The peak of the ascent, or am I missing something?

I've never seen a more mediocre criticism in my life, how could such an idiot be taken so seriously by idiots who actually read.

All of his "philosophy of math" its inconsequential because he didn't even understand what he talks about, how he critizes infinity shows that he cannot even comprehend on what context the terminology is used, just a dictionary would had been enough. This even lead to thinking that he didn't had the capacity to deal with higher maths, and we say that he didn't knew not that he never took some courses. His fame lies on having an aura of erudition and a subtle conservatism that attracts people who think that because a badly read person said that some ancient sources claim that the world if falling to pieces then they just found "the best argument" for their reactionary thinking, but thus is never grounded on knowledge on the sources he quotes, during his lifetime Paris and France where among the top centers on research about Islam and oriental philosophies, none of those researches made such ridicules statements and the world has forgotten them, at least the guenon idiots, because academia did continue to knew and investigate the topics he touched and few of guenon is useful. You wouldnt like it because its the typical hatred of pseudointellectuals for real academics but many 20 year old girls in colleges are way more advanced than guenon if they are students of Islamic studies or related topics.

Curiously Evola also dropped on the first courses.

If I was going to add a modern formal text it'd be Spencer Brown's Laws of Form. Someone could write a good book comparing Eriugena, Hegel, Brown, and information theory.

>that tbe self is not somethin prior to phenomena, but a mere category we use to understand phenomena
He wasn't writing about the Vedantic atman, his arguments about the empirical self dont apply to it.
>there's no noumenic substance, or thing on itself in "the self",
There is no argument which can actually prove this or refute its contrary.

>Hegel's point about the cats at night is specifically in response to Shelling
No is in response to tbe mystic paradigm of his time, Schelling was only another of the german romantics that embrace it, and the refutation apply just fine, since the idea is the same, a more pure form of being that create/cast this inferior rigid reality and to which we can return by adopting a sort of vague spiritual praxis/act, but by abandoning reason this practice/act itself lose all purpouse since causality (the basis of logic)no longer apply and by definition anything we do can't lead us anywere, the spiritual jump to the night/god/brahman lead us nowhere, all we can do is blindy believe a set of dogmas and hope they're right

>but by abandoning reason this practice/act itself lose all purpouse
It doesn't lose purpose because spiritual realization in Vedanta leads to the end of unhappyness, dissatisfaction, grief, suffering etc.
>and by definition anything we do can't lead us anywere
You don't have to jump or be lead anywhere, the absolute is already attained always, you just have to correct the mistake or misunderstanding preventing your mind from seeing things in the right light about what is already attained, once you do this then all problems like unhappyness are resolved automatically. Whether it works and whether you are able to intuit it teachings as being true of experience is something that is self-evident and the fruits of this make themselves known to each seeker, you don't have to sit around "hoping" it's true but you either realize that it's true and receive immediate benefits such as having all your problems dissipate immediately in a way that is obvious or you can not understand it (filtered) or choose to disagree for whatever reason and not receive the benefit of this.

Schopenhauer (pbuh) refuted both Kant and Hegel, the understanding isn't a conceptual faculty, and Kant's categories are nonsensical. The category of causality doesn't distinguish following from, and following after, hence Kant thought that if one objects stands in a temporal relation to another, that the understanding would place them in a necessary order with the category of causality. However, this would mean that the sequence in which the notes of a song play would be conceived of as being in relation to one another as cause to effect, ergo the faculty of the understanding is not utilizing the categories to structure experience and bring about the synthetic unity of apperception. Rather the understanding infers the cause of the sensation upon the retina, and externalizes the cause in space. Reason is the faculty of abstract concepts that are abstracted from what is sensuously perceived, and all of Hegel's logic is meainingless.

> the trascendental principle of aperception is that argument
No it’s not, you have not actually provided or directly stated any argument but you are just posturing by namedropping unrelated things.
> So it's not really attained
Yes it is, the mind doesn’t attain or non-attain the absolute, the absolute is already everyone’s atman without beginning or end, the mind simply corrects its misunderstandings about this with is possible through gnosis and spiritual instruction, but before during and after this everyone’s self is already identical with the absolute.
>ylu're just tryi g to move the goalpoast, changing one problem to another, now there's another thing to attain
Attaining in itself is not a bad thing, there is no spirituality of any sort without attainment happening ok at least some relative level, I was just pointing out that the charge of requiring hope in a “jump” to another plane of reality is simply incorrect since that plane is here and now and already attained naturally by everyone’s atman without beginning or end and this can be personally investigated by oneself through self-inquiry. So that is simply not a argument that applies and is a strawman, if you tried to restate it in formal terms there would be nothing of substance.
>Also this don't address the problem articulated by Hegel
No argument or pseudo-problem that he makes applies to Vedanta, he was not familiar with it at all.
>this new problem you're proposing still works under the law of causation, so this makes Brahman something trapped in the necessity of logic
Meaningless word salad and not an actual argument. All causation is held to be subordinated to Brahman, Brahman is not trapped or affected by anything that is subordinated to or dependent on it.

