Anyone here into reading mystic thinkers? I was reading about some Heidegger and found he basically stole pic related's ideas for his own agenda: anti-representation, muh presence and the like.
I just bought Teresa D'Ávila's Inner Castle. Looking forward to read it.
>>7859341
R u Christian?
>>7859350
I was. Then I became an agnostic. Then suddenly I'm reading a lot of Christian related material (literature and philosophy) and my interest is returning, but I wouldn't say I'm Christian now.
>>7859357
why do people stick to theist doctrine, when those have not a clear manual for spiritual hedonism ?
no doctrine beats the buddhist guidances to get the jhanas. then the buddhists use the jhanas to see that material hedonism and spiritual hedonism is pure cancer.
you are sad because you choose to take seriously what you think and what you feel.
once you learn to install equanimity, you move to the eye of the cyclone.
the cyclone itself disappears once you understand that the above clinging is what drags you down, that you are the source of your misery.
this is called the dhamma, see here
>>>/r9k/27412203
It seems the general method in mysticism is through ultimate detachment, which would bring one closest to God: a transcendent being not of the material world of the senses. So really it's just Buddhism for Christians who still want their personal redeemer.
>>7859375
you just used a bunch of unnecessary words to describe a process which cultivates: apathy.
>>7859389
It's not quite the same as Buddhism, though I suppose they are similar. Mysticism developed independently, after all.
Aren't nirvana and eternal life in Christ kind of diametrically opposed, if you take them both seriously?
>>7859389
Western mysticism is mysticism with philosophical rigour.
Buddhists are soul-dead quietists from cultures that never developed individuality.
>>7859411
>only Western mysticism has philosophical rigour
Read some Tibetan Buddhist treatises.
>>7859411
Nagarjuna > Wittgenstein
>>7859311
I wouldn't say I'm into them, but I've read a few. Louis Lallemant, John of the Cross, Thomas Merton.
I'm relatively ambivalent to their writings and prefer either fiction or hard philosophy, so as far as religious experience simply taking a pilgrimage, praying the rosary or reading Gene Wolfe.
>>7859554
Not sinning is often suffering, suffering is actually very important for many Christian mystics. They outside of method of meditation have almost nothing in common.
>>7859375
Can you expand on this notion of spiritual hedonism>
>>7861507
Buddhism is shit
>>7859389
>>7859408
Actually Buddhists learned it from Christians
>>7862716
Very interesting
>>7863454
For the intelectually dishonest
>>7863475
It sounds plausible
Is that really so? I will have to study Eckhart then.
To answer your question yes. At least I love the idea of it, heh. Dabbling in so much stuff right now.
Any essentials besides Eckhart you might recommend to a newbie?
>>7859311
Why read classic mystic literature or belong to a faith tradition when you can just read Eckhart Tolle?
>>7863541
Constantine is really a very smart sort of idiot.
>>7863541
Notice how that poster deliberatly ignores Hinduism despite it predating Buddhism by quite a bit and only brings it up when it comes to the 16th Century?
Its the Athiest equivalent of labeling Christianity as anti science by saying that it was only in 1990s when thes Pope acknowledged evolution as being correct.
Back when this was spammed and actual Hindus brought up evidence that contradicted that posters claim or asked for a source they were simply ignored
>>7863572
>Back when this was spammed and actual Hindus brought up evidence that contradicted that posters claim or asked for a source they were simply ignored
what mantra do the hindus use?
Been reading De Docta Ignorantia. Apart from that, not much else in my mystic reading repertoire, except maybe a collection of essays on the anthropology of dreams.
I wanna be an oracle. Did any of the mystics talk about divination or developing your intuition above and beyond language, how to see more clearly, with perfect confidence, total acceptance, understanding blablabla?
>>7859375
How do Buddhists respond to Nietzsche's criticism of the philosophy?
>>7863649
"mu, you stupid Westerner"
>>7863622
Not the real ones, only pseuds.
>>7863596
Pic related as well as those contained with the Vedas which all predate the bible by a large margin
>>7863677
>>7863560
Not smart simply deceptive and dishonest
"The more I argued with them, the better I came to know their dialectic. First they counted on the stupidity of their adversary, and then, when there was no other way out, they themselves simply played stupid. If all this didn't help, they pretended not to understand, or, if challenged, they changed the subject in a hurry, quoted platitudes which, if you accepted them, they immediately related to entirely different matters, and then, if again attacked, gave ground and pretended not to know exactly what you were talking about. Whenever you tried to attack one of these apostles, your hand closed on a jelly-like slime which divided up and poured through your fingers, but in the next moment collected again. But if you really struck one of these fellows so telling a blow that, observed by the audience, he couldn't help but agree, and if you believed that this had taken you at least one step forward, your amazement was great the next day. The Orthodox poster had not the slightest recollection of the day before, he rattled off his same old nonsense as though nothing at all had happened, and, if indignantly challenged, affected amazement; he couldn't remember a thing, except that he had proved the correctness of his assertions the previous day"
Repalace playing stupid with simply stating that reason doesn't matter if its not founded on the axiom of the East Orthodox Church and Dostoevsky being correct and that describes the posting style perfectly. Pic related
>>7863753
They are eternally butthurt about Catholic philosophy so they reject it altogether for an almost fideist concept of faith.
