Is Stirner just a meme or does he have an actual credible philosophy?
I'm trying to find an ideology that justifies my hedonistic tendencies.
>>7405913
>""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""justification"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
You are in need
>>7405919i don't get it
>>7405924
Justification is an idea that you feel the need to fulfill for its own sake
>>7405926
So what should I have used?sorry if I upset you
>>7405930
You don't need to justify your tendencies to yourself, just be aware of spooks
Just read the damn book
my neighbor is a spook
>justify my hedonism
Lmao u bitch ass
>>7405913
So you started this thread without reading anything by him right?
anarchism is almost as bad as communism
It's not credible because, like Kant, he begins with the false metaphysics that puts the individual human consciousness as the first thing in existence. Man is not the measure of all things, neither is the individual. Our thought is not prior to being, it comes after; the point is to think in accordance with external being, not create a fantasy in our minds and call it the truth/reality.
The idea that our individual consciousness is the foundation of reality is to substitute the human intellect for the Divine Mind which really does manifest reality.
>>7406025
>It's not credible because, like Kant, he begins with the false metaphysics that puts the individual human consciousness as the first thing in existence. Man is not the measure of all things, neither is the individual. Our thought is not prior to being, it comes after; the point is to think in accordance with external being, not create a fantasy in our minds and call it the truth/reality.
Fair enough.
>The idea that our individual consciousness is the foundation of reality is to substitute the human intellect for the Divine Mind which really does manifest reality.
Nevermind.
>>7406031
Think about it, the idea that the individual consciousness is the source of reality is to make that individual consciousness identical to an all-knowing, all-powerful Divine Mind which speaks being into being, reality into reality . . . "let there be light, and there was light".
Incidentally, there IS a Divine Intellect which does speak reality into reality and makes it intelligible to we lesser intellects, but you don't have to realise this to acknowledge the above.
>>7406037
Coincidentally, the very intelligibility of the world is proof that it exists in or of the a Supreme Intellect.
When we look at tables, computer, chairs, cars, lamps - these are material objects that get their FORMS from the human intellect. Similarly, when we look at stars, clouds, rocks, trees, animals, etc., these are material objects that get their FORMS from said Supreme Intellect. If they did not have these intelligible forms as part of their substance they would be unintelligible to our intellects, they would literally be incomprehensible, unthinkable. Whenever we look out on being / reality we are seeing a reflection of the Divine Intellect. Our intelligence and all the knowledge it has has this as its source and self-subsisting first principle. The only alternative is that "order arises out of chaos" and our knowledge is a flickering illusion, but this is ultimately a self-destructive idea that undermines all knowledge whatever.
>>7406065
>the very intelligibility of the world is proof that it exists in or of the a Supreme Intellect.
Not really.
>>7406067
For a thing to be intelligible it must have an intellect as its subject. If there are intelligible things which exist outside of our intellects, then in what intellectual subject do they exist in?
If you talk about all things existing as the conglomeration of fundamental particles or forces it does no good, because these so-called particles or forces are intelligible realities else we would not be comprehending them.
>>7406069
>For a thing to be intelligible it must have an intellect as its subject.
Citation?
>>7406074
Why should I dig up a source just for you to then accuse me of making an "argument from authority"?
It's common sense. An intellectual object has the intellect for its subject, just as a sensual object has the senses as its subject.
>>7406074
I cite life, maaan
>>7406080
>sourcing is now 'argument from authority'
wew lad where were you educated
>>7406080
>It's common sense.
Evidently not, if you can't explain it and we can't follow.
>>7405913
His point isn't that hedonism is particularly justifiable as much as that hedonism already is what justifies our imaginary higher causes. Thinking of immediate self interest as something higher than ourselves and thus disregarding other concerns is missing the point.
>>7406020
Yes it's great.
>>7406025
How do you relate to the world if not through your uniquely subjective experience? The mind needs not be the foundation of reality to be considered the way through which reality is given to us and thus the basis of individual transcendence.
>>7406069
You're into Aquinas right? We're you the guy who used an adapted Teleological argument to argue that the nature of Beauty being ordered rather than chaotic is a proof of God?
