Did I misunderstood Wittgenstein or he is actually super-overrated, useless to study?

[UnlovingGod]

I really like Erich Fromm as it is quite easy to read and has really deep insides about love. Love in various aspects of life. And in a way that humans can easily understand and connect to.

[Nilsi]

3 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Correct.

Is there even any evidence that Neitzsche has ever spoke the word "Awake"?

No Western philosopher would ever express themselves so crudely.

The whole point of doing philosophy as rigorously as the Western mind has been doing it for the past 2000 years is to avoid such ambiguous language and communicate precisely what they mean.

Meanwhile every Eastern philosopher means something different by "Awakening."

 

All you need to do is get a basic understanding of Schopenhauer (who is really saying much of the same things you are saying) and why/how Nietzsche went beyond him.

[Vibroverse]

23 minutes ago, Nilsi said:

Is it not? 

To Nietzsche life = growth, becoming, striving -- which Buddhist's simply brush off as Samsara.

Instead, Buddhism (if strictly adhered to) will turn you into a monk, meditating on the void - all day, all night. Nothing novel and grand can ever grow out of this sterility, which is what Nietzsche means with "life denying."

Well, i think you're not appreciating the depth of the Buddhist philosophy, and doing an overgeneralization of it (like i did with the western philosophy before due to my angry mood at that time, haha), and saying that reality is an illusion necessarily means that reality is something we need to get rid of, and that reality is emptiness necessarily means it also is not fullness. 

You, in my view, are applying a very restrictive logic when you are thinking about this, and say that, in my own paraphrasing, one either turns inwards or outwards, and that stillness and dynamism exclude each other. And, in my understanding, and of course i might be misunderstanding it due to my own biases, i think that the buddha and schopenhauer were not actually talking about denying life, but they were talking about denying life as being lived by a self. 

And what i mean is, i think that what they are talking about is transcending duality, and letting go of the sense of a personal self being in a world that is separate from itself. When i read them, i interpret them as saying that this life and our actions are coming from our sense of duality, coming from and in the illusion, in that sense. And, of course, as i said, i might be misunderstanding or misinterpreting them, that's always a possibility, surely. 

 

[Schizophonia]

You can ask me anything.
After all, I'm still the smartest person in the universe, that seems pretty clear to me.

[Leo Gura]

1 hour ago, Nilsi said:

No Western philosopher would ever express themselves so crudely.

It has nothing to do with crudely. They just have no idea what reality is, therefore they speak in confused riddles. Their work is confusing because they are confused. And gullible people mistake that for a sign of profoundity.

Western philosophy is precisely not profound. It's shallow like a puddle.

Edited July 1, 2023 by Leo Gura

[Majed]

@Leo Gura is it worth it to study western philosophers just for the sake of knowledge ? like for example Nietzsche everyone talks about him, i think you'll understand the world better by reading him. it's like even if nazism isn't truth, it's still worth studying the philosophy of nazism just for the sake of knowledge. you'll understand the world better if you're not clueless every time people talk about Nazism. without adopting the philosophy of nazism yourself. 

Edited July 1, 2023 by Majed

[Vibroverse]

24 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

It has nothing to do with crudely. They just have no idea what reality is, therefore they speak in confused riddles. Their work is confusing because they are confused. And gullible people mistake that for a sign of profoundity.

Western philosophy is precisely not profound. It's shallow like a puddle.

I probably wouldn't be this harsh on them, but i think you are right, in some sense. I have also gone through a process where i put them on a pedestal, thinking that they are such profound people. But the more i studied them from a relatively more neutral place, the more i recognized that they are actually not talking about stuff which i myself have not discovered. 

And i think i still can learn from them, because they might have delved into some subjects more deeply than i have, but the problem is when i put them on some sort of a pedestal and believe that they are somehow superior to me, and that they are more important than my own inner being and inner intuition of being. 