>>7863812
The issue is though that they approach and discuss it with others as if that was not the case and only when cornered will they actually reveal their fideism which is where the deceptive element is found
>>7863821
I think that's many of them are openly fideist. Certainly Dostoevsky, considering he doesn't directly counter Ivan's argument, he lives a good life contrary to them.
Catholic people have been fantasising about the rationality far too much to reach their goals.
>>7859311
>>7859311
Seeing lots of Heidegger being talked about this morning. Makes me a little giddy even if everyone is being a little unfair. "I'm not a robot"
>>7863861
Rationality become sneered at in the 20th century with a recent emergence of Aquinas after fidesist tendencies.
>>7863890
Ratzinger used to read a lot of him strangely enough.
Look into Sufi texts, OP. i spent my late teenage years in a very deep fascination with mysticism.
>>7864263
It doesn't seem like he's interested in Islam
>>7863753
Nice "Mein Kampf" quote
>>7863547
I've only encountered Eckhart so far in my reading of Caputo's 'The Mystical Element in Heidegger's Thought.' So if that's what you're interested in Duns Scotus was a influence on early Heidegger as well.
>>7859311
Eckhart is top-tier. I have yet to read an author with a better grasp of God than he had. I'm uncertain whether it is accurate to call him a mystic, though: I'm not convinced he ever had any (or anyone else, for that matter) mystical experiences.
>>7864994
Why do you doubt him?
>>7864383
Ironic isnt it
I read a great book about the role of mysticism and scepticism in the work of Michael Oakeshott and was for a long time keen on reading Nicolas of Cusa. Never got around to it though, sadly.
Where to start with Eckhart?
Literally coined the word mysticism
>>7863861
"It is impossible for any created intellect to see the essence of God by its own natural power."
Wouldn't call Aquinas obsessed with rationality.
>>7865294
>so mystical that you don't even know his identity
I like this
Literally everybody stole their ideas from the mystics.
>>7865283
Complete works?
byump
>>7859375
Fancy way to say nothing matters, anon. :^)
>>7863934
Benedict is so fucking smart. I wish he were more well-known as a theologian and philosopher. He's actually astoundingly brilliant. I feel like once he's dead and his papacy recedes into the background a bit, his power as a thinker will be more evident. We'll be reading him for decades, maybe centuries.
>>7867262
Care to post some examples/expand upon this? I saw some posters here demolish his critique of Nietzsche
>>7867296
>I saw some posters here demolish his critique of Nietzsche
Ehhhhh no they didn't.
Also, check this out. Pretty cool: http://www.amazon.com/Dialectics-Secularization-Reason-Religion/dp/1586171666/ref=sr_1_9?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1459314439&sr=1-9&keywords=joseph+ratzinger
>>7867325
What was flawed in their response?
If you’re lucky perception will shift one more time. The still frames will dissolve, becoming something too rapid for the mind to clearly discern. You’ll then experience the breath sensations as the rapid flickering on and off of separate moments of consciousness, or simply as vibrations. Some meditators interpret this experience of “momentariness” as the universe continuously coming into and going out of existence. That description is quite accurate in terms of a person’s subjective universe. When this happens, there’s nothing the mind can recognize or hold on to, so it naturally recoils from the experience.4 The mind jumps back, so to speak, to a place where things are recognizable once again, where it can apply familiar labels and concepts to what is being experienced. This is an Insight experience.
“Things” don’t actually exist. “Process” is all there is. This perceptual state will become an Insight experience from which you can gain Insight into emptiness.
If you can re-enter this “vibratory” experience, you can gain a clear Insight into impermanence.5 You may realize that all there ever was, is, or will be is an ongoing process of constant change that cannot be grasped or clung to. “Things” don’t actually exist. “Process” is all there is. Then, if you can overcome the mind’s resistance enough to go in and out of this perceptual state repeatedly, it will become an Insight experience from which you can gain Insight into emptiness.6 First, you’ll observe how uncomfortable the mind is with that level of perception and how desperately it wants to “pull back” and organize this experience conceptually. Then you’ll realize at a very deep level that the familiar world of forms is shaped entirely by the mind’s attempt to “make sense” of an “empty” reality. Dharma teachers often speak about the world as being merely a projection of the mind. This direct experience of the mind creating meaning out of emptiness allows us to understand exactly what they’re referring to. It’s not that the world doesn’t exist. Rather, the world you perceive, your personal “reality,” is nothing more than a construct of your mind.