> It is if your main metaphysical argument is that there's nothing to attain
Only on the absolute or paramartha level there is nothing to attain, non-duality with the absolute already being attained without beginning on that level. This is not incompatible at all with saying that on the relative level the mind has the experience of overcoming its prior confusion.
> he was, but that doesn't really matter, vedanta metaphysical claims are general enough to be applied to Hegel's critique
Not at all, if there was a real argument that applied you would just say it directly but all you have is empty name-dropping.
>but of causation is created by brahman then there's s cause and an effect, thus something to be attained
Those are only present within the vyavahara conventional/illusion, on the paramartha level there is just Brahman alone and nothing to attain, Brahman bringing about the vyavahara cause and effect is what makes it possible for the mind to have the relative experience of overcoming prior confusion whereas on the paramartha level freedom without end is already the natural state of everyone’s atman.

> but that's what end up destroying it, since the problem of multiplicity arrive, if you have levels you can't guarante a safe link between them,
There *isn’t* any “””problem of multiplicity”””, the vyavahara is simply a display brought about by a power in or the nature of the ultimate reality of Brahman that remains non-dual. This fact is all that’s needed to explain or account for why it’s present as such.
>specially when those levels are in contradiction with each other(the realm of multiplicity can't lead you to a partless real),
They don’t contradict each other since one is truly real and the other isn’t, and as I already said the multiplicity doesn’t lead to the partless, but the partless absolute is already attained and identical with the innermost self of everyone. When the mind that is present in vyavahara corrects its mistakes there is no ‘leap’ of one reality or substance to another but the atman-brahman just remains itself.
>not to mention the metaphysical necessity of levels create a ifinite regress, since the links between the levels will also need something to link then and so on and so on
There is no logical necessity that additional links are needed. Brahman’s power/ability directly brings about the vyavahara without relying on anything else, much less links. There is no logical argument that shows why this is insufficient and why further links are needed, for you to assert that further links are needed without citing why is just engaging in the fallacy of question-begging.
>brahman is somehow able to function beyond these contradictions,
You have failed to identify any genuine contradiction

>and fail to resolve a logical debate.
There is no logical quandary that is left unsolved by it. And there is a similar brute fact or several at the basis of every spiritual tradition. Someone can find the answer to not satisfy their curiosity for more information but that's not a logical problem.

>Brahman is ever known to itself immediately through it’s self-disclosure, when the mind stops confusing between Brahman and non-Brahman

What? I thought there was nothing but Brahman? There is non-Brahman stuff now too?

>I thought there was nothing but Brahman?
On the Paramartha level there is nothing but Brahman. All discussion about the mind is merely about the Vyavahara (conventional) level, i.e. of the illusion, and it is not asserting that anything besides Brahman truly exists.

Overflowing love. NTA, but this is how Platonists seem to explain it and how Christians have multiplicity begotten of the infinite ground out of love.

To hate things is to be defined by them. To be indifferent to them is still to be defined by what one is not. Love is identity in the other, the transcendence of identity.

A God, to be truly transcedent, cannot be mindless. Thus, God knows the contents of the infinite, which can be emanated into multiplicity (Logos). God wills this begetting/procession because God wants to share God with all things. For Boehme, this is driven by the need for self-knowledge. For Eckhart, it is God boiling over in love (but intentionally). IIRC, for Shankara, it is the creativity of Brahaman that boils over into Maya.

Nagarjuna solved this by saying that the conventional and the absolute are both the same by on different levels of analisis

>Not that Anon, but how is Shankara not falling into the excluded middle here?
It's quite simple. Picture two categories in your mind, 1) unconditioned & self-sufficient existence and 2) nothingness. Are these two categories exhaustive? No, they are not exhaustive for the reason that anything which is a phenomena that depends on something else is neither nothingness (because it's a phenomena with such-and-such characteristics) nor is it unconditioned and self-sufficient (because it depends on something else).

Let us call this latter category of "phenomena that depends on other things" as being option 3. As should be clear by now, to say that option 3 belongs neither to option 1 nor option 2 is not violating the law of the excluded middle, since they are not exhaustive categories that force everything to be included under #1 or #2.

