By synthesizing these five, I have achieved enlightenment. Unfortunately, I am unable to synthesize my synthesis with Jesus Christ. I feel like if I did I would achieve superenlightenment. But even though I was raised Christian I feel like I don't understand Jesus. Maybe he doesn't fit in it at all and maybe he was a literally who. It seems like his whole contribution was the two greatest commandments but I don't know how that fits in with everything I've learned.
 Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
 |
Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
>Unfortunately, I am unable to synthesize my synthesis with Jesus Christ.
Better for you to have not read at all.
You don't need to, christianity is nonsense and got all its good parts from Plotinus whom you already read
>a new tripBlack person christlarper
Tiresome
Bruh, Christ consciousness exists, you just need to reject satan
The necessity of Jesus in enlightenment is ingrained trickery. There is no reason for his relevance.
>I have achieved enlightenment.
What does this even mean?
If you'd achieved enlightenment, you wouldn't be on IQfy.
Why did Buddha preach?
>comparing yourself to Buddha
Nurse, please grab the orderlies. We have another one..
>Hegel
kek
Jesus doesn’t mix well with false teachers.
which ones Jesus?
israeli elitism
Why would an enlightened person post on IQfy?
in spite of my rage in my edgy teenaged atheism phase, and all of the sophisticated metaphysical and occult systems that the world offers, I can’t turn my back on Christianity. why, you didn’t ask? because I have been constantly attacked by demonic entities and malevolent spirits since I was a child, and I can attest that calling upon Jesus is the only thing that works to stop an attack
>in spite of my rage
yes
>I've definitely seen your tradzoom friends say similar in other threads on IQfy when no one had asked for their anti-philosophical, anti-intellectual, and anti-literate defense of the religion
Black person I’m pushing 30 and I’ve read every single one of the thinkers in the OP pic
Christianity is based on faith
>waaah everything is demons
>except Jesus
yeah we know it's based on faith—the root texts are all about the founder telling audiences he is God and they should listen to him to get rewards points on their souls. Hardly comparable to Plotinus or Hegel
this is a very bot-esque argument for Christianity and I've definitely seen your tradzoom friends say similar in other threads on IQfy when no one had asked for their anti-philosophical, anti-intellectual, and anti-literate defense of the religion
Who are those 5 people and what have they taught you?
>t. Philosophylet
>Hegel
dialectic. evolution. process. resolves phenomena-noumena gap
>Plotinus
encompasses platonism. apophatic theology, transcendence. reincarnation. Being. The necessity of a ground of Intellect.
>Buddha
void. the self.
>Schopenhauer
encompasses kantianism. phenomena-noumena gap. The Will explains the self of buddha.
>Lao Tzu
Explains what is older than God. The Tao appears in every philosophy, it is prior to the beginning of the universe.
None of this bridges the gap or solves the hard problem of consciousness. You are merely trying to re-affirm your beliefs, you are not even capable of describing this knowledge using plain language. Sounds like a charlatan
>hard problem of consciousness
that is not the problem at all. consciousness as a phenomena is just as bizarre as every single phenomena there is if you give it five seconds thought. once you realize the method by which anything at all exists, it's easy to see how consciousness can exist.
>if you give it five seconds of thought
It's just a little cliche, banal thinking you've solved philosophy and the metaphysics of the absolute when you fail to grasp any of the phenomenological aspects or scientific method. Little bit egotistical to claim enlightenment, bragging about dead outdated German philosophers on a Japanese anime image board.
Like I said, if you aren't able to explain your method of bridging material science to mental phenomena then don't bother yammering on about it. You should understand, the greatest thinkers, physicists, mathematicians and innovators read these same philosophers integrating their theories. You have not said anything new or valuable
Not that anon, but there is no bridge between the two. "Material science" is a false abstraction resting on Newtonian and Descartian premises.
Are you familiar with Husserl?
Only a little, Alfred Whitehead has been more relevant on this topic to me, who came upon the same conclusion that I just pointed out.
how do you reconcile Hegel’s antipathy towards the metaphysics of the classical western Theistic tradition and so on with Plotinus when Plotinus posits anti-Hegelian ideas like an immutable, independent and transcendent One?
the actual abstracted properties of the One which are self sufficiency and absolute priority apply to anything which justifies itself and creates itself out of nothingness whether it be static or in motion. Pure being and pure becoming are closer to a cultural difference than a contradiction.
>Hegel’s antipathy towards the metaphysics of the classical western Theistic tradition
no, he admired the neoplatonists.
>the actual abstracted properties of the One which are self sufficiency and absolute priority apply to anything which justifies itself and creates itself out of nothingness whether it be static or in motion.
In Plotinus though only the One is self-sufficient and with absolute priority, and the One isnt selfcreated but uncreated.
