Idealism vs Realism

>As far as I'm concerned the Enlightenment was the ultimate expression of European Hubris. When you consider the period, how magnificent and beautiful it was, it seems plain that Europeans at that time were absolutely overwhelmed with how wonderful they were.

pride comes before the fall, thank God for Krauts that managed to postpone (((humanism))) with based antropomorphic pessimism which is the faustian way.

Attached: nietzsche1412816340333.png (1595x529, 330K)

>Christians would argue that the Renaissance -> Reformation -> Enlightenment etc are deviations from Christianity

its 2 pronged

catholic europe -> rennaisance/enlightenment/humanism
protestants -> counter-rennaisance/antropomophic pessimism

its fits perfectly, humanistic france of napoleon was stopped by faustian krauts

Saved. If you have not read Frederick Beiser's book on German Pessimism then I highly recommend it.

You're a bloody fool if you believe your Race has any influence on how rational you may or may not be. All of humanity in it's discrete groups have achieved self actualization at different times in different ways through different routes to the same objective truth.

Westerners and especially the colonial powers *STILL* regard time as linear when it's plain as the nose on your face it's cyclical. There is no first arrivals, there are only earlier on the cycle and later.

I still have hopes that JP genuinely wants to tackle the question of race but is wise enough to know it can only be tackled constructively when people are ready to listen and think realistically about it. I think he's a White Nationalist but I don't see anything particularly wrong with that if it doesn't carry an assumption of superiority.

I am not a robot

The Republic is an allegory you dimwit. For fuck sake I see this kind of comment every other day. Read Laws you inbred retards.

This

Also Platon speaks about filtering the ''golden" children from the rest who are silver and bronze (who would be send to an obscure place). Platon talks about the inherent inequality of the people and he and Adeimantes have even admitted it as a premise. They talk about the superior people having to be rulers because otherwise the foolish masses would lead the state into chaos. They talked about the fact that someone who is made to be a carpenter can not be a ruler.

The social part is a metaphor ,it talks about how the human must behave individually. That's exactly why he extrapolated the individual into a society . His initial purpose was to find out what justice is and for that he examinated a perfectly just society. The society itself doesn't matter,but it's qualities do,because these are the qualities of the just man. Loving all the children is one. For fuck sake,why are these Italians so dumb?

>Frederick Beiser's book on German Pessimism then I highly recommend it.

I have not, but I probably know everything that is in it since kraut romanticism was so big in 18th century. every since my teens I had almost an instinctual hatred towards depersonalized classic culture of antiquity/renaissance, I cant believe Nietzsche the brainlet wanted it back.

Romantic faustian culture is anti-humanistic...and that is a good thing!

Attached: caspar_d_friedrich.jpg (1880x1500, 848K)

That's not what Kant means by 'idealism'.

Attached: kant magee tristan long.png (800x8398, 3.72M)

>humanistic france of napoleon was stopped by faustian krauts
aren't both of these deviations from Catholicism though

see but you said it yourself
>discrete groups have achieved self actualization at different times
i agree that it may work in cycles, but there was a time recently for example when the Anglos were predominant, their race was in many ways superior to others and they bestrode the world and forced their worldview and their ideas onto those they ruled, now the Anglo is fallen.
to have been born an Anglo once may have bestowed a certain precedence, now it means less, but ultimately your race has an impact on how rational you may be as much as your parents have an impact. your genetic heritage, your culture, your upbringing are all aspects of this. to say race has no influence at all is absurd, how can it not? it's a fundamental part of your identity.
>I think he's a White Nationalist
how can you believe this? i held out hopes for about 12 months after he burst onto the scene hoping one day he would tackle our ideas and bring them into the mainstream consciousness but he never did. that was years ago, all he's done since is hang out with Jewish intellectuals and make enormous amounts of money. i gave up on him because i lost faith in his integrity, without that he's nothing but a charlatan.
i don't agree with E Michael Jones on everything but there are no people he refuses to talk to and no ideas he refuses to discuss, so i can respect the man and listen to him with the expectation of honesty and integrity, not so with Peterson.
>I don't see anything particularly wrong with that if it doesn't carry an assumption of superiority.
so what if it did? even were it cyclical, a race rises and a race falls, for a time it is "superior," this notion isn't inherently offensive.