Dharma teachers often speak of the world as a mere projection of the mind. This direct experience of the mind creating meaning out of emptiness allows you to understand exactly what they’re referring to.
These realizations happen if you’re really lucky, but there are two significant caveats. First, if you spend a lot of time doing this practice, you’ll have a spillover into your daily life. You’ll see everything as impermanent, which can really throw you off. Familiar feelings of certainty and purpose disappear, which can produce a sense of hopelessness, even despair. Things lose their usual importance, and life can seem pointless. And it’s all the more disconcerting because these emotions have no logical basis in conscious experience, and seem to come from nowhere. In fact, they are produced by unconscious mental processes trying to assimilate your meditation experiences. In the Theravadin tradition, this state is called the “knowledges of suffering” (dukkha ñanas) and is in some ways comparable to the “dark night of the soul” in the Christian mystical tradition. (See the section on Insight Experiences and the Attainment of Insight in the Sixth Interlude.) These insights into impermanence and emptiness can create aversion to practicing, but stopping your practice is probably the worst thing you can do in this situation.
When you reach the end of Stage Seven, there’s enough unification to produce the effortlessness of mental pliancy, which always comes with some meditative joy. Joyseemsto be the “natural” state of a unified mind, and the more unified a mind is, the more joyful it is. Joy is also the “glue” that helps keep a mind unified. However, you can count on desire and aversion, worry and remorse, ill will, impatience, fear, and doubt to eventually perturb the mind, erode unification, and shift the mind back into a state of inner conflict and dissatisfaction. Stage Eight is about conditioning the mind to sustain a high degree of unification even in the face of the hindrances. Then, meditative joy is fully developed, and the glue has “set.”
Experiencing joy while breathing in, he trains himself. Experiencing joy while breathing out, he trains himself.
Experiencing pleasure while breathing in, he trains himself. Experiencing pleasure while breathing out, he trains himself.
Ānāpānasati Sutta
>>7867433
>someone stretches the reach of their limited mind and glimpses what's beyond it
>"He's sick! He needs medication!"
Typical.
>>7867262
Back when he was a Cardinal he was known for keeping up with and commenting on some of the major names in contemporary philosophy, in particular POlitical Philosophy which tends to be more theological and spiritually oriented. Old man knows his stuff.
>>7867347
I do not remember any specific examples, but the answer is basically that he is one of the best theologians and philosophers in an organization of theologians and philosophers. He understood Nietzsche better.
>>7867433
What the hell do you think a doctor will be able to do for this person? There's nothing wrong with them.
Actually, it reminds me of a book I read recently called Taming Riki, about a teenager who begins to meditate so deeply that, from an outside perspective, he is going mad. His father, a psychiatrist is fretting more and more and blaming himself and diagnosing his son with all manners of "illnesses", until one day, the boy simply stops. I don't want to spoil the ending, but I think you should definitely give it a read.
>>7867436
>When you reach the end of Stage Seven, there’s enough unification to produce the effortlessness of mental pliancy,
> thinks shit like this means anything.
You're mentally ill or dumb m8
>>7867444
Breaks with reality do not typically end well. Catching mental illness early can help reduce the severity of something they may have to live with for the rest of their life.
I am not somebody just shitting on mysticism to shit on it. Actually read that wall of text, it is schizoid gibberish.
>>7863890
Why does he wear the cap?
>>7867452
I think it is a country bumpkin German hat, he used to like and go hang with the locals.
I was reading pic related when I went schizo. Ended up taking a lot of acid and meditating and experiencing countless past lives. Sometimes I wonder if it is what the Buddhists call "stream entry". I then tried to perform a mystical ritual of my own devision to return me and the rest of the world to the godhead. Stopped sleeping, told everyone about my newfound enlightenment, met a lot of people, did a lot more drugs, had a lot of crazy sex, and channeled the thoughts of the gnostic within. Said many gnomic aphorisms. Very PKD-esque. But also grew paranoid about conspiracies. Freaked out all my friends and even myself. Eventually went to a hospital cause I was hallucinating in all five senses and divine language was infecting my brain. Put on risperidone and been in the dark night of the soul ever since. Nobody knows the trouble I've seen.
I want to get off meds but my psych says I have to quit smoking weed and drinking first. What would Foucault say? Something about control and power... But maybe I need to control myself better to avoid going insane with revelation and stay in the land of the everyday.
