Question for Leo

[Caitwin]

@Leo Gura What is your opinion on Aristotle? I am currently reading his book On the Soul, which I find very interesting. Other people please feel free to respond

[Leo Gura]

@Caitwin Not a fan. There are much better philosophies to read.

Try Nagarjuna or Plotinus instead.

Remember, there is A LOT of dualistic delusion within Western philosophy, so be careful not to waste your time wading through bullshit. Go straight for the highest nondual teachings.

You can easily spend 20 years reading Western philosophy and still not get any closer to Truth. With that said, there is the occasional gem and I still encourage everyone to think through philosophical questions for themselves. Philosophy is not meant to be read or believed, it must be DONE! -- as in: contemplate everything for yourself.

The power of philosophy lies more in the questions than in the answers. If you are not contemplating for yourself, you are not actually doing any philosophy.

Quote

"All philosophies are mental fabrications. There has never been a single doctrine by which one could enter the true essence of things."

— Nagarjuna

 

[Caitwin]

Thank you!

[ajasatya]

16 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

You can easily spend 20 years reading Western philosophy and still not get any closer to Truth.

this is true in so many levels... i personally know a lot of people (mostly guys for some reason) that are adept at western philosophy and are still unable to make any noticeable progress in their lives.

it becomes a complete waste of mental energy and, for some reason, they become addicted to mental masturbation!

contemplation and mental masturbation are the same things for them. i remember this guy in particular who was addicted to kant and his "meditation" book, which was a complete waste of time. just another game for the mind.

those guys are usually pessimistic, neurotic, unfriendly and nihilistic. the mind can be a real vampire and waste vital energy.

Edited April 25, 2019 by ajasatya

[RichardY]

@Caitwin

Essential for any materially productive society. But his theory of truth is tautological, though he does seem open to truth, something that seemed lost on Ayn Rand. A super-tautology on the other hand, would probably see you better armed. "Art of War", "Tao Te Ching." Christopher Langans CTMU. Possibly Plotinus(not read but on my list).

I tried reading the Republic Plato, but if you follow Plato's logic about 12 or so pages in. He basically tells you he thinks the whole idea of a state ridiculous. So you get the Noble Lie. I stopped reading. Some of the Early Dialogues are OK, but dialectic is more defragmentary than the direct pursuit of truth.

Plotinus is probably worth reading, there's a collection on Audible so you don't even have to read it. Where I can see overlap between left and right at high levels of I.Q it peaks my interest. I saw a quote of Plotinus in Jordanetics. Looking into Christianity recently it's interesting how the western is dualistic, compared to Eastern Orthodox. Less bloody conflict less need for a more viable metaphysic?

Match one up against the other, eventually run out of contenders. David Hume > Nietzsche. Aristotle>Plato>Rand. Bit like comparing video games.

If you've read enough classics from an early age, it would provide an edge over those who do not have the foundations. Especially if they do not have the same information or education.

Hegel's probably dangerous/evil(Manifest Destiny, Master Race), same with Kant but I found it less immediately apparent. He even says I think in the "metaphysics of morals" that philosophy can be highly dangerous turned to Evil, I had a good laugh.  "Clausewitz On War" is based on Kant's philosophy, I guess the doublethink is required somewhat for conflict.

 

Edited April 25, 2019 by RichardY

[Leo Gura]

1 hour ago, ajasatya said:

for some reason, they become addicted to mental masturbation!

The mind is a very powerful tool. Precisely because it is so powerful it is easy to get lost in the labyrinth of one's mind -- an endless labyrinth of symbols and ideas which tend to validate themselves no matter how misguided they are.

Using the mind properly requires serious training, otherwise it falls into gross delusions.

Unfortunately almost nobody teaches how to properly use the mind. People either teach how great the mind is, or how terrible the mind is, but not how to use the mind wisely.

[Shin]

1 hour ago, ajasatya said:

this is true in so many levels... i personally know a lot of people (mostly guys for some reason) that are adept at western philosophy and are still unable to make any noticeable progress in their lives.

it becomes a complete waste of mental energy and, for some reason, they become addicted to mental masturbation!

contemplation and mental masturbation are the same things for them. i remember this guy in particular who was addicted to kant and his "meditation" book, which was a complete waste of time. just another game for the mind.

those guys are usually pessimistic, neurotic, unfriendly and nihilistic. the mind can be a real vampire and waste vital energy.