I have my sympathies -- but you've never really explained how entropy and necessity (seen with self-replicating infinite fractal patterns) could not organically come up with such shapes independently. We are certainly lucky to belong in such a beautiful and simple world, I believe Einstein had a similar idea to you, with the core mathematical simplicities of this world insinuating a algerbraic demiurge of sorts.
Of course, Striner's philosophy is solipsism expanded - and is very interesting for that, and like all of solipsism, is only seen as illogical when you explain it to someone else; privately, it's far harder to refute.
Anyone else, find yourself disagreeing Stirner's ideals of love? Spooky as it is, I get the impression from his poor marriage life that he did not have a "good" relationship with women (as in my own version of good). Really, I would rather be consumed, than consume.
>>7406083
>>7406086
>If thinking is like perceiving, it must be either a process in which the soul is acted upon by what is capable of being thought, or a process different from but analogous to that. The thinking part of the soul must therefore be, while impassible, capable of receiving the form of an object; that is, must be potentially identical in character with its object without being the object. Mind must be related to what is thinkable, as sense is to what is sensible.
Aristotle, De Anima, Book III, Part 4
http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/soul.3.iii.html
>>7406037
>>7406065
>Divine Intellect
Are you mentally handicapped in some way? There's no secret truth out there that needs illuminating. The fact that you assert the existence of a Divine Intellect and then put yourself beneath it means you just subjected yourself to an abstraction that has no bearing on anyone else.
>>7406095
>having a vore fetish
>>7406065
>When we look at tables, computer, chairs, cars, lamps - these are material objects that get their FORMS from the human intellect. Similarly, when we look at stars, clouds, rocks, trees, animals, etc., these are material objects that get their FORMS from said Supreme Intellect. If they did not have these intelligible forms as part of their substance they would be unintelligible to our intellects, they would literally be incomprehensible, unthinkable.
Alternatively: form is re-presentational and works only insofar as representation is sufficient. If we extend representation to all knowledge, we get paradoxes or false understandings as this proves insufficient in understanding the world (whether they are divides between presence and process, form and matter, genetics and environment, macrophysics and microphysics and so on). You can then add that we do not sufficiently understand these things and only the Divine Intellect does, but that is already to separate it from our own Intellect and make it an unnecessary entity. The point is that intelligibility as understanding is not yet attained and cannot be used in an argument and intelligibility as perception proves insufficient to justify a Divine Intellect.
>The only alternative is that "order arises out of chaos" and our knowledge is a flickering illusion, but this is ultimately a self-destructive idea that undermines all knowledge whatever.
Bingo. The world "ultimately" is the key here. In a sense it is like how some cognitivists say that humans are structurally unable to understand the world as dogs are structurally unable to do differential calculus. Dogs don't ask themselves about such things though, so that's not the whole story of course, but the point is that any answers we can give, though they might be communicable and intelligible, do not arise from Forms as representation. They might arise from abstract Forms, such as Space or Time, but this means a lot less since they can someday be replaced by a better word (the equivalent of Space-Time for instance) which, though might get us closer to the Divine Intellect, will nonetheless sever a connection that proves its existence starting from our own Intellect.
Sorry if I didn't explain this well enough, I'm not used to talking about these things, but I'll try to clarify if needed.
>>7406099
There's no need to be rude and dismissive
>>7406092
>How do you relate to the world if not through your uniquely subjective experience? The mind needs not be the foundation of reality to be considered the way through which reality is given to us and thus the basis of individual transcendence.
The problem is here
> the way through which reality is given to us
The way through which reality is given to us is our immanent individual consciousness AND the subsisting reality that our immanent consciousness reflect upon. The individual consciousness cannot transcend that external subsisting reality, it can only hope to identify it - that is truth, the identification of the mind with reality. Transcendence is participation in the Divine Mind, not transcending past it until our mind becomes its own reality, its own divinity.
>>7406095
>You're into Aquinas right? We're you the guy who used an adapted Teleological argument to argue that the nature of Beauty being ordered rather than chaotic is a proof of God?
Yes, I think so.
>I have my sympathies -- but you've never really explained how entropy and necessity (seen with self-replicating infinite fractal patterns) could not organically come up with such shapes independently.