Thus, Ananda, the purpose and benefit of virtuous behavior is freedom from remorse.
The purpose and benefit of freedom from remorse is satisfaction.
The purpose and benefit of satisfaction is joy (pīti).
The purpose and benefit of joy is pacification of the body.
The purpose and benefit of pacification of the body is pleasure (sukha).
The purpose and benefit of pleasure is concentration (samādhi).
The purpose and benefit of concentration is knowledge and vision of things as they really are.
The purpose and benefit of knowledge and vision of things as they really are is disenchantment and dispassion.
The purpose and benefit of disenchantment and dispassion is knowledge and vision of liberation.
Kimatthiya Sutta: Purpose and Benefits of Virtue, from the Anguttara Nikaya 10.1.1.1
>>7867448
How? It makes perfect sense philosophically and with respect to personal experience.
>>7867443
I found a post from a thread awhile back that seemed to be on that topic. It doesnt seem to be an argument based on misunderstanding.
>>7867262
He is quite famous as a theologian, he made the name gender ideology a thing and now everyone knows it.
Also what do you recommend by him aside the 5 always mentioned works?
>>7867513
I'll never understand the obsession people here have with answering Nietzsche. As if he was coherent and had a point, his critique of morality was lol morals are fake lmao I don't like Christianity
>>7867436
That post was just a bunch of eastern nonsense. It's hardly reaching anything.
>>7867532
>his critique of morality was lol morals are fake
Set systems of morality are fake. This doesn't mean acting according to one hard earned virtue isn't worthwhile.
>>7867532
>nonsense
In what way?
Ibn Arabi is an amazing thinker but hard to get in English, read William C Chittick's books on him
>>7867545
It sounds literally like Valis. It's basically a schizophrenic mental breakdown.
>>7867550
It's funny how Jesus can touch your soul but any religious experience outside Christianity is described in a materialistic psychiatric framework.
>>7867532
>I'll never understand the obsession people here have with answering Nietzsche. As if he was coherent and had a point, his critique of morality was lol morals are fake lmao I don't like Christianity
How does that challenge what the anon in the pic was saying?
>>7867443
>I do not remember any specific examples, but the answer is basically that he is one of the best theologians and philosophers in an organization of theologians and philosophers. He understood Nietzsche better.
How do you assess what makes a better or worse philosopher?
>>7867468
Yeah easterns are pretty based. After I'm done getting through the basics of the western tradition, I'm moving on to the orientals.
>>7867555
It's logical.
It's also completely different. John of the Cross for example sounds nothing like the schizoid breakdowns or drug induced experiences of other religions.
It follows from Christianity being true and other religions false. Not sure how that's funny or surprising.
>>7867561
I didn't read the encyclical he mentions so I can't argue about that post specifically.
>>7867555
funny is one way to describe it
>>7867582
>It follows from Christianity being true and other religions false.
Not that anon but you just shit the spiritual bed with this line. Another naive cheerleader for their respective home team.
Seeing the dhamma is like seeing the wire: every other show will never amount to anything relevant.
>>7867582
What work of his regarding Nietzsche have you read?
>nothing like the schizoid breakdowns or drug induced experiences of other religions.
The experiences of the Sufis and Buddhists dont really seem to fit that mold yet get cast in purely material terms.
I'm all about greco-egyptian mysticism. You think neoplatonism is based? Try hermeticism.
>>7867587
Its funny that protestants particularly Pentecostals use the fact they experience such things more commonly as proof that Catholic doctrine is false and stuck with only experiencing God through word games in the transubstantiation.
>>7867555
almost as if we live in a society that's organized in a certain way
>>7867594
Pentecostal mystical experiences fit perfectly in line with euphoria, schizophrenia and psychological effects, especially with speaking in unexisting languages.
>>7867601
I am interested in how a Christian would argue that mystical experiences of other religions are true glimpses of God considering they more often than not contradict form and always doctrine. Aside them coming from demons.
>>7867594
Catholicism has just as much mysticism and spooky shit as the Pentecostals, it's just the Penties get more press because they're usually white and attractive.
It's mainstream Euro-American Protestantism that's spiritually dead.
>>7867599
>Birth of Tragedy and Beyond Good and Evil.
My post was what works of *his* regarding Nietzsche ie works by the former pope.
It would be funny if Christian read the Bhagavad Gita and realized Krishna was saying the same things as Jesus before he was born.
>>7867599
>It's a pretty clear syllogism.
It is, is it? Because the real reasoning behind your position seems far more simple and true to life: you've grown up in this religion so you want to assert it over others who grew up in differing religions as being the only world view possible.
Do you know how common and boorish this attitude is?