Also, wouldn’t you say that the One for Plotinus is transcendent to the manifested world while for Hegel the Absolute is the manifested world arriving at some end X and not any transcendent thing before during or after? How would you reconcile that?
Also, how do you reconcile the immortal soul that is partially undescended/pristine from Plotinus with the Buddhist anatta?
Pure being and pure becoming are closer to a cultural difference than a contradiction.
the last sentence was an accidental copy from the previous post (cant see whole typing screen while phoneposting lol)
>the One isnt selfcreated but uncreated.
true
> wouldn’t you say that the One for Plotinus is transcendent to the manifested world while for Hegel the Absolute is the manifested world arriving at some end X and not any transcendent thing before during or after?
ok you got me kind of a meme post, though I could still write this off as a different way to express the same thing, with the difference being that Hegel's is more advanced and leads to more results.
>Also, how do you reconcile the immortal soul that is partially undescended/pristine from Plotinus with the Buddhist anatta?
to be honest I never got the feeling that the self or even consciousness was ever accounted for at all in Plotinus. The soul has a nutritive, a motive, and a rational part, and even though each soul is an objective entity, it is still able to descend to say a plant, which would hypothetically cause it to lose its rational part, meaning if in an analogy to buddhism the rational part of soul were to be the origin of the illusion of the self, then the self would not be essential to soul. soul is really what I understood least from Plotinus and seems the most contradictory to me though.
Is that one of the Jain guys or something? The snakes and the swans aren't very common in Buddhist iconography
what's a good buddhist book to start with?
The Gateless Gate
Diamond Sutra
There are minor philological criticisms of them but Conze's translations of the Heart Sutra and the Diamond Sutra are very good and cheaply available in a single volume as "Buddhist Wisdom." Red Pine has also translated them, and I see these more commonly recommended, but he cites Conze anyway in his commentary on the Heart Sutra. Conze is hard to avoid as an English authority on the Prajñaparamita literature of Buddhism and for good reason. I would ultimately recommend the Dhammapada first as well as some of the canonical Buddhist scriptures (Long Discourses, Middle Discourses, i.e. the nikayas of the sutta pitaka from the Pali canon) as Mahayana stuff is a response to scholastic issues with the systemization of the Buddha's teachings. The Diamond and Heart Sutras are extremely terse in their presentation—the latter isn't even really a full sutra but meant to be recited like a spell or for meditation purposes—so much will merely sail over your head if you have no foundation in early Buddhism or were not born into a Buddhist culture.
Ignore the Mahayana pseuds and start with Digha Nikaya or Dhammapada.
One book on your goal to do this, is this book, "Christ the Eternal Tao". https://es.au1lib.org/book/2473648/3a4872
huh thinks. this is gonna be weird
"Eastern philosophy" has no use for Christianity, nor did the "Western philosophy" before it. It is Christianity, which owing to the immense intellectual poverty involved in its claims, was fashioned by its more thoughtful apologists into a successor to the Neoplatonic theology of the Roman elites. Without this, it was just shrieking about how everyone who disagreed with your magic undead priest was an evil demon, because of some tall tales. I suppose that since "Eastern philosophy" has gotten trendy over the last 200 years while Christianity has continued its clumsy descent back to its base origins, there are bound to be some christers who wish to baptize their favorite Hindu, Buddhist, or Taoist thinkers. But this an entirely dishonest enterprise and would be at odds with the covenant theology at the heart of Christianity, which always shines through the trappings of embarassed thinkers who go out of fashion eventually. The pursuit of wisdom or of philosophy is irrelevant to the covenant, which is why the early christers scorned it and practiced pure fideism. You either follow the contract or you don't. Later, copes were invented by apologists: "actually this is just platonism but better," and today we are asked for an "actually this is just taoism but better" but this removes us from the Bible. It catholicizes, if you will, but the catholicized convert will always be tempted to inevitably read the book they were told they already agreed with in spirit, and when they do, they will become protestantized and CORRECTLY interpret that the texts are really covenant theology and not Platonism or whatever else, and then attempt to make themselves Israelites. Consider the Taiping Rebellion. No doubt, dishonest christer missionaries had converted Chinese people using Taoist vocabulary, but as soon as the Chinese themselves began to read the Bible, they turned on China like the christers turned on Rome. It's the same playbook. You don't actually have an appreciation for Taoism but would add it to the arsenal of slave morality.
>you made this? I made this
Skip this moronation, OP. Complete waste of time. Read Ecclesiastes then move on from abrahamism as a whole
>top left
who
>bottom right
who
have sex OP
You can add Jesus by synthesizing it with Gnosticism.
Post your thesis otherwise you're a poseur