Message from @Arthur Konrad
Discord ID: 426779233839480843
It strikes me that Brett accepts so very few Nietzschean concepts and precepts, because he defines himself as Nietzschean (And I do not mean to belittle, I just speak what appears to me)
Interesting thing is that Nietzsche comprehends Buddhism as Phenomenalism which is kind of an interesting take, (and certainly more concise and measured than otherwise), but not entirely acceptable
It kinda works as an overgeneralized description of its methodology.
What grinds my gears is that categorical "imperatives" are still provided as explanations for things which well - demand explanation
People still explain reasoning with itself
Neoplatonism is often used as a backdoor, to use Brett's term, to the "same old" , for example, Catholicism
People still talk of "goodness" in the old way, where it is entirely subject to idiosyncrasies
I saw some spergy academic peer reviewed crap that missed the point in talking about Nagarjuna in concluding that he needed to defend nominalism and I'm like... did you even fucking read his shit?
Academic writing are good because they lead to you references which afterwards you read for yourself
Academic writings on most topics, and in particular Eastern Philosophy, is like a short description of a book on Amazon, you will read it to find what it is about, but then you will dismiss it and read the book for the most part
Wait who talks about categorical imperatives in regards to Buddhism?
You're right they are only good for the bibliography
No, that was a difression on what I said about Brett and NIetzsche
oh ok
Like, Nietzsche's and Brett's concepts of "goodness" are opposed
Brett's is Platonic, whereas NIetzsche almost hated Plato with passion
To be fair Brett has his own take regardless of influence
Another digression: the necessity to "reinvent" things without any real need to do so
Example, Catholicism (Or Orthodoxy for that matter)
Yes, I understand that Catholicism did come up with thinkers who embraced fully the transcendentalist viewpoint, beyond dogma, simple morality, et cetera
and then to insist that Catholicism is just that
For example, to embrace Qaballah from the same viewpoint, you do not really need to reinvent it at all
And then, if they are devout Catholics, which is always a handicap, they will insist that embarking on the path of reinventing Catholicism is the only proper, moral and right path
In other words, "Thou shall..."
Maybe if Catholicism didn't treat its bundle of abstract generalizations as the Absolute Truth it wouldn't have provoked so many responses in the form of `no, these abstract generalizations are the truer truth`
No, I mean i get it, Catholicism could have just >"branched" just as many faiths "branched" in India, and even all these branches could still be considered as belonging to same "religion"
Reflective people end up uncovering problems with those abstractions or notice realities that don't fit and away it goes
But this was *never* realized, it almost have, but then was seized in its tracks
For sure man
Catholic world of phenomena and symbols for example, everything was quickly covered up with "dogmatist" approach
Like the Magdalene mystery, or the apocrypha
People can talk about "esoteric" path as much as they want, but Apocrypha are simply *not* Catholicism
Also, Magdaelene mystery was something that had a completely Aryan form, I mean a "whore" was made into a saint and gave birth to Europe in Provance and was the maid of the holy grail I mean everything was there and then it was suddenly covered up
So, it never materialized
MODS ARE FUCKING CUCKS
YALL ARE CIRCLEJERKING IDIOTS
<:swastika:376912680465858570>
Nah but for real, I was really trying to bring people to the leftists side and you guys just banned me ;(((
I was even using good arguments
I thought you guys were against safespaces but apparently dissenting opinions are banned in sjwhate