>>7867611
christians that think that are probably very polite and wouldn't like to argue with you at all
>>7867613
>Catholicism has just as much mysticism and spooky shit as the Pentecostals, it's just the Penties get more press because they're usually white and attractive.
That mysticism only exists for very small communities of monks or those who read historical works hence they are effectively making it an occult like practice. The same is not the case for Pentecostals.
>Pentecostal mystical experiences fit perfectly in line with euphoria, schizophrenia and psychological effects,
As do the mystical experiences for the vast majority of biblical figures an even chaps like Socrates. Indeed the mystical practices of Catholicism are seen to bring one closer to God whilst Buddhists are just feeling physical effects of mindfulness.
>>7867599
>Unless we count demons, but I'm unsure if those would count as mystical experiences.
So are all the mystical experiances of Islam just daemons?
>>7867629
I'm not the same guy who's also conversing with you. For my part, I'm not going to denigrate the mystical experiences of other religions. I think they do all move towards a certain truth, even if I feel that my own particular religion is the best expression of that truth.
>>7867513
Thank you, I can address why this response is flawed. Destroying Eros cuts us off from The Good, and makes morality unreachable. This true within both Platonic Philosophy and Catholic theology. Addressing Nietzsche's attacks on Christianity would simply be unnecessary repetition. Nietzsche's more in depth critiques of Christianity, given his devotion to Dionysus, would not hold up anyways. Picking a platonic battleground is the cleaner approach.
>>7867573
Training, Intelligence. Ability and Preparation That kind of thing. I'm an adjunct professor in a Philosophy and Religious studies department, and even I am willing to admit that the (ex) Pope is probably a better philosopher than me. Nevermind that the process behind encyclicals means he had a whole team of well trained researchers and people to help him write it.
>>7867632
Assuming they contradict Christian doctrine it logically follows. Or at least that can be argued for if they are aware of Christianity. It's a case to case basis.
>>7867623
>It is, is it? Because the real reasoning behind your position seems far more simple and true to life: you've grown up in this religion so you want to assert it over others who grew up in differing religions as being the only world view possible.
That's the way to attack my reasoning behind it, not the reasoning itself.
>Do you know how common and boorish this attitude is?
Do you honestly think I give a fuck? The fact that it's common or that you can prescribe it to exterior motives doesn't impact the fact that the reasoning follows the premises.
>>7867641
Which Ratzinger do you recommend as his best works? I always find the same 5 recommended and I've read 4 of them and want to know where to go next.
>>7867582
You're right, but trying to explain how Christianity basically advanced Ancient Mysticism while weeding out the schizoids like the Gnostics, and building their ranks with the best mystics from surrounding religions requires a lot of explanation before it looks like you aren't simply rooting for your own team. (Which doesnt help your home team)
>>7867647
Which Ratzinger do you recommend as his best works?
The encyclicals are always the best, does not really matter which Pope. The Jesuits are the support team and they know what they are doing philosophically.
>>7867647
>That's the way to attack my reasoning behind it, not the reasoning itself.
Criticising your human motives frames all further statements from you in a better light. Why wouldn't I do this? And It's interesting to note that you're not really addressing this charge either.
>Do you honestly think I give a fuck?
And here we see you unravel into an insecure pile of hostility after even the slightest prodding from someone else. Figures.
>>7867677
childish, you should probably stop posting
>>7867677
>Criticising your human motives frames all further statements from you in a better light. Why wouldn't I do this? And It's interesting to note that you're not really addressing this charge either.
Because it's true. I argue a priori from a position. It's not like it's some kind of a secret. I'm not some freethinking Frenchmen, I already know what's true.
>And here we see you unravel into an insecure pile of hostility after even the slightest prodding from someone else. Figures.
Did you ever post on 4chan newfriend?
>>7867647
>Assuming they contradict Christian doctrine it logically follows. Or at least that can be argued for if they are aware of Christianity. It's a case to case basis.
So how would you distinguish between Christianity being correct and you just being deceived by the daemons of iblis?
>>7867693
When it comes down to it I just take an axiom and work from there.
>>7867688
>Did you ever post on 4chan newfriend?
LOL. I ask you why Christianity is the one true religion all you can put up in return are some pithy one-liners and haet machine antics?
If you can't extricate yourself from playing the memekid for one second to do your Christian duty then who is really being false here?
>>7867699
>When it comes down to it I just take an axiom and work from there.
How do you respond to fidists and scientologists use that argument? I havent been able to put it into words
>>7867744
From the mind body problem it comes that you can't actually disprove solipsism or the matrix. You take an axiom that your senses aren't deceiving you. Then you take one that your reason actually makes sense of the world. These are the two every sane person takes and is the basis of all knowledge.