Advaitins make the further point that the category of #1 of independent and self-sufficient existence is alone what is real existence, and that anything whose manifestation or presence depends on something else (i.e. #3) is not truly existent because its existence is in some way reducible to the existence of something else on which it depends. People can choose to disagree with this analysis but this part doesn't directly bear on the point about the excluded middle. All throughout western thought you can find people admitting this idea in principle but not to the same degree as Advaitins, e.g. you can find both pagan and Christian Neoplatonist authors writing about how things that exist in dependence on another are somehow less real than what they depend upon, I just see Advaitins as accepting the full consequences/implications of this without having any reservations about doing so.

>since that which is conditioned must be part of what is self sufficient, if not then the conditioned is by itself self-sufficient and the unconditioned became useless, but if the conditioned gets it suficiency from the unconditioned, then that makes it part of the inconditioned
Here you are engaging in the false dilemma fallacy by creating a false dichotomy, If the conditioned is not a part of the unconditioned, that does not make the conditioned self-sufficient (there is no logical argument to support this nonsense claim), it only means that the conditioned arises as such in dependence upon the unconditioned. The unconditioned doesn't need to contain the conditioned as a part of itself, it merely needs the capability to create or project the display of the conditioned, and Brahman does have this capability.
>which in advaita terms means maya is part of brahman, so brahman is victim of his own illusion
Even you accept maya is a part of Brahman that doesn't mean that Brahman is automatically the victim of his own illusion, that is the non-sequitur fallacy since there is no logical chain that leads to that conclusion from that premise. Only the minds conjured up as part of the illusion are affected by it at all, if the illusion is a part of Brahman but it only affects minds and Brahman is without mind then Brahman remains unaffected by it regardless. It would be more accurate to say though that Brahman is partless and that the illusion is not a part of Brahman but it manifests in dependence upon the nature of the unconditioned.
>the common answer is that brahman "cast" this illusion outside of himself, which makes no sense since only brahman exist, there's nothing to receive the illusion another problem
That's not a problem and only reflects your own confusion since the same power that projects the illusion also projects the minds which are subject to that illusion, there is no logical necessity that there have to be prior minds but instead the very same power projects both.
>if the nature of brahman is to cast this illusion this destroy any possibility of real freedom,
False, since the means of overcoming the illusion are automatically included within it. Real freedom is already the state of everyone's true self & the power of Brahman both projects the illusion and the means of release/moksha for the minds that are confused by it. When a mind overcomes the illusion using the means which Brahman's power has granted it then that mind has permanently eliminated any further cause for its own further transmigration and it no longer continues in samsara.

So far you have used the following fallacies in your posts
>strawman
>petitio principii
>non sequitur
>false dilemma

Most people on IQfy write you off as a low-IQ ESL moron and don't reply to your posts when they see the combination of misspelled and incorrectly-used words plus numerous fallacies. I'm actually one of the few people who actually reads them and explains your fallacies.

>investigated by oneself through self-inquiry
This require articulation, thus a kind of motion, since they're "parts" to sinthetise intellectually, thus the contradiction, if the access to brahman who's partless and atemporal is made of time and parts, we shouldn't be able to reach the absolute since you can't go from the temporal and multiple to the atemporal and partless, those are two different substances

>Brahman is ever known to itself immediately through it’s self-disclosure, when the mind stops confusing between Brahman and non-Brahman

What? I thought there was nothing but Brahman? There is non-Brahman stuff now too?

>It's pretty obvious, general articulation, goi g from point a to point b
The Upanishads already explain how to do that, as do countless secondary Vedanta texts based on the Upanishads.
>Indeed that's what vedanta says, and thay's why is contradictory, they said that but then articulaye a path to brahman which is by necessity made of parts
That's false, this is simply your own crass misunderstanding. They don't teach any path to attaining Brahman because everyone's self is already wholly identical with Brahman and free already and thus everyone's self has "attained" Brahman already by virtue of identity with it. The path is simply towards correcting the mind's misunderstandings. Now that I've explained this to you if you keep on insisting otherwise you are engaging in the strawman fallacy.
> that's the fallacy of the god of gaps
No, it has nothing to do with that.
>you're just saying that your god can just solve that contradiction by being"non-dual" witout really addressing the problem
There is no contradiction or problem in the first place unless you are hopelessly confused.
>Again, the god of gaps, a magic power just solve the infinite regress by being magical and non-dual
Again, as I already stated once you never provided any sort of justification for your unsupported assertion that additional links are required which you said leads to a regress. Unless you can provide a logical argument for why that's necessary then you are just blatantly engaging in the question-begging fallacy by talking about a regress while being unable to explain why there need to be additional links in the first place, so that's not any sort of serious argument. A regress only arises as a possible issue if there is a logically necessary reason why there have to be additional links, but there is no logically necessary reason why this has to be true, so there is no question of a regress at all.