Please tell me that you are joking.

>For fuck sake,why are these Italians so dumb?
it's not only random italians on Jow Forums that have taken those ideas more literally than you.

>what's the issue with gnosticism
People thinking to be like God.
You can easily come to the effect this vision has on the world.
>how to know your idea is right?
From the effect it has.

I find these philosophical discussions so immensurably tiresome, they serve only to stroke the debater's egos and nothing of value comes out of it. user, it doesn't matter who is right or wrong in the end, all that really matters is: how much good have you done? How better have you made the world by the end of your life compared to when you arrived? What will you have to show in your favor when you're before eternity? Only this matters. It's good to understand the intricacies of the world, but don't get caught up in its illusions.

Attached: skeleton-thoth.jpg (474x346, 46K)

Platonism is Aryan while Gnosticism is Jewish.

Who else in the Ontological Idealism and Epistemological Realism ganggang?

Attached: 1565782160539.jpg (2441x4019, 3.24M)

I am aware of that but the Italians have a huge problem with our country and our people,they consider us inferior,gypsies etc. and when one looks at it,he can't find a difference between the average Italian and the average Romanian (apart from the wage perhaps,but even that gap is diminishing).

Attached: PassAlong.jpg (1653x859, 704K)

He's the next one I want to read. I still have to end Platon's books (still have 3 to go).

ANTIQUITY IS LITERALLY FAKE AND GAY

>aren't both of these deviations from Catholicism though

Prussia was more protestant which is where antropomorphic pessimism come from

>Please tell me that you are joking.

please explain me why is it a joke to you.

Attached: hermanus.jpg (220x330, 11K)

>People thinking to be like God.
what exactly is wrong with this? this idea has existed in various forms in mythology across all peoples and times, with it comes the Fall but also with it comes the idea of immortality, deification and a return to a Golden Era on earth. perhaps these are all the lies of Satan, i dunno, it's a perennial idea though.

all i know about Romania is from Corneliu Codreanu and some things related to him, from those fragments alone though i realised my prejudices towards Romanians were ill founded. you can probably blame the western jewish media for much of that prejudice, you guys and them obviously had a turbulent relationship and now they control most of what we think.
don't know if that's the case for italians though.

>What is real?
What it is.
Entities.
A structure of entities due to the creation.
In end resolves on this .

Everything that came after the Renaissance was a joke,apart from Nietzsche to some extent. Le German idealism is among the worst periods

> I still have to end Platon's books (still have 3 to go)
lel you're reading all of them?

I don't mind Italians as long as they do not keep their noses up while claiming that they are superior to us because they have Machiavelli and Dante aligheri.

Corneliu zelea Codreanu is one of Romania's most influential figures indeed,he's influenced our nonexistent right for decades now (the right hardly even exists in Romania,it's mostly "liberals" vs "social Democrats"). Thankfully most of the romanians do not need a right wing party because regardless of their political orientation the romanians hate faggots and niggers and all the degenerate things brought by the west.
Have you read Julius evola?he was inspired by Codreanu,we also have Mircea Eliade who had been a teacher in Chicago ,he had also been inspired by him.
For racial superiority,I recommend Arthur de Gobineau.

Yeah do you see how this can be applied literally to society in the name of a presumed superiority?
They are doing this and justifying this demiurgic operation by considering themselves the most close to the ideal and by that KNOWING what good or bad.
It's madness.
A Christian mediation is necessary to Plato

>Everything that came after the Renaissance was a joke,apart from Nietzsche to some extent. Le German idealism is among the worst periods

Romanticism is the pinnacle of western culture, you side with nietzsche against it (doe Im pretty sure nietzsche was a total romantic in heart, but counter signalled since edgelord and he needed someone to blame).

Renaissance is the most boring and un-creative period of mankind, totally faux type of existence, everything they did Greeks did better.

*kicks rock*

with idealism there is both the 'rock for me' and the 'rock for you' (that correlate how?)

we are always-already embodied and act within a shared public world. the idea that this world is 'all in the head' is just retarded low iq thought. bruh like what if you are all just a figment of my imaginations??? I disprove solipsism by the existence of yourself. I disprove idealism by the existence of the shared world we inhabit.
.

