This definition makes me laugh
philosophy is a continual derangement of standpoint
Not many can do this “continually”, that’s why philosophy proper is so rare.
Once you “get the idea” with a given philosopher you aren’t deranged by them anymore. At that point it stops being philosophy technically.
In this sense I do believe philosophy and magick are very similar.
I’ve been looking for something like this for a while. Probably shekina.mybb was the last one that did this for me. And with them “I know what they’re going to say” – and I wouldn’t characterize that as philosophy strictly speaking.
This IS a burden to put on people, because usually we’re all so robotic. Just an ideal I want to note.
Derangement – there’s something almost twisted about that.
I don’t know if Socrates himself always had the best intentions, I think he was something of a sadist at times. Sometimes violence is better than tranquil dullness though.
Maybe you get used to it here but I sincerely believe H in the following represents peak human behavior, in the true superlative sense
we need a preliminary reflection on what should be asked. We otherwise run the risk of speaking at length about what philosophy is without considering the meaning of philosophy itself more carefully.
To understand this better, consider that people like me and H think of mathematicians and scientists as total fools for the most part. Yeah so you have knowledge and you never ask what knowledge itself is? Knowledge itself is even subordinate to philosophy, that’s just one mere fragment of philosophy. The “Mind of God”? Theology is just one mere fragment of philosophy. We’ve been in hiding for a while because theology doesn’t like us talking about it like that, now we’re in hiding because science and politics don’t like us talking about them like that. Don’t blame me, that’s how the “Mind of God” and “Science” themselves are structured. Derangement isn’t even part of the “pyramid”, it’s a wisp above it that is now there now not, sometimes gone for many years in a row, or centuries in some cases, or eons.
So it is good to get obsessed about what this “wisp” IS. When you know what that is you can make any Ivy League professor look like a fraud without even trying.
Believe me or not, when you learn how to read H it’s better than any comedian. We must remember that Hegel rangordnung’d comedy-plays as the highest art, while himself being a philosopher. You need to learn how to see the humor in the things they say, because you are missing out on life if you don’t.
By the way, I’m definitely in a feud with France over the meaning of “high-culture”. The last time a French philosopher made me laugh was back in the 1940s. HAHA!
Look at this Sphinx
There are no fields in philosophy, because philosophy itself is not a field. Philosophy is not a field because, while scholastic learning is unavoidable within certain limits, it is never essential
This makes me reflect on how Laruelle is in the same “game” as Badiou in plotting to get people to stop thinking. All grandsons of the revolution are alike.
Okay, I admit, Laruelle has made me laugh once or twice and is something of a “wisp”.
“Being institutionalized” has a double-meaning, if you’re part of an institution then you might as well be in a “mental institution” too, that’s my only dispute with Laruelle (and it is a non-non-philosophical one).
There are some things H is saying in this course on Kant that I omit because I know most of my readers are not mature enough to hear of them. “Youth physis”. The sephiroth near Hod, etc. H only sees the “Ein Soph” itself as a mere fragment of philosophy. “And that’s why we continually shoot him to this day!!” Okay, exile schizo.
At the same time, one can’t think about philosophy too much. It’s almost July and I just today opened my window for fresh air for instance. I forget about these things because I think about philosophy too much, and it’s so nice to feel the breeze while I… think about philosophy.
If you’re too extreme about your yearning for wisdom you will not have friends to sharpen your wisdom with, this is another pitfall. Then again, I have friends in high places and the establishment is terrified of them and doesn’t know how to handle them. So I do suggest to any zoomer to follow the extreme path.
It is difficult to have a commitment to eros that is not directed at a human per se. You have to actually be IN love with something abstract that is above humans. Misanthropy is a matter of physis. And we are only misanthropes because we love humans. This is why we have this species at the present, and aren’t still dust, or a bird.
Every human subspecies is a specific type of physis. Many of them will only be able to “read” any of this in a way that furthers their aims of “creating a niggerworld” unfortunately.
Someone not as extreme who I recommend again and could make such a type’s journey less turbulent is Dugin. This is a “Swami” or “Lama” who is usually in dissimulation-mode speaking of more practical, worldly things. In my humble opinion, when he indicated the “sinister” aspect of Aristotle’s deviation from Plato, I think that alone proves it. This can get real controversial real fast, I only say this as my opinion about “world philosophy”.
Aristotle is the “jew” of these two. Even this painting is ideological “propaganda” for the demiurge, I just include it because it’s the best-known understanding of this dispute.
I expect next to no one to follow this by the way. The universe is infinite and has infinite “earths”, and our particular earth seems like it missed the opportunity to be a “galactic civilization”. “The jews” here are really about the decision of whether earth can meet the standards of the hyper-jews from other planets, and I think they cannot, because they can’t even meet the standards of the Greeks. The jews are just “decadence-as-leader”, no one ask questions or else. Total failure planet.
It’s true, it’s real, all the golems aren’t even human because they followed the jew agenda.