Because the greater cannot come from the less. If there is entropy it is because there is already an order which is decaying - entropy is like a cancer that eats away at order. Therefore, entropy cannot be the first principle, as it relies on a pre-existing principle of order. Necessity only exists because there is such a thing as subsistent natures. In other words, there are things that are made such that they can only behave a certain way. Self-replicating infinite fractal patterns did not will themselves into existence; they exist because there are natures which tend to produce them.
>>7406101
>not understanding, at the core of man, is a desire for oblivion
Why do you think we fear death so much? Because we're fatally entranced by it's silky, stupefying allure.
>>7406099
It's good to subject ourselves to reality. To do otherwise is called delusion.
For example, it is good in Germany to subject yourself to German law. To do otherwise would land you in German prison.
Just because something is abstract does not mean that it is false. Abstraction is the very power by which we come to know things in the first place. To deny abstraction is to deny the intellect altogether and to make us beasts. There is a Portuguese poet called Alberto Caeiro, a heteronym of Fernando Pessoa, who preaches the abandonment of the intellect in favour of subsisting on pure bodily sensation, but while this may bring you some peace in that it saves you from some intellectual delusions (spooks), the idea that the intellect itself is evil is the greatest spook of all and is a false anthropology (it practically denies the essence of man, which is a rational animal).
>>7406096
This doesn't mean:
>For a thing to be intelligible it must have an intellect as its subject.
>>7406107
There's no need to believe in a roundabout philosophy that doesn't actually provide knowledge or understanding, but rather creates a massive schema of things and terms and abstractions wherein the knowledge gained is not of the world in of itself, but rather the workings of the whole philosophical system that's been created which, while based on some observation of the world, ultimately has no bearing on it. Does the Divine Intellect provide some link to actual knowledge? Is that something you can actually know? If it's not then how is it an actual source of knowledge? Are things actually "forms" obtained from Divine Intellect to which we are lesser intellects, or are they simply things we can perceive? Aquinas, Aristotle and Plato are all great but I have no interest in a form so abstract and transcendental from my own that I have no ability to get back behind it. At that point, the existence of a Divine Intellect is almost moot, since if it doesn't exist, it doesn't matter, and if it does exist, and you don't believe in it, and you're still understanding forms and intellectual ideas, then even the notion of a Divine Intellect and believing in that notion is also pretty silly.
But if I've missed something very crucial, please elaborate in some way does not involve entering the labyrinth of a fixed idea and its many dead ends and halls of mirrors.
>>7406121
There's a passage in Plato's Phaedo where he speaks about the danger of young men studying philosophy and becoming disillusioned because of seeing so many arguments proving so many things false, that he ultimately comes to think that all things are false and argument is pointless. Socrates calls this misology - hatred of reason - and says it's the worst thing that can happen to someone.
>>7406112
But - on the case of fractals - would you not agree that the algebraic equation would exist regardless? The code, even without our knowledge, would still be present, yes? In the same way, that say Laplace's demon might haunt our fate discretely - even without a being or subject those numbers (really just symbols themselves) surely would continue with or without any being's intervention? And why not, would it be a case of Berkley's "to be, is to be perceived" ?
And further, aren't these concepts very much steeped in a more Medieval take on the Prime-Mover argument, which is a logical approach and laudable, but also in contrast to the rising "randomness" of modern quantum theories like string theory or even quantum entanglement, whereby two seemingly seperate atoms can share the same body; as in, if you were to heat one up, at the very end of the universe, the other would simultaneously do so too. And while entropy is certainly reliant on a being before it, wouldn't a multi-dimensional concept like String Theory mean that a concept, while definitely possible, wouldn't mean it was a necessary?
>>7406116
>fatally entranced
>>7406122
compare
>For a thing to be intelligible it must have an intellect as its subject.
with Aristotle's
>Mind must be related to what is thinkable, as sense is to what is sensible.
If the world around us is thinkable (intelligible) then what makes it thinkable? The point is that our own mind's don't provide the intelligibility of the world. Our mind's provide some of the intelligibility of the artificial objects that we create, but even then we do not create all their intelligibility (e.g. we create the intelligible form car, but we do not create the substances which the car is made up of). If mind must be related to what is thinkable then, reciprocally, what is thinkable must be related to mind. The fact that things continue to exist and to be thinkable even when our mind's do not think of or about them shows that they have their intelligible existence from a superior mind.
