Mfw i realize the form is the end because it is the beginning

>mfw i realize the form is the end because it is the beginning

when did you come to the cognitive apprehension that teleology was sound?

I was born knowing :)

This is a profound insight.
Aristotle read right is good on this.
Arche and telos are one.

i dont git it

Can you explain this for a brainlet?

That towards which one tends is not some thing apart. It is deep within. It is its beginning.

What makes an acorn an acorn is there from the very start and it is what determines the activities the acorn will take to reach its end, a tree.

In other words, death is the beginning and the un-begging of all.

Good thread OP, I understand this in Eastern philosophy.

In Western, does this also explain how "matter" (physical self) is just the part of 'perception', in a structured format that has already ended?

so this is literally a christian board after all.

>so europe is a christian society

Actuality is prior to potentiality both temporally and substantially

So am I correct then?

>death is the beginning
>the sun is moon
>poverty is abundance
why you fuck, how can you say "in other words" like youre making it even more clear with that obscure shit, explain properly or dont at all you faggot.

Well.. user Moon steals the Suns light..

But I didn't realize I made it obscure, truthfully.

Care to explain how I did?

Oh. I thought you understood the OP.

Are we talking about Plato's forms here?

The essence of knowledge in itself. Yes, The Good is commensurable with God.

What the stupid Christfags fail to realize is that you can probably learn more about God from The Republic than you can from The Holy Bible. This is a great chart, one of the best. The cave allegory actually goes with THIS chart in particular.

What side does prose work on?

>the republic
>The Roman Republic
>Christian Rome

Bruh..

It still has no normative force.

I'm just saying, plus Platonic ideology is more compatible with Islam anyway.

That's not just a phase, breh. I am a literal white muslim. I just don't find it more likely that somehow we should be worshiping a person rather than Nicomachean 'unity'.

Yeah no fucking shit Islam was God's next canonical religion.

...

Also, your statement does NOT take anything away the Christian Doctrine.

P.s Bahai faith is the newst Cannon of Abrahamic Religion.

I'm just saying. I find Islam 100000x more likely than Christianity just because of the concept of unity.

YUP, this describes Gods 'Seed' (his pattern of God).

This is how religion spreads, and how the Conciousness raises, causes Paradigm shifts across society.

Unity wasn't understood in the Concepts of God at the time.

Sure it was. It was understood far before the original Holy Bible was written. Just read Nicomachus' Introduction to Arithmetic.

The concept of unity, as an arithmetical metaphor, was used throughout Pythagorean philosophy; where the entire numerical system served as a parable for life itself.

Yes, but the concept wasn't absorbed in Abrahamic religion at the time, Their Scholars couldn't synchronize it into the understanding for the masses.

I mean, I'm sure they attempted. God is pure reason, though, I do not think that a being capable of pure reason would make a mistake of incomprehensibility for one of his chief philosophies (the trinity)

Which is why if I am to suppose that the Qu'ran is the word of God, I might actually agree because God is saying the trinity is something he fundamentally doesn't agree with.

"To God do we return". He says this again and again, philosophically, arithmetically, whathaveyou. It makes SENSE. And that's the thing that gets me.

Absolutely, This is what death IS.
The Being "Us", is the Form.

It's the form that bring us Inbetween God.

But the Trinity is also correct in Christian Doctrine, you have to understand the Trinity is just one 'Form' of 3 aspects that work together.

No. We're talking about hylomorphism, the superior metaphysics

pseudo-hegelian claptrap. dialectic is radical incongruity, incompleteness, antagonism, and contradiction, not flashy monism.

>confusing a whole that is true with the True

section 20 of the Phenomenology my dude