Somewhat agree, the judgment is personal, I know.
But understanding our surrounding can't be all vanity.

Many of us yeah, not me.

>what exactly is wrong with this?
Cause is wrong.

My grandpa had a whole library full of his works. I've managed to gather some of his books but my grandparents' house is 500+ km away and travelling 1000 km seems a bit too much

The file is 4MB+ so I can't present a pic related.

Platon predates Christianity and he is the one who had influenced the western dogma. Catholicism is stoicism but instead of being good for the sake of the greater good Catholics to it for le heaven. What if there was no heaven,what if after this life another one will come and so on? Will Catholics keep being good?! I doubt it.(also,it can be applied to orthodoxy and Lutheranism and protestantism too). All of these religions have stolen Marcus aurelius',Platon's and Aristotle's views about goodness,justice,happiness etc.
In other words,Christianity is an imitation of a true form

Fair enough. Tell me honestly,how many Italians consider us inferior?

i've read plenty of Evola, including his interview with Codreanu which I only wish was much longer.
i intend on reading some Eliade soonish.

Evola's begun some trouble for me, because within his perennial worldview is plenty of space for the Occult, the Left-Hand path, Satanism and such-like ideas, and i have no idea how one is to digest that. he admired the Knights Templar, who allegedly ritualistically stepped over Christ, worshipping instead Sofia the Goddess of Wisdom and Baphomet, as Evola explains in his Mystery of the Grail. the ideas within the Arthurian legend of the knight facing the trials and ultimately restoring the kingdom seem to align closely with the idea of either Lucifer, Hercules or Prometheus, with the knights that fail falling into the abyss and the one that succeeds guaranteeing his own immortality/divinity and the return of a golden age on earth. i suppose when one steps outside of Christianity these ideas all rise to the fore once again, only i don't know what to make of them at all.

>Cause is wrong.
is this a faith based belief, is it an irrational dogma, or do you base it on reason somehow? how do you know it's wrong?

Most idealists are not subjective idealists though and believe that this Idealism is prior to human consciousness. So saying it's just "all in your head" is false because there is something prior to your own thinking and consciousness which makes those ultimately also "figments of The Imagination".

>My grandpa had a whole library full of his works
based grandpa.

Yeah I've downloaded his complete works too and I've read the "trial and death of Socrates" dialogues, The Republic and a few others but now i'm reading them again but in Swedish.

>the greater good
can be critiqued and reduced in the same way you critique heaven, the idea of a "good" itself falls apart without God so far as i can tell.

>there is something prior to your own thinking and consciousness
how do you know this?

Simply you haven't your reason d'etre inside yourself.
Self evident.

> The world is shaped by the idea you have of it.
not the "idea" but the fundamental structure of our mind, i.e. what kant believed his categories were.
> If the idea you have of it has not adherence to the reality that is constituting the world itself the shape you are giving it is wrong.
wrong. the concepts of "true" and "false" do not pertain to the world-in-itself but to the phenomenical, empirical world. "my hand has 5 fingers" : this is an eaterna veritas. the fingers are 5, not 6, not 0. you can say that my fingers, my hand, my city, the entire universe is nothing but an "illusion", but the fact that nothing is "real" doesn't imply that everything is equally "false". now, we found the universe is "unreal", so? this statement is completely devoid of meaning and consequencs: the tower of pisa still exists, the angels still don't exist, the gravity law is still true, the verginity of mary is still false. even if they are all abstractly "unreal".
> When the shape of the world you have built is artificial is only question of time to see it crumble inevitably. In meantime the people are trapped in a dystopian experience, where cognitive dissonance is the rule.
this cheap, vulgar psychologism is indeed the only possible conclusion of your entire intellectual carnival.
> Wrong is Right and Right is Wrong.
A world where only psychopaths fit perfectly
you have adopted these sophisms and faux-intellinget nonsense in oreder to level everything to your lack of talent, like uggos who say that "beauty is subjective". so, the whole probelm is that you have a low IQ and you wish, through your grotesque doctrine of the falsity of the world, to annihilate all the differences between me and you, between observation and dream, between truth and opinion. that is, the ultimate form of politically correctness.
this leads me to a political consideration: public education must be abolished and poor people like you should be put on the labour market at the age of 12.