>>7406128
>But - on the case of fractals - would you not agree that the algebraic equation would exist regardless? The code, even without our knowledge, would still be present, yes?
Absolutely, and for the reason that you say: if it were otherwise we would arrive at that Idealism which equates being with perceiving. The only mind where something's being can be identical to its being perceived can be the divine mind who knows the very essence of the thing.
>And further, aren't these concepts very much steeped in a more Medieval take on the Prime-Mover argument, which is a logical approach and laudable, but also in contrast to the rising "randomness" of modern quantum theories like string theory or even quantum entanglement, whereby two seemingly seperate atoms can share the same body; as in, if you were to heat one up, at the very end of the universe, the other would simultaneously do so too.
I don't know anything about quantum theory. It does seem to have a strange problem with basic causality, and I would guess that has more to do with the scientist's interpretation of experiments than the experiments themselves.
>And while entropy is certainly reliant on a being before it, wouldn't a multi-dimensional concept like String Theory mean that a concept, while definitely possible, wouldn't mean it was a necessary?
I'm not sure what you mean here.
>>7406145
My mistake, I mean your concept, not "a concept".
My point is, while your theory is attractive from a grounded and normative view of the world, quantum theory shows there are a number of "abnormal" alternatives to a world's origin. So would you say, your ideas were a guaranteed? Or rather, just a possible?
>>7406124
I'm not that person
>>7406137
>If mind must be related to what is thinkable then, reciprocally, what is thinkable must be related to mind. The fact that things continue to exist and to be thinkable even when our mind's do not think of or about them shows that they have their intelligible existence from a superior mind.
What is mind and what is thinking? I'm not rhetorical or making a mockery here, but from what I've read, mind and thinking seem to be taken as a limit, since we cannot be mindful of our own mind or think about or thinking without already thinking. But if we could think such concepts in terms of something else (thinking as problem-solving for instance, even though this is in no way an exhaustive interpretation), then perhaps there is no need to extend mind over everything. The way I see it, whether you consider everything Intellect or everything (including our mind) as Matter can be considered the same thing if we ask one question: what is our mind and thinking in relation to the Divine Intellect? Does the Divine Intellect encompass our mind, or just our thoughts, or both or neither?
>>7406152
*our thinking
>>7406121
Subjection to reality is not an issue. Subjection to an idea where reality seemingly comes from is.
To take your example, German Law is not a natural law. It is not necessarily reality. It's an abstraction, and yes, an abstraction that has power because the abstraction is followed by enough people, but subjecting yourself to the law simply because not doing so will land you in prison is not right. Would it be right to follow that same abstraction of German Law that said that many different people were subject to oppression? How is that abstraction any different? Is it because that abstraction no longer exists? The current one may not exist in a few years time. It's not simply right to follow an abstraction because the abstraction holds some power.
In the case of reality and knowledge, factually there is no barrier to entry. The world exists in front of us without obfuscation. The point of misunderstanding is us. Is the world simply sensual? No, intellect plays a part, but if intellect creates a schema wherein the truth is not even found but instead proposed to be behind a gate and whispered through the bars, then what are the fruits of that so-called "intellect"? Intellect itself is not evil, but forms of Intellect that result in goose chases into actual spooks (the Divine Intellect or even the literal Holy Ghost) aren't worth much in the long run, other than perhaps creating some metaphysical hoops to jump through.
>>7406127
That may be true, the hatred of reason, but hatred of reason is found more commonly among people who pledge to a fixed idea first before considering other options. There is no reason in the fixed idea, just the idea that it is somehow grounded and concrete, the classic implementation of Bohr's statement concerning horseshoes over doorframes; "It doesn't work but I believe it anyways." Here there is no reason, just the fixed idea. The Divine Intellect being the mediator to forms and truth lacks reason and intellect as much as denying intellect and reason altogether. Instead, it's reason that pushes me to question whether a Divine Intellect would need to mediate these things at all, if truth and knowledge are, as they should be at their essence, self-evident.