After that you can adopt a certain number of systems. But if you want a link between the physical reality and God you adopt the aristotelian system, of course further developed than the one Aristotle devised himself. Then you have a tangible reason based link between physics and metaphysics and can in it prove God and certain laws which point to the Catholic faith. It provides a tangible link between faith, empiricism and reason, unlike pure fideism with which you have no reason for faith itself as nothing points to it and anyone who pokes at it forces you to look away. You of course take certain axioms such as incarnation, but you form a coherent system of thought.
>>7867826
But then it seems that the fidest is just as perfectly legitmate and only just functioning under different but equally meritorious axioms.
>>7867832
Not exactly. The axioms themselves may seem equal, but just like in mathematics, the system they create are everything but equal. So you don't examine the axioms themselves, but the system they create.
>>7867847
Yeah but that just seems like you getting into subjectivist territory and trying to act as if your feelings about certain things are more legitimate than others.
>>7867852
No, it's exactly like mathematics. Axioms don't have value in themselves, but coherency of systems and their applicability is quite different.
>>7867861
But of systems of like those of the mystics (an example from the Orthodox) >>>/his/908117 they can create very different yet coherent systems
>>7867865
They are never as complete and I would argue they are just a part of the larger Christian system. After all almost all axioms of the orthodox are the same as catholic, meaning you can easily fit the orthodox system in the catholic one. Orthodoxy in general as far as philosophy and theology go seems to me to be a fragment of the larger Catholic one.
And I wouldn't say that it's completely fideist, at least as far as I know. Certainly leaning towards it, but hardly the Lutheran/Kierkegaardian type of fideism.
>>7867865
Also the topic you linked is quite ignorant of Aquinas and the general Catholic theology, making it a made up conflict.
>>7867890
>But what makes their more fidiest outlook not the correct one?
The fact that it can't bridge between the physical and the metaphysical. It just makes the leap for no reason just to make one.
>Also would an school of thought say like Buddhism or Islam which lacks the kind of issues like those tied up with the trinity be a more coherant and thus a more valued one?
Trinity and such are in the system beyond logic, divine miseries.
Islam has plenty of other problems, for example voluntarism of God and generally being mostly just about social norms and bloodshed as well as Islam itself being much more divided than Christianity.
I don't know much about Buddhism, other than the fact that it's very flexible ethically and has a completely different concept of reality (cyclical) which may cause problems in reconciling it with modern science. It's it's own topic, but overall I think that Catholicism as a system is the most coherent internally and externally on the basis that I can detect no holes (of course you will probably object, but I would be able to dismiss it through reasoning).
>>7867914
>The fact that it can't bridge between the physical and the metaphysical. It just makes the leap for no reason just to make one.
How is that not an issue yet things like the bellow are not?
>Trinity and such are in the system beyond logic, divine miseries.
Couldnt you just use this to hide contradiction under a new name? Does a religion that has less of such issues be the more correct? When does a hole become a mystery?
>I don't know much about Buddhism, other than the fact that it's very flexible ethically and has a completely different concept of reality (cyclical) which may cause problems in reconciling it with modern science.
Despite the views bellow do you still put effort into exploring over systems for greater coherance?
>It's it's own topic, but overall I think that Catholicism as a system is the most coherent internally and externally on the basis that I can detect no holes (of course you will probably object, but I would be able to dismiss it through reasoning).
Does that include things like the claims made by the Orhtodox that the Catholics unjustly schismed the church or that they created new dogma ect unjustly. Or are these a different category of hole?
>>7867914
Not that Anon but what are your thoughts and experiences with the philosophy of David Hume
>>7867941
I know of him through writings of other authors such as Feser and Kreeft as well as Russel, but I haven't delved into him yet.
I can't say that I like what I know of him, but he is right in a way as we cannot establish anything without taking certain axioms.
>>7867939
>How is that not an issue yet things like the bellow are not?
Because one is gradual so you have none, or at least fewer missing links. Both require a certain leap of faith, but the fideist leap is a canyon for everyone who wasn't born into Christianity, while the scholastic systems bridges it almost completely
>Couldnt you just use this to hide contradiction under a new name? Does a religion that has less of such issues be the more correct? When does a hole become a mystery?
I could, but it's commonly known that Trinity is beyond reason. It's not the number, but the point where they appear. You could philosophise the entire scholastic ethics from natural reason alone for example and the mystery appears only to give it a final hammering.
>Despite the views bellow do you still put effort into exploring over systems for greater coherance?
I put an effort into exploring western philosophy for now, but maybe not as focused into particular fields and generally my main interests are connected with law as I study it.