>a contradiction must be resolved,
You have not identified any contradiction so far
>rely on the god of the gaps fallacy
You are using that incorrectly which makes me think that you don't even know what that means
>how that which is articulated can lead to an absolute with no articulation?
Simple, they use symbolism and negation to point the way but without objectifying the absolute/enlightenment and without trying to entrap it on the level of language. It's not a philosophical problem that enlightenment isn't fully communicable through language and that it has to instead be directly realized for oneself, the idea that enlightenment should be fully communicable through language is very strange and almost no serious spiritual tradition believes that.
>The dogmatic nature of the link itself is justification enough,
That's not an example of a logical reason why additional links are necessary
>by posing to modes of existence yhe necessity of a metaphysical link is implyied
There is not two modes of existence, only the sole existent and its illusory display.
>this necessity by itsrlf lead to the regression, since the logical need for something that works as a bridge between things in order for existence to make sense then implies that such a bridge must be repeated with each particular instance of the metaphysical structure
You are still engaging in the same question-begging fallacy that I already pointed out. I said "the existing supreme reality (Brahman) has the inherent ability to directly conjure up the illusory display without involving or relying on anything else". You then claimed that a further link is necessary, but you are unable to explain why. You say that some sort of link is required between Brahman and samsara and I already said that this link was Brahman's ability to project samsara. You have not provided any reason why this cannot be the sole link involved but you are just relying on the fallacy known as question-begging. Why even bother replying if you are just going to repost the same fallacy?

>You're confused, i'm not talking about articulation on a semantic level, i'm talking about an ontological articulation
They do give an ontological articulation by explaining what happens metaphysically
>the fact that you have to attain something, thst you have to go from point a to point b, that imply motion and multiplicity
It doesn't imply motion or multiplicity on the paramartha level, it only implies it on the vyavahara level of the relative.
>saying that an articulation can articulate the inarticulable is a contradiction
I didn't say that they "articulate the inarticulable", but rather that they articulate how it works but with the understanding that you actually have to do it yourself to fully understand, the articulation is merely a map and you cannot arrive at a destination merely by reading the map, it just shows the way which has to be pursued by each individual and how its works, there is no contradiction there.
>the multiplicity can't lead you to the partless, it already present two different parts (the multiplicity and the partless)
I have already pointed out that this is the strawman fallacy, 90+% of your arguments boil down to fallacies which is why I consider you to be a low-grade sophist with a poor grasp of English. There is no "multiplicity leading to the partless" and to say otherwise is the strawman fallacy, the partless Absolute is already forever attained without beginning or end by everyone. When the mind overcomes its confusion that's just part of the multiplicity interacting with other multiplicity.
>Your only answer to this is that brahman has the power to do it anyways, which is a perfect example of the god of gaps fallacy
False, my answer is that what you are describing is not even the position of Advaita and so it's a blatant strawman fallacy. It's not "God of the Gaps" to say that Brahman can directly project the illusion without requiring any intermediary. Maybe because you are ESL you simply don't understand this but "God of the Gaps" refers to a position that assumes an act of God as the explanation for an unexplained phenomenon, it involves God being invoked to explain things science cannot explain, but that has nothing to do with this topic.

Brahman projecting the illusion isn't an unexplained phenomena, it's taught to be doctrine by the scriptures and so it's not being inferred in response to something else that we cannot explain like in classical God-of-the-gaps example. You never even explained why an intermediary link would be needed in the first place despite you insisting it was, which I already pointed out is engaging in the fallacy of question-begging (petitio principii).

>you have not actually provided or directly stated any argument
I don't need to, you can just read the critique of pure reason, is all there, tons of pages addressing the issue

You are a bit defensive… where did he say to disregard Hegel’s entire corpus? He just criticized a part of it, and those criticisms that you added at the beginning of your post are sound criticisms od each of the corresponding authors. When did he say asking that scientific question Hegel asked is silly? He said the method by which Hegel went about attempting to solve it was silly (which it was, hence why it was so unsuccessful in prediction), so that entire part of your post is a strawman.

Kant and Hegel were right on Black folk though. Not the as Hegel being literally wrong on Newtonian science.

I guess my point is that this is a correct understanding but that I have issues with St. Thomas's theory of the mind in that he individualizes our possible intellect, which seems to implausibly say that souls are essentially different rather than experientially different as souls are most properly potentially the beatific vision, thus is their end, and as such then in that sense identical yet manifestly unique, unless we hold the beatific vision is unique which I think is an even greater error as it is unique and common at once, which is where Von Balthasar's syntheses save St. Thomas's conceptions from themselves.

That and St. Denis is still THE name is Western mysticism.