 

[Leo Gura]

3 hours ago, Majed said:

is it worth it to study western philosophers just for the sake of knowledge ? like for example Nietzsche everyone talks about him, i think you'll understand the world better by reading him.

Sure, it's good to have a broad familairity with all kinds of philosophies.

But after a certain basic education you gotta move on to the serious work of unraveling reality.

[Leo Gura]

2 hours ago, Vibroverse said:

And i think i still can learn from them, because they might have delved into some subjects more deeply than i have, but the problem is when i put them on some sort of a pedestal and believe that they are somehow superior to me, and that they are more important than my own inner being and inner intuition of being. 

Not only are they not superior to you but if you learned even 30% of what I taught you, you understand reality way deeper than them. So don't sell yourself short.

What I taught you guys will make you better philosophers than anyone alive today at MIT. Just learn and apply what I taught you. I gave you the best philosophy education on this planet. Don't squander it. It's all there. Mine it deep.

Edited July 1, 2023 by Leo Gura

[Nilsi]

7 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

It has nothing to do with crudely. They just have no idea what reality is, therefore they speak in confused riddles. Their work is confusing because they are confused. And gullible people mistake that for a sign of profoundity.

Western philosophy is precisely not profound. It's shallow like a puddle.

Their work is not confusing, it's just very elitist and has a huge barrier of entry.

Before I got into western philosophy, I studied virtually ALL the great Eastern thinkers (including you, Wilber, Schmachtenberger, etc.).

Again, Western philosophy, ever since Plato, is not trying to unravel reality. It takes this realization as the ground and starting point of all further inquiry and questioning (at least those philosophers worth their salt do).

 

Can you really not grant, that someone could understand reality perfectly well, yet still have other profound questions they would rather spend their time with, instead of being the n-th guy to ramble on about metaphysics and Truth for eternity?

[Leo Gura]

16 minutes ago, Nilsi said:

Can you really not grant, that someone could understand reality perfectly well, yet still have other profound questions they would rather spend their time with

None of these Western academics is within a 1000 miles of understanding reality. None of them! NONE! NOT A SINGLE ONE!

All their profound questions are horseshit! Their priorities are utterly deluded and corrupt.

Edited July 2, 2023 by Leo Gura

[Nilsi]

31 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

None of these Western academics is within a 1000 miles of understanding reality. None of them! NONE!

All their profound questions are horseshit! Their priorities are utterly deluded and corrupt.

I guarantee you, that Hegel, Nietzsche, Jung all have an insanely profound understanding of reality - at least as impressive and comprehensive as Ken Wilber does.

Western philosophy build's on top of itself and takes prior realizations and insights as given (which A. is why it is so productive and amongst other great feats, landed us on the moon; and B. is why it is so confusing, if you're not very fluent in the entire corpus).

 

Read the pre-Socratics (Heraclitus, Parmenides, Anaxagoras, etc.). All the fundamental metaphysics has been done thousands of years ago, while all the Easterners start their works from scratch (which A. is genuinely very admirable and shoes intellectually honesty and humility; and B. is why they haven't come up with ANYTHING original for millenia). 

Of course most academics and many canonical philosophers are clueless and lost in abstraction, but also consider, that some may just choose not to concern themselves with questions, that they themselves and our culture as a whole, have long ago answered conclusively.

Edited July 2, 2023 by Nilsi

[Nilsi]

28 minutes ago, Nilsi said:

I guarantee you, that Hegel, Nietzsche, Jung all have an insanely profound understanding of reality - at least as impressive and comprehensive as Ken Wilber does.

Western philosophy build's on top of itself and takes prior realizations and insights as given (which A. is why it is so productive and amongst other great feats, landed us on the moon; and B. is why it is so confusing, if you're not very fluent in the entire corpus).

 

Read the pre-Socratics (Heraclitus, Parmenides, Anaxagoras, etc.). All the fundamental metaphysics has been done thousands of years ago, while all the Easterners start their works from scratch (which A. is genuinely very admirable and shoes intellectually honesty and humility; and B. is why they haven't come up with ANYTHING original for millenia). 