>Does that include things like the claims made by the Orhtodox that the Catholics unjustly schismed the church or that they created new dogma ect unjustly. Or are these a different category of hole?
I would say that all of these things need to be addressed, but they are not the central issues.
>>7867960
>I can't say that I like what I know of him
Is that just based on his essay on miracles?
>>7867960
>I could, but it's commonly known that Trinity is beyond reason. It's not the number, but the point where they appear. You could philosophise the entire scholastic ethics from natural reason alone for example and the mystery appears only to give it a final hammering.
Have you read any of the Islamic Scholastics? Could they provide the proof of Islam being the correct faith for you? Because those issues you mentioned earlier dont come under your central issue requirement.
Sorry for bombarding you with questions but posters like yourself dont appear all that often.
What would the Scholastic or Catholic response to the image in >>7863753 be is that a sentiment that is incompatible?
>>7867914
>I don't know much about Buddhism, other than the fact that it's very flexible ethically
Not really. The whole goal is to reject hedonism and install instead equanimity and benevolence.
>>7867977
No, I haven't read it. I dislike relativism in general.
>>7868004
>Not really. The whole goal is to reject hedonism and install instead equanimity and benevolence.
Sounds nice but I've read a few Japanese novels and articles of people living there who disagree.
>>7867990
>Sorry for bombarding you with questions but posters like yourself dont appear all that often.
I'm here literally every day kek
It's more related to threads and fedoras annoying the shit out of me.
>What would the Scholastic or Catholic response to the image in >>7863753 be is that a sentiment that is incompatible?
I think Orthodoxy went too far in mysticism without developing other branches of devotion. A scholastic philosopher would never reject reason or believe blindly without thinking it makes actual sense.
Not exactly sure what you are asking.
I'll come back to others posts because I'm having lunch then locking phone to study for 2-3 hours more.
>>7867983
>Have you read any of the Islamic Scholastics? Could they provide the proof of Islam being the correct faith for you? Because those issues you mentioned earlier dont come under your central issue requirement.
No, not yet, I'm packed with western philosophy as is. From what I've read with other authors, they are much more relevant with arguments for classical theism than Islam
>>7867826
>But if you want a link between the physical reality and God you adopt the aristotelian system, of course further developed than the one Aristotle devised himself
Where do I start. Aquinas?
>>7868436
Wew no, the Greeks. Plato, Aristotle and than Aquinas.
I would also highly recommended Edward Feser and not so much, but useful, Peter Kreeft. You may consider reading the two and then work your way through the Greeks to Aquinas.
Metaphysics is really fucking abstract and complicated.
>>7868462
My question was regarding the 'further developed than the one Aristotle devised himself' part. I should have quoted better. Thanks for the suggestions.
>>7868590
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytical_Thomism
I can't really speak for any of these authors, but they may be worth looking into.
>>7867582
Posts like this are why I don't miss the Catholic Defence Force that used to hang around these parts
>>7868677
The Catholic defense force is still here, I never left.
What you mean is Thomas who wasn't a Catholic at all and left some time ago and with him no one made multiple religion threads.
>>7867914
>which may cause problems in reconciling it with modern science.
How?
If anything Aquinas got rekt by special relativity. There is nothing to rule out a cyclical universe or even a multiverse at this rate
>>7868698
Cyclical universes can be ruled out due to entropy, or eternal cyclical universes anyway.
Also just like with every philosophy which has followers, the arguments are often redefined.
>>7868711
>Cyclical universes can be ruled out due to entropy, or eternal cyclical universes anyway.
I really doubt this, but I understand this isn't the right board to discuss it.
Were you raised Catholic or did you convert? I thought you might be Wolfshiem until you mentioned you're a student
>>7868743
>I really doubt this, but I understand this isn't the right board to discuss it.
So I've heard anyway. Can't say I know much about it aside the simple information.
>Were you raised Catholic or did you convert? I thought you might be Wolfshiem until you mentioned you're a student
Raised and converted, so both I guess. I would have abandoned faith long ago if not for reading, honestly.
Also Wolfsheim was a good poster, he knew a thing or two.
>>7868681
>The Catholic defense force is still here, I never left.
What you mean is Thomas who wasn't a Catholic at all and left some time ago and with him no one made multiple religion threads.
That person is Constantine
>>7869604
Thomas infiltrated as a Catholic, Constantine was always talking about orthodox whatevers
>>7869617
Constantine's orthodox views were literally a product of her reading of Miliband (remember those threads being spammed daily) even the thread format was the same until she tried to copy wolfshiem
>>7869696
Wasn't he a guy? Anyway since s/he was pretty fideist there wasn't that much to argue about. Wolfsheim was pretty good because he knew what he was talking about.
They still posting?
