Philosophy is cringe?

[Danioover9000]

https://www.actualized.org/insights/actualized-quotes-057

 

   So, the argument then, and the conclusion that follows, is the following:

1. That if you're not doing MY version of philosophy, before awakening, then you're cringe and your philosophy is cringe.

2. That Philosophers of old and current, before an awakening experience or whatever spiritual/non dual experience, are cringe and their philosophy is cringe, AKA Zen foxes/devilry implication here that's show horned into the insight.

3. That there's an assumption of a distinct end to philosophy after god realization/awakening, but then says REAL philosophy happens AFTER god realization/awakening, so this assumption is a performative contradiction: that there's both a DISINCT END, but a REAL philosophy starts after awakening. Which is it?

   IMO, this insight is a miss and ironically a bit cringe considering the ramifications to other types of philosophies out there. Your thoughts? Change my mind.

[Nilsi]

I generally dont disagree with this sentiment. Endlessly rambling on about "the Truth" while failing to formulate any clear thought on said subject is quite cringe (especially when one creates these overly spectacular systems and arguments like a lot of Christian philosophers do, for example).

Whats truly cringe though, is when Leo fails to recognize that there have been multiple philosophers in the Western tradition who did very overtly talk about such a "post-philosophy," which he is advocating for here (which really is more about conscious exploration and creation than it is about "seeking the Truth.") 

Nietzsche (and others, like Deleuze, for example) comes to mind here, who Leo will insist on was just a clueless materialist.

Youre damned if you do and damned if you dont apparently, when it comes to pleasing Leo. Talk about Truth and you are a cringelord, take this point as settled and youre a clueless dimwit.

 

Edited January 9 by Nilsi

[Nilsi]

5 minutes ago, Nilsi said:

I generally dont disagree with this sentiment. Endlessly rambling on about "the Truth" while failing to formulate any clear thought on said subject is quite cringe (especially when one creates these overly spectacular systems and arguments like a lot of Christian philosophers do, for example).

Whats truly cringe though, is when Leo fails to recognize that there have been multiple philosophers in the Western tradition who did very overtly talk about such a "post-philosophy," which he is advocating for here (which really is more about conscious exploration and creation than it is about "seeking the Truth.") 

Nietzsche (and others, like Deleuze, for example) comes to mind here, who Leo will insist on was just a clueless materialist.

Youre damned if you do and damned if you dont apparently, when it comes to pleasing Leo. Talk about Truth and you are a cringelord, take this point as settled and youre a clueless dimwit.

 

Can you imagine every philosopher being as painfully neurotic as Ken Wilber and reformulating their entire worldview in every single work they publish, before they say anything new? Apparently thats the only way to impress Leo.

[Nilsi]

I think Leo is incapable of understanding continental philosophy. Its too subtle for him. Makes sense, considering how over-the-top straight and explicit his own philosophical musings tend to be. 

[Danioover9000]

@Nilsi

24 minutes ago, Nilsi said:

I generally dont disagree with this sentiment. Endlessly rambling on about "the Truth" while failing to formulate any clear thought on said subject is quite cringe (especially when one creates these overly spectacular systems and arguments like a lot of Christian philosophers do, for example).

Whats truly cringe though, is when Leo fails to recognize that there have been multiple philosophers in the Western tradition who did very overtly talk about such a "post-philosophy," which he is advocating for here (which really is more about conscious exploration and creation than it is about "seeking the Truth.") 

Nietzsche (and others, like Deleuze, for example) comes to mind here, who Leo will insist on was just a clueless materialist.

Youre damned if you do and damned if you dont apparently, when it comes to pleasing Leo. Talk about Truth and you are a cringelord, take this point as settled and youre a clueless dimwit.

 

   Sure, this is more focused on his blog and the simplistic takes he has, I just feel that it can be disrespectful to predecessors of philosophy, and as an argument it falls apart on the edges. Outside this blog, and taking into account his videos and how he uses so many sources outside, it's just a bit too simple. Plus, factoring in his main method of reaching this god realization and awakening is via psychedelic substances, specifically synthetic version of 5 Meo DMT, and most mainstream media and most of society still have a large unfavorable view of psychedelic it makes it seem that the only way to experiencing awakening and god realization is psychedelics, which is very hard to teach and mass communicate to most people, and as an argument to persuade and convince it just isn't convincing to the average joe out there, unless you're just like @Leo Gura, with similar genetics, circumstances, and similar values and into self help/personal development nd spirituality, a straight A student.

   But that doesn't mean I'm 100% hating on him, for one his life purpose course is pretty decent, way more than other courses. And some of his videos are pretty good and packed with information that should be behind a paywall.

[Danioover9000]

@Nilsi

24 minutes ago, Nilsi said:

Can you imagine every philosopher being as painfully neurotic as Ken Wilber and reformulating their entire worldview in every single work they publish, before they say anything new? Apparently thats the only way to impress Leo.

   I'm guessing that you're referring to when @Leo Gura in this forum/blog talked about Ken Wilbur/Daniel Schmachtenberger? I remember him saying how it's a shame Ken Wilbur doesn't do psychedelics and it's a waste of intellectual talents or something like that.

[Danioover9000]

@Nilsi

9 minutes ago, Nilsi said:

I think Leo is incapable of understanding continental philosophy. Its too subtle for him. Makes sense, considering how over-the-top straight and explicit his own philosophical musings tend to be. 

   I think this part. IMO, is now a bit of a stretch. From how he articulated in his videos, not factoring in his forum posts, he does seem to be able to grasp and understand philosophy.

[Nilsi]

27 minutes ago, Danioover9000 said:

@Nilsi

   I think this part. IMO, is now a bit of a stretch. From how he articulated in his videos, not factoring in his forum posts, he does seem to be able to grasp and understand philosophy.

Im talking about continental philosophy aka French, German, etc. Its a distinct style of philosophy, that is among other things characterized by its subtlety (and often fairly criticized for being overly obscure and ideosyncratic).

[Nilsi]

30 minutes ago, Danioover9000 said:

@Nilsi

   I'm guessing that you're referring to when @Leo Gura in this forum/blog talked about Ken Wilbur/Daniel Schmachtenberger? I remember him saying how it's a shame Ken Wilbur doesn't do psychedelics and it's a waste of intellectual talents or something like that.

Im referring to the fact that he seems to need every metaphysical premise laid out explicitly, before he can consider further arguments about any subject.

For example, if someone talks about sociology, he needs to hear how society and culture is a fabrication of the mind first, before he will consider any further statements about said subject, even though this point may have been settled long ago.

Thats what Ken Wilber does. Before he makes any new and interesting point about how society functions, for example, he will lay out his entire metaphysical framework (when he could have just referenced back to the place, where this argument had already been made).