 

Quote

 

Look at how my circular logic is indeniably true in its endless loop of completely made up assumptions !

Which don't even comes from me !

 

 

[Caitwin]

@RichardY Isn't it close minded though to put down Plato's Republic just because it doesn't make sense to you?

I'm not being aggressive here, but I'm just wondering what justifies putting a philosopher down without having grasped the message of the book?

I read Plato's Republic a few months ago and yes, there are questionable aspects, but I also wouldn't say that it is no less important. I would say the same thing about most philosophic works I have read.

I also wouldn't consider philosophers as "rankable" because they approach truth to the best of their abilities from different angles. We need those angles, right? 

[Leo Gura]

@Caitwin The most useful thing would be to distinguish between dualistic philosophies vs nondual ones. If it's dualistic it can still have some nuts of wisdom, but it will also contain a lot of misguided things.

If you're using impure sources you will waste a lot of time sorting the the truth from the delusion.

Sometimes I start reading a book, see too much dualistic delusion, and just stop reading. Such an impure source is not worth the effort to untangle when crystal clear sources exist.

[ajasatya]

@Shin i'm talking about what i see, dude. i see no circular logic there. i used to be a philosopher myself. i don't know what you're doing.

[Harikrishnan]

Anyone here read Al-Ghazali -The Incoherence of the Philosophers. 

Al-Ghazali wrote that when fire and cotton are placed in contact, the cotton is burned directly by God rather than by the fire, a claim which he defended using logic in Islamic philosophy.

He explained that because God is usually seen as rational, rather than arbitrary, his behavior in normally causing events in the same sequence (i.e., what appears to us to be efficient causation) can be understood as a natural outworking of that principle of reason, which we then describe as the laws of nature. Properly speaking, however, these are not laws of nature but laws by which God chooses to govern his own behaviour (his autonomy, in the strict sense) – in other words, his rational will. (Wikipedia)

Was this guy Non dual or is there any non dual islamic philosophers.

[Leo Gura]

@Harikrishnan Yes, he's nondual and there are many nondual sufi writings.

Rumi is one.

Ibn Arabi is another.

Hafiz is another.

[Shin]

4 hours ago, ajasatya said:

@Shin i'm talking about what i see, dude. i see no circular logic there. i used to be a philosopher myself. i don't know what you're doing.

I was talking about the kind of people you were talking about.

[ajasatya]

4 hours ago, Shin said:

I was talking about the kind of people you were talking about.

ah, i see. but the sad part is that those people are usually truly smart and aware of circular logic, which makes them even more frustrated with their process of thinking... (i'm talking about my past experience with philosophy )

Edited April 26, 2019 by ajasatya

[RichardY]

14 hours ago, Caitwin said:

@RichardY Isn't it close minded though to put down Plato's Republic just because it doesn't make sense to you?

I'm not being aggressive here, but I'm just wondering what justifies putting a philosopher down without having grasped the message of the book?

I read Plato's Republic a few months ago and yes, there are questionable aspects, but I also wouldn't say that it is no less important. I would say the same thing about most philosophic works I have read.

I also wouldn't consider philosophers as "rankable" because they approach truth to the best of their abilities from different angles. We need those angles, right? 

My point is not that he doesn't make sense. My point is Plato lies, and he does it literally within the first few pages. I was gutted; OK Plato let's see what all the fuss is about. Really by the logic of the first few pages, there shouldn't be a state, but you're going to have one anyway. Couldn't you have crafted some finer Bullshit in the introduction at least, gone with the movie "Goodfellas" approach, I paid 99p for this kindle book. 

I do. Non-Dual is preferable to Dualism. They get a higher rank.  Nietzsche gets a low rank for rhetoric, and for  a pluralistic perspectivism. Goes more in the entertainment category. Angles can be useful, but don't fall into perspectivism.

Lies can confer information. i.e the Labyrinth riddle. Bit of a gaming addict. " 'Even in a book of lies sometimes you find truth." - Bioshock (Andrew Ryan....). Although I am wary of Crowley, Hegel. Aztec Blood sacrifice....

 

Hail Atlantis! Way down below the Ocean.....

The Mandala is an interesting symbol, I was thinking about that yesterday. I wonder if "The Tibetan book of the Dead" is worth reading, I've heard that referenced in relation to the Mandala. There is a certain terror about it.