/lit/ - Literature

Where does Dawkins draw the line between theism and other kinds of religious belief? Or does he even draw a line?

>>5561599
Camus-The Stranger
Sartre-Nausea
Dostoevsky-The Death of Ivan Ilych

The popularity and widespread popularity of existentialism is proof of the triumph of nihilism.
Existentialism is a group of philosophies which can be summed up as asserting that "Existence precedes essence." That is, we exist and there is nothing to existence beyond that. Existentialism postulates that there is no meaning outside of experience, and tries to tell us how to create meaning, usually by fighting against meaninglessness, usually through force of will and determination. Once you accept the meaninglessness of life, what do you do? Depending on your answer, you're one kind of existentialist or another.
Accepting that all of this is pointless speculation, since unless you kill yourself or die you'll be living in an essenceless world anyway, is the only way to get out the existential dialectic. Once you're out, you're a better person.
Existentialism is Nietzsche for people who aren't edgy enough to be their own Ubermensch.

Possible? No.
Meaningful? No.

>>5562805
PKD pls

>>5562239
>iktf

Skepticism is one of many good attitudes to have about attitudes.

It's not impossible yet, OP.

Yes.
I don't feel shame for it.

>>5562507
I'm willing to accept that.

We can thank Gutenberg for all this.

>>5554395
>the world itself is naturally disordered.
The world itself appears not to follow the order of which you have conceived.
God's order is higher than your conceptions can allow for.

>>5561411
What's black culture?

>>5561394
>The concept of "white racial consciousness" is pretty meaningless. It's something delusional retards like your good self gussied up as a fig-leaf for their racism
The only way your assertion could be true is if the people you're talking to are in fact the delusional retards you make them out to be. They don't seem to be, since the claims they're making are not different from the claims you're making. 'White' culture is culture produced by white people in the same way that 'black' culture is culture produced by 'black' people. This dichotomy is misleading, since every culture's people produce that culture. Denying that Chinese culture exists within China because it's universal and because it isn't Tibetan culture-using Tibetan culture because Chinese oppression of Tibetans is worse than modern American oppression of 'black' people, by virtue of the literal occupation of Tibet by the Chinese state-is absurd. Anyone who argues otherwise misunderstands culture. Culture is anything people produce which does not arise naturally out of nature without the aid of people. White people have culture. Instituting slavery at some point in the past and failing to introduce absolute equality into society does not disqualify culture, and if it does, then I would like you to point out one single culture that is not disqualified from being a culture.

A knee-jerk reaction to an opinion not identical with that of the reacting person.

>>5561858
Because, even this late in 2014, some people don't understand how memes incorporate themselves into social reality. What was laughable yesterday is now a badge of identity, but here on /lit/, yesterday is permanent.

>>5562376
Also, a 'tribe' is by definition no longer fighting the war of all against all. A tribe has already banded together and are a unit within that war. They don't exist in the state of nature.

>>5559721
>'primitive' tribes vary greatly in their social customs
And yet the universal category of 'primitive' tribes can be said to fall into this category precisely because of the frivolous things they wage war over. One could argue that a tribe can be judged as not-primitive when it starts to fight wars over things other than bloodlust.

>>5562232
Dawkins confirmed for not having read Hegel.
Dawkins confirmed for not understanding philosophy.

>>5562314
That's your own problem, then.

>>5550149
That sounds more like phenomenology than telepathy.

>>5550012
Yeah, but some people think you should try to figure out what you like, just for the sake of it.

>>5550072
Wait, why is collective consciousness testable?

>>5550075
>It's only a simple academic term.
It's one you choose to use.
>So your pseudo-argument literally boils down to "prove me wrong"?
Why should you be right?