>In other words,Christianity is an imitation of a true form
I disagree, with Christ at centre of the Cosmo, you can refine and tune the speculation on reality and have an orientation, instead you are lost.
Faith and Logos: we are creatures in the end, this is not going to change.
>What if there was no heaven..
Oh come on what if 2+2=5 ... don't do this.
>Fair enough. Tell me honestly,how many Italians consider us inferior?
A lot.

The greater good is seen in the platonic dialogue as a form of balance inside one's soul in which the concupiscent part is "trapped" and ruled over by the wise (godlike) element along the spirited nature.
In his view there had to be a god (one god) that rules over everything but he's added a problem to that God's existence: he can't be all powerful or all good. That's why most of the works about him explore his views up to the importance of goodness,for even he claimed that he can't explain what the form of "good" is.

Nature, red in tooth and claw. Innit.

Attached: 1548978696786.jpg (633x633, 58K)

How can Christianity be a true form and "Christ be at the center of the universe" if a) God has not created everything and is thus not all powerful
And b) because goodness is not defined in the Bible as a concept. There are a ton of advices and even more conceptions about what is wrong or right,however goodness itself is only defined as "god". For Christians god is the form of goodness itself,which is Platon said centuries before them.

At the end of the day we have common knowledge over what is good and over what is bad but "goodness" and "badness" haven't been defined by any religion in a meaningful enough manner. That's why it is a copy.
And that's without even mentioning the lack of authority and proof and the illogical punishments in the Bible. Compare the myth of Er and the Bible and see which one makes more sense.

>A lot
What if I told you that the feeling is not mutual?

Stop acting like a fag.

Go play with your platonic solids.

I understand your points but coming from a Christian theology background they are "automatically" resolved.
I not undervaluing them, it's not my intention, instead they are focal points that set apart Christianity and as I was saying refine Greek philosophy: when you write
>God has not created everything and is thus not all powerful
There is an abyss calling to be filled that if not definitely resolved makes any other speculation useless.
It's diriment.
>What if I told you that the feeling is not mutual?
What if I told you that I know?
The Romanians I've met have been all nice people with me.

>There is an abyss calling to be filled that if not definitely resolved makes any other speculation useless.
It's diriment.

You mean that in the absence of good ,evil appears? If there is a void ,a place where good can not exist just like nothing can exist evil shall appear there inevitably? The lack of goodness itself creates evil?
If God has created the universe and everything that resides in it,he's all powerful but this means that he has also created evil. Now the existence of evil has ,in my opinion only one justification:balance. It exists in order to balance the good because only god can be perfect,his creation has to have some flaws or it becomes a perfect reflection of god. He has therefore added evil as a temptation for the men who are partially like him in order to test their spirit. He could have not created a perfect world because perfection would have been under his command and there would have been no free will. That's the Christian worldview,am I right?

Are you proposing epicurean controversy?
Can you understand Italian?
youtu.be/keTzyfblzZg
Dominican Professor of Theology.
He keeps it easy to understand without use of overcomplicate words.

Superb summation of the GOAT’s epistemology

>your race has an impact

This only *becomes* a factor after the process of self-actualization though. The process of Self-Awareness and Self-Actualization doesn't depend on what race you are, only that you are human; Given we are, so far as we know, the only species capable of self-reflection and self-awareness. White Identity didn't become the thing it is now until the Colonial period. To be Saxon isn't predicated on being 'White', likewise any of the other European races didn't predicate their Self-Identities on their appearance. Euros have fought each other since time immemorial and the causes of those conflicts trumped what they must clearly have regarded as a superficial likeness.

It doesn't surprise me that Australians hold their appearance to be important. I've heard stories of Australians wearing wide brimmed hats and lathering themselves in Sunblock to keep their pale appearance. One gets a sense that Australian Identity is very devoted to the myth of White Identity and they seem to be really struggling to make this identity contemporary. Could it be because they are so isolated? I hear you're allowed to be contestants now in Eurovision. Odd how being thousands of miles from Europe makes Anglos yearn to be part of it and yet when it's only 25 miles away you snarl at it like a dog through a chicken wire fence.

That's Vercingetorix

no it's not you idiot