>>7406150
The reply is then directed at the general discussion taking place. I just get the feeling that we have two guys agreeing on general points and not actually developing anything, so I jumped in.
>>7406124
You bring up interesting points. Is your problem with the value of speculative knowledge in general as opposed to practical knowledge? Are you a pragmatist who thinks that if knowledge does not more or less directly lead to putting bread on men's tables it is useless and therefore worthless?
If you are really interested read this
>All things are said to be seen in God and all things are judged in Him, because by the participation of His light, we know and judge all things; for the light of natural reason itself is a participation of the divine light; as likewise we are said to see and judge of sensible things in the sun, i.e., by the sun's light. Hence Augustine says (Soliloq. i, 8), "The lessons of instruction can only be seen as it were by their own sun," namely God. As therefore in order to see a sensible object, it is not necessary to see the substance of the sun, so in like manner to see any intelligible object, it is not necessary to see the essence of God.
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1012.htm
and this
>THAT THE ULTIMATE FELICITY OF MAN CONSISTS IN THE CONTEMPLATION OF GOD
>So, if the ultimate felicity of man does not consist in external things which are called the goods of fortune, nor in the goods of the body, nor in the goods of the soul according to its sensitive part, nor as regards the intellective part according to the activity of the moral virtues, nor according to the intellectual virtues that are concerned with action, that is, art and prudence—we are left with the conclusion that the ultimate felicity of man lies in the contemplation of truth.
http://dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraGentiles3a.htm#37
---
These first principles do have an enormous impact on the world. The whole modern world is built on the rejection of a self-subsisting, transcendent, and eternal deity in favour of an evolutionary principle which tends towards divinity more and more with the passage of time or the progress of history. Our laws, art, and culture all are derivative of this change in theology. First principles are first for a reason.
>>7406148
It's the most interesting subject in the world man - it's wizardry. You read a truly inspired book, you enter the mind of a genius, and suddenly - the words are taken on another level, they breath this most powerful truth and you look up - and your whole world is different; a new shade, a scarier red, or a beautiful rose - less or more, up or down. And then, the high ends, you gestate the words and your own mellow normality adjusts - but never quite back to the baseline. The whole study is a flux, it's always been flowing, syruped in this lovely humming motion of musical guessing - like the purr of a live bee in honey.
The first time I read Myth of Sisyphus, I walked down my raining street, and cried. Sentimental and stupid I know, but the point is, it's a powerful little thing.
>>7406163
>The whole modern world is built on the rejection of a self-subsisting, transcendent, and eternal deity in favour of an evolutionary principle which tends towards divinity more and more with the passage of time or the progress of history. Our laws, art, and culture all are derivative of this change in theology.
Interesting point. The way you explained it, the reason why postmodernism and "premodernism" (not sure what a proper term would be to encompass all the movements that advocate for a premodern return would be, maybe reactionary is sufficient?) are related. For example, why Nietzsche can be fashionable with postmodernists and reactionaries at the same time.
>>7406148
Well if you want an update on Aquinas you should read the commentators of Aquinas, mostly his fellow Dominicans in the centuries after his death. The greatest of such in modern times was the Frenchman Garrigou-Lagrange
http://www.thesumma.info/reality/index.php
The famous modern philosophers all begin with a rejection of one or more important Thomistic (usually Aristotelian) doctrines which puts them on totally different lines of thought, so such are not really an update of Aquinas but an abandonment of his first principles. For example, in regards to the problem of universals, Aquinas was a realist (universals do exist in reality, e.g. there is such a thing as "dog" or "dogness" that really exists in every individual dog) whereas the great, great majority of modern philosophers are nominalists following William of Occam (universals are just names, labels that we apply to things based on resemblances in a group of individuals, e.g. "dog" is just a label that we apply to individual things which we want to group under one term, but there is no "dog" or "dogness" that actually subsists in each of these individuals).
>>7406176
Forgot a verb in there, I meant to say that your explanation makes it clearer why and how postmodernism and premodernism are related.
>>7406169
>Sentimental and stupid
Maybe, but that's how the sublime works. I've shed a [manly] tear watching some Rocky movie once (can't even remember which one really) and people I've talked to did the same. So, by comparison, your experience is an epitome of patricianhood.
