My new Bible just arrived

This is the third part of Hegel's Encyclopedia of the Philosophical Sciences (Encyclopädie der philosophischen Wissenschaften im Grundrisse). In this volume, Hegel deals with the philosophy of subjective spirit like nowhere else. The book consists of the course materials from his lectures and transcriptions made by his students.

This blog is about me and my interests.

Philosophy: Hegel, idealism, Nietszche, Marx, Eastern philosophy

Animes: Monster, Evangelion, HxH, Black Buttler, Moriaty, Tokyo Ghoul

Psychology: Jung, Freud

Authors: Dostoiévski, Anne Rice, Carlos Castañeda, Edgar Allan Poe, Clive Barker

Games: Hello Charlotte, Disco Elysium, Chess, Poker, RPG

Occultism: Hermetism, Thelema, Left hand path, chaos magic, tarot, astrology, vedanta

Database:

ENTP • 5w4 • VELF • sx/so • Scorpio Sun • Gemini Rising • Chaotic Neutral • Vampire • Transmasc

Side blog for aesthetic:

@mortuus-vivens-academy

This raises fundamental questions about the relationship between a philosopher who is alien to a culture and the "metaphysical or transcendental" regions of the world. It questions how their interpretations are built upon factors that—while not entirely false—are ultimately shortsighted; they only perceive the immediate action while ignoring its aftermath or anticipated consequences.

Dr. Anwar has pointed out a parallel between Khomeini’s rejection of capitalism and the foundational principles of the Left, noting that this shared opposition was a primary catalyst for solidarity. This brings us to another point regarding the "causality of simplistic solidarity"—a trap into which otherwise rigorously logical philosophers often fall. It exposes how easily seemingly rebellious ideas are transmitted and swiftly adopted.

However, I suspect that the broader Leftist solidarity with Khomeini and his revolution involves a sort of "circular religious dissidence." The Left finds the Shiite departure from the Sunni majority commendable and welcome—driven by a desire to disrupt the status quo—even though this dissidence still revolves within the exact same religious sphere. This observation applies not only to the Left but is also evident in the stances of many secular enlightenment intellectuals.

What is particularly striking is that the ruling elite in Iran wields a distinct type of authority. The Supreme Leader is not merely a conventional dictator; he is a figure with a philosophical grounding that colors his legitimacy, drawing upon the theology of the faith and the concepts of "destiny and historical grievance." This very aspect appeals to Western "intellectual inclinations," as the ruler possesses a profound philosophical justification for his existence, the legitimacy of his decisions, and the significance of his historical role.

Another factor in this context is that Iran is a Shiite country. This distinction appeared intriguing and exotic to Foucault, given the general absence of major Shiite states at the time, which gave the event the aura of a novel type of revolution with a "different blend."

There is another angle—one that may seem tangential but is inherently connected in my view—which is observing a philosopher who has lived through events close to our contemporary reality and voiced their opinions on them. This has become a new metric in the realm of assessment and critique. Foucault’s stance on the Iranian Revolution and Levinas’s defense of Israel are two instances that have provoked significant rethinking regarding the impact of philosophy. They highlight the necessity of subjecting philosophy to a degree of realism and rigorous critique, while keeping emotional biases in check.

philosophy bibliographer, your nature has a name: metaphysician

I believe your gaze reveals something your lips do not, if I try fast to put it to words then I may not be listening well. I trust the senses. I trust the art and the place both reveal things we only speak about on the depths of our insides. I believe the body craves something language can provide: body language. You tense and you relax and I believe the things that you reveal when you do A or you do B. I believe words carry an immense weight and we should be wise on the ways we use them: words can close doors but the body wants to move freely through space, deep inside you want to move freely across space and so you do. I believe my power is immense and so I should be wise. Heat on the core and things that exist within.

Here are some various theories of perception and memory that I have just recently learned about.

Direct realism - We perceive our memories and sensory experiences "directly", that is, our concepts and schemata of the world directly come from what real-world objects are. Thus, there is no "middle-man" for our experiences and their relationship with the real world. With regards to memory (the section in Audi's book that I am reading), this involves our memorial beliefs (crystallized memory in the form of beliefs, roughly) not being produced by any type of intermediary. It also supposes that must be no broken chain or link between our memorial beliefs to a remembered event. Even outside of the field of the philosophy of memory, this is still used to justify that we perceive the world "as is". But this is pretty obviously complicated by hallucinations/source errors…

Representative Theory - also called Representative Realism, it posits that, with regards to memory, memorial images of sensory experiences are "residues of perception". This is what is called an indirect realist philosophy.

Phenomenalism - This posits that objects are not just “objects-in-themselves”, but as collections of perceptual information or sensory stimuli.