Of course most academics and many canonical philosophers are clueless and lost in abstraction, but also consider, that some may just choose not to concern themselves with questions, that they themselves and our culture as a whole, have long ago answered conclusively.

None of all of this is more obvious than in Wilber's "Sex, Ecology, Spirituality," when he concludes his tour de force with "Plato was right all along, but hey, good thing we talked about it - now we really know." 

Yes, you can do that, or you can actually do something creative and novel.

[Vibroverse]

5 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

None of these Western academics is within a 1000 miles of understanding reality. None of them! NONE! NOT A SINGLE ONE!

All their profound questions are horseshit! Their priorities are utterly deluded and corrupt.

Yeah, i think you are right. And i sometimes feel like what they work on in specific and detailed ways is actually not any different, mechanically, then what anyone else is working on. It is like it is just that consciousness is opening itself up in those ways and realizing itself, in a sense, in those ways in their experiences, if you know what i mean. 

 

[Vibroverse]

9 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Not only are they not superior to you but if you learned even 30% of what I taught you, you understand reality way deeper than them. So don't sell yourself short.

What I taught you guys will make you better philosophers than anyone alive today at MIT. Just learn and apply what I taught you. I gave you the best philosophy education on this planet. Don't squander it. It's all there. Mine it deep.

Yeah, i think you are right about this, also. I often feel like western philosophy has turned itself into a conceptual dictatorship instead of looking at the meaning underneath those concepts, and it's like that's where they get lost, mhm. It is like it has turned itself into conceptual objects turning into conceptual objects, ad infinitum, where the underlying meaning has become lost, like missing the obvious. 

 

Edited July 2, 2023 by Vibroverse

[Vibroverse]

5 hours ago, Nilsi said:

Their work is not confusing, it's just very elitist and has a huge barrier of entry.

Before I got into western philosophy, I studied virtually ALL the great Eastern thinkers (including you, Wilber, Schmachtenberger, etc.).

Again, Western philosophy, ever since Plato, is not trying to unravel reality. It takes this realization as the ground and starting point of all further inquiry and questioning (at least those philosophers worth their salt do).

 

Can you really not grant, that someone could understand reality perfectly well, yet still have other profound questions they would rather spend their time with, instead of being the n-th guy to ramble on about metaphysics and Truth for eternity?

I think you might be going through a process that i also went through, where you are projecting your own discoveries and journey onto those philosophers, where you also figured out the mystical and from there moved to the western philosophical systems where the focus is on more detailed conceptualizations, on models of reality. 

And i think you are right, in the sense that consciousness has the desire to expand and create, that it wants to put itself into games where there are more stricted rules and limitations, and then it wants to experience the thrill of moving through those obstacles, by creating obstacles first. 

But i want to caution you against a trap you may fall into which i also have fallen into to some, maybe to some great, extent, where you might get lost in all those conceptual frameworks and forget what it's been all about to begin with, if you know what i mean. 

 

[Leo Gura]

6 hours ago, Nilsi said:

I guarantee you, that Hegel, Nietzsche, Jung all have an insanely profound understanding of reality

Hegel yes. The others? Meh

Edited July 2, 2023 by Leo Gura

[Vibroverse]

8 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Hegel yes. The others? Meh

I find Jung to be a pretty deep and awakened thinker also, but maybe i'm projecting my own biases on him, i don't know. I especially find the idea of shadow work pretty helpful, and his metaphysics also seem to align with the metaphysics of mysticism, if we can read into him. But on a deeper account, i don't even know who i am, let alone knowing who Jung is ??

Edited July 2, 2023 by Vibroverse

[effortlesslumen]

The east denied the material world, the west praised it. Both are half.

[mmKay]

ChatGPT is THE tool to navigate philosopher's work.

Now you must provide question prompts like a philosopher