Threadly reminder that there will be robots programmed to think like Heidegger.
Will you purchase a Cyber-Heidegger?
>>7869745
Only if he'll talk in weaboo Heidegger
>>7869712
>Wasn't he a guy? Anyway since s/he was pretty fideist there wasn't that much to argue about
Turns out she was a girl. Issue was that the fidism would only come out if you backed her into a corner. She would make posts like the one in >>7862716 or about Church history and other religions only to retreat into fidism being the basis of truth and hence none of that really mattering when rebutted at length.
>Wolfsheim was pretty good because he knew what he was talking about.
They still posting?
He occasionally posts on pol but thats about it. I think you must be thinking of No True Scotus who had an encyclopedic knowledge of Schoalsticsim that extended beyond just Aquinas.
>>7869850
You are right, No True was clearly very educated.
But Wolfsheim wasn't bad from what I've read, didn't spend much time on /his/, discussing philosophy with a bunch of retards who never read anything besides pop phil is a pain in the ass.
>>7869696
Constantine was a mentally ill tranny, not a real girl anymore than a furry is a real fox.
>>7869874
>But Wolfsheim wasn't bad from what I've read, didn't spend much time on /his/, discussing philosophy with a bunch of retards who never read anything besides pop phil is a pain in the ass.
Actually it struck me as a bit of the opposite, in that he would rather be a big fish in a small pond and that he chose to stay in /pol/ where there is even less historical philosophical knowledge than on his and /lit/.
>>7869911
Where did the tranny story come from?
>>7869932
Where doesn't every tranny story on the chan comes from?
bumo
>>7869893
Do protestants have any mysticism? Or just schizophrenic euphoria like the Pentecostals?
>>7859311
Reading it now and loving it.
>>7871103
They seem to hate the term mysticism, but pentecostalism and the likes are similar at least in some aspects (extatic experience, for example).
It seems that they avoid to speak at all cost of some ontological union with God because it may sound heretic (just my guess - I was evangelical in my teenages)
>>7871119
I honestly never read a mystic who had ecstatic experiences. Or rather, the writings don't show them as it's almost all about prayer, contemplating and meditation.
>>7871103
I'm never quick to dismiss what's happening with the Pentecostals. I'm particularly leery of dismissing any religious experience as schizophrenia, simply because doing so would open up all religious experiences to a similar charge.
At any rate, as a Catholic I think there's something going on with the Pentecostals. They're not being deliberately heretical, most of them don't even know enough doctrine to purposefully contradict it. The Spirit is with them somehow. It's worth looking into; I know Pope Francis feels similarly.
>>7871128
I didn't read them yet (but I intend to). Angela of Foligno, Hildegarde of Bingen and Teresa of Avila are some examples I can remember now.
>>7871138
Yeah, I didn't read them either. Can't say I read too much, but I may be confusing spiritual teachers and mystics in general, not sure how to categorize one from the other.
>>7871134
I'm dismissing the Pentecostals because it honestly looks like a simple case of euphoria and peer pressure. It isn't speaking languages they don't know, it's speaking nonsense and having someone else translate it. You can find the same doctrine in Catholic groups such as the carismatics and I dismiss them too, even if they don't contract the doctrine and it would be nice if everyone got to holy spirit there in such a way.
I've been to those places, and the euphoria you feel is insane. But after a while I came to dislike the experience and think that genuine mystical experience certainly doesn't look like that.
>>7871163
Teresa of Avila is definitely a mystic. Her work "The Interior Castle" is a seminal piece of Catholic mysticism. Having read it, I will say that your instinct about 'real' mysticism being quieter is largely accurate. The work is about delving deeper and deeper into oneself and making Christ the center of all things. The title stems from the way in which your soul literally becomes a fortress, a castle in which Christ is enthroned.
Then again, Teresa famously had vivid experiences of Christ's presence, so perhaps there's some room for ecstatic experience in Catholicism.
>>7868711
>Also just like with every philosophy which has followers, the arguments are often redefined.
This applies to scholasticism as much as Buddhist cosmology
>>7871220
how so?
>>7868698
>>If anything Aquinas got rekt by special relativity.
tell how you compare these two models of the world
>>7867459
>What would Foucault say? Something about control and power..
No, I think Foucalt would realize you're mixing illicit drugs with powerful medication and advise you to stop
You think this is some kind of cute joke but it will all amount to a big nothing when you're dead and gone
>>7867616
this happened to me but i was a fedora atheist
then i listened to a lot of joseph campbell lectures
started thinking about "what is the real difference between fact and fiction and why does it matter"
felt in one moment what folks call the presence of god (as much as i didn't want to)
now i'm reading rumi over and over like an instruction manual
