimp doesn't know this lmao, it just does it regardless of whether we know, does an infant know that it's mother will answer when he cries? Communication has no context, you can argue all day about people in this thread but it won't change why you still continue to argue with such people despite them not understanding your points
>A chimp doesn't know this lmao
You're an idiot. What the frick do you think you know about anything?
How does a chimp know we know, even better how does a child know? A chimp knows flinging shit to other chimps works, it doesn't know doing it to humans will result in the same.
And if you mean, reason being a causal connection btn events, then that is also not necessary as we can assume it out of the axioms of logic, lots of stuff happens without any apparent human assigned, reason or meaning
>rationalism is correct because.... we wouldn't have this conversation without reason!
This is the sort of discourse you're postulating and expecting me to engage with in seriousness. Then afterwards you're full of piss and vinegar when I rightfully dismiss it as pilpuling pedantic nonsense.
lmao, do you have any criticisms or are you just going to seethe at my methods?
Are you capable of feeding yourself, or do you reject the reasoning of hungry -> go to store -> buy food -> eat?
Goethe BTFO reasoncels 250 years ago
>they call it reason, ordained it's priest/cite it to act more bestial than any beast
Big if true. Unfortunately, it is just delusions created from ramdom intrusions and sone subconscious intentional thoughts and mental constructions. Nice cats and lizard.
yes rationalism is just mental masturbation
"reason is bad because X" is on a level with "truth does not exist" in terms of instantly self-subverting smoothbrain statements
>"truth does not exist"
All of this "reality isn't real" only works on assumption that either you can "quit the vr" and go to real real world or on acceptance, that you are an AI bot, game is shit, so it is better to quit yourself from existence entirely than to play some shitty MMO, where there is a chance that all other players are just AI bots too, even if advanced ones. Existence of more real reality is just an unproved theory, offing yourself just to spite MMO admins and to cease your sufferings is a low-tier target.
Reason is a great tool, but you must understand that it builds on top of unreasonable, willed postulates such as non-contradiction.
It's amazing how the mighty rationalist seethes as soon as he hears somebody shits on his mighty rationalist fantasy. KEKEK
the ability to navigate basic everyday life isn't a particularly mighty fantasy
>cretins itt think anti-rationalism is about rejecting reason vs. rejecting the dominance of reason
OP helpfully clarified that he meant the former by explicitly saying that instrumental reason and discursive thought were bad. If he'd only said that reason has limits or that the rationalist school was wrong, he wouldn't be getting roasted so hard.
Peter Kingsley’s books are a great counter to the platonic/logocentic tradition. He says that Platonism effectively killed the Greek magical traditions of the past and replaced Wisdom with ivory-tower intellectualism
The Buddha was rational, his fundamental insight was dependent origination, "where this exists, that exists, where this arose, that arises; where this does not exist, that does not exist, where this has ceased, that ceases." He realized this through analytical meditation on his past lives.
based BTFO'ing of OP, however it will either be completely ignored or OP will contrive some autismo word magic to insist otherwise
The "Discourse to Potthapāda" makes clear only a mind devoid of all concepts, without an intention to "grasp" any phenomena, can apprehend the Tathāgata, which remains unfathomable. All teachings are merely skillful means to reach this stateless state as the "Discourse to Potthapāda" clarifies.
My OP quoted a passage from the "Discourse to Potthapāda".
>stateless state as the "Discourse to Potthapāda" clarifies.
stateless state as the "Discourse on the Parable of the Water Snake"*
>Discourse to Potthapāda
Several other suttas—such as MN63, MN72, and AN10:93—portray the Buddha and his disciples adopting the second mode. This sutta is unusual in its extended portrait of the Buddha’s adopting the first. Many of the technical terms he uses here—such as the perception of a refined truth, the peak of perception, the alert step-by step attainment of the ultimate cessation of perception, the appropriation of a self—are found nowhere else in the Canon. At the end of the sutta, he describes them as “the world’s designations, the world’s expressions, the world’s ways of speaking, the world’s descriptions, with which the Tathāgata expresses himself but without grasping at them.” In other words, he picks them up for the purpose at hand and then lets them go. Thus they are not to be regarded as central to his teaching. Instead, they should be read as examples of his ability to adapt the language of his interlocutors to his own purposes. For this reason, this sutta is best read only after you have read other suttas and are familiar with the more central concepts of the Buddha’s teachings.
How would you explain Klages or Shestov to the layman? I own books by both but Klages likes to b***h a lot about the Albions.