>>7406112
>The individual consciousness cannot transcend that external subsisting reality, it can only hope to identify it - that is truth, the identification of the mind with reality. Transcendence is participation in the Divine Mind, not transcending past it until our mind becomes its own reality, its own divinity.
How is this contrary to the Kantian conception of mind-world relations? My interpretation of transcendental idealism is precisely the indirect identification of reality by means of surpassing the faculties of understanding. Denying knowledge of the external world in isolation from the subject that perceives it does not equate to denying that it none the less is there. The solipsist interpretation seems to accept the epistemological limits but deny the possibility for transcendental reasoning.
>>7406169
Sounds like a religious experience, similar to the ones I've had, but of course not with atheistic novels.
>>7406177
I see. I was more looking into a thomistic response to the modern philosophy you talk about.
For example a modern, refined teleological argument due to the massive amounts of criticism Aquinas has gotten over the ages.
But thanks for the link, I'll look into it.
>>7406192
I think this is what Edward Feser does, you can look into his writings.
>>7406163
Knowledge has inherent value, otherwise it would not be knowledge, if that makes sense. In that sense, Knowledge is also contextual. The only way knowledge is incorrect is if that knowledge is incorrectly applied or miscontextualized. For instance, "the apple is red" being used to refer to an apple that is actually green. It's not incorrect to know that some apples are red, or that apples are red, but this apple is green. Then again, that is a prescription and not exactly relevant to our entire conversation, I'm just using it to show what my stance on knowledge is.
For your first quote (and applying this to the first foundations of reason in general), the lack of necessity to see God (Divine Intellect) is almost undermining to the notion of the Divine Intellect existing. Not to take a silly atheistic tangent here, of course, but I would rather quote Tractatus 6.54 and say that once these things are fully understood, we understand them as senseless. The ladder which we climbed up on can now be thrown away, as we no longer (emphasis on no longer, since it has had value before). Also, to me it sounds like you are implying a dialectical movement towards divinity, and while I have no issue with dialectics, the idea that it is moving towards divinity is somewhat suspect in my opinion. My personal leaning is almost Catharist in relation to a spirit, so I sincerely doubt the ability to reach a divine being or a divine nature. However, I think the dialectic nature lies in our understanding of the world as it is.
As a side-note, I find myself taking a somewhat analytic approach to this argument (quoting Wittgenstein making that pretty obvious), but I have no real love for it. There are plenty of analytics out there who are more or less dicking around with P-zombies and "spirituality without spirit", as if these things aren't actually reliant on something transcendental.
I'll be going now as it's 5 am but if you want more arguments from me they are in this post:
>>7406158
>>7406203
To bring this discussion on my own terms to something I plan to write about with my father, divine intellect is a necessity for some abstract systems such as law. There needs to be an underlying natural law for the judicial system to actually bring justice. It's necessary as Augustine put it, to watch the watchmen. In modern legal practice there is no watchmen so there is no clear vision of justice and without justice judicial system becomes alianated in Marxist terms.
>>7405973
that guy fucked up.
had he told her she was his property DURING coitus, and went balls deep as he began saying it, her reaction would have been different.
t. khv
Can I forgo The Greeks and just get to Stirner?
>>7406254
Stirner loves the Greeks. The idea of the Greek pantheno and virtue ethics is fundamentally a very egoistic one.
>>7405913
All meme-books are good but popular for the wrong reasons.
Stirner's credibility depends on Hegelian philosophy, so there is some credibility to it.
It is interesting that his writing is "obscure clear", just like Nietzsche later, in the sense that it is easy to read and believe you're understanding instead of actually understanding. These are the books that people usually discover three times, first the naively embrace it, then reject them, and then (when one acquires a fair amount of knowledge) without necessarily taking position, one is able see the good and bad points and respect them as philosophers.
(Interesting enough, just like the three movements of Hegelian dialectics).
>>7407390
>just like the three movements of Hegelian dialectics
That was beautiful. I think this applies to many other areas too.
Children are born with purely self interest, usually they grow willing to sacrifice for the many. Very few accept the synthesis, that both positions are valid and have their place.
