/lit/ - Literature

>muh three fold synthesis
lol kantian, you still bootstrap your proposition from the grounds of experience itself.

>>23332413
> But, though all our knowledge begins with experience, it by no means follows that all arises out of experience.

My theory of perception?

Naive realism of course - what I see is what it be.

>>23332436
bro materialism is false

>>23332436
dangerously based
>>23332439
direct realism does not imply materialism

>>23332624
>direct realism does not imply materialism
yes it does

>>23332628
how so?

>>23332409
The funny thing about naive realism is that it's totally hypocritical in its application. If a bunch of scientiem eggheads dressed up 20 Aztec priests in labcoats and taught them the scientific method, they'd produce peer-reviewed papers about people's empirical observations while in the spirit world.

The eggheads would whine about how that kind of empirical sense data "doesn't count", but couldn't explain why without going beyond raw sense data. There's no purely empirical reason to think that ahuyasca trips or dreams are less real than wakefulness.

> but waking reality is more consistent
I could have the same dream every night, and it could be more consistent than waking life. Does that make it "real"?

Only divine revelation can solve this problem. Read the short essay The Contingency of Knowledge and Revelatory Theism, then realize the Orthodox essence/energies distinction solves the problem of real interaction between God and Man while maintaining a real difference between them

> Verification not required.

>>23332783
>There's no purely empirical reason to think that ahuyasca trips or dreams are less real than wakefulness.
They *aren't* any less real. Everything you experience is real, else you wouldn't experience it. The mistake would be to interpret them as something other than what they are, temporary passing sensations. You know better because you eventually wake up.

>>23332409
>Plato is too highbrow for them
Lmfao. Writing your philosophy in dialogue format isn't highbrow, on the contrary, it's to simplify his ideas for the sake of the pleb masses. His actual profound ideas were delivered through the direct oral instruction, which was only available to his students. I believe the Neoplatonists put those particular ideas in their own treatises though.

>>23333102
>Writing your philosophy in dialogue format isn't highbrow
in the tiktok era it is

>>23332783
>The Contingency of Knowledge and Revelatory Theism
author?

>>23332652
Naive realism uncritically takes material objects as real

>>23333461
As in indeed they are, but that doesn't mean that *only* material things are real.

>>23333465
>As in indeed they are
they're not tho

>>23333593
proof?

>>23333739
they are temporal, composite, and changing

>>23332783
>The Contingency of Knowledge and Revelatory Theism
Nice essay rec, thanks.

>>23334226
qrd?

>>23334297
An easy-to-understand overview of the "transcendental inference," or the argument for God using revelation as the epistemological foundation. The essay summarizes the historical tension between reason and revelation and makes the case for revelation.

This is a commonly-understood conflict -- typically, this is the philosopher's view (using Heidegger as an example):
>If I was summoned by faith, I'd close down my workshop ... Philosophy deals only with that thought which man can procure from his own means: as soon as it is summoned by Revelation, philosophy ceases. Theologians generally have too little confidence in their own terrain and quarrel too much with philosophy ... Theologians should remain in the exclusive domain of Revelation ... The Christian experience is something so different that there is no need for it to enter into competition with philosophy ... The mysterious nature of Revelation is much better preserved ... Philosophical thinking always remains exposed to the questionability of Being; whereas faith, on the contrary, remains a matter of trust.

Heinrich Meier has some fantastic secondary scholarship re: the conflict of reason and revelation in the 20th century, particularly as it manifests in Schmitt and Strauss.

>>23332409
why are you reposting this after being btfo so many times?

>>23334515
I have never been btfo. Not even close.

>>23334077
Yeah, a lot of real things tend to be that way.

>>23334802
yes a lot of unreal things

>>23334832
lmao, something being temporal and changing makes it unreal? if I slap you in the face and take your wallet, that's not real?

Maybe his arguments are something perceptible to the average person but the way he presents his beliefs are unbearable. He writes like I imagine a chemist would. Rousseau is the immensely readable thinking man that everyone could embrace, even if I don't think he has anything to say that's particularly profound, it's more the way he relays it that's profound and easy to take it.his writings are also immensely relatable

>>23332628
This nigga don't know about subjective idealism

>>23334880
dis nigga don't know what he's talking about

>>23334838
correct. my beating the shit out of you and taking my wallet back is also not real.

>>23334942
now that you're definitely right about.
sounds like a pretty depressing existence though: your body isn't real because it changes, neither is your mind and consciousness, whose contents change, and nothing that happens is real either. do you just sit in your bedroom all day, contemplating Platonic forms?

>>23332409
Explain how Kant didn't make Plato look like a naive metaphysician who never grasped the unknowability of what is going on.

>>23332409
Bubba Normalfag given the speculative toolkit of Enframing AS IF [x] and such is exactly what brings about Marxs and Horari and Dawkins et. al.