/lit/ - Literature

>>18522290
>>18522371
>>18522425
Not that anon, but often I find that all humanity deserves from God is a kick in the ass. I don't know why you as a Christian see it as orthodox to reject what Job says openly in chapter 38; God has his own reasons for doing things, and they are not human reasons. Also King Solomon wrote Ecclesiastes, and that is in the canon of scripture. And moreover Jonah was a pious hypocrite who would not spare Nineveh, since the Assyrians were the enemies of israel, but yet God forced him to be their teacher.

Sounds like this life of meaning and purpose you speak of is not God's will. Perhaps God's will is that we are His servants; consider Luke 17:7 - 9:
>But which of you, having a servant plowing or feeding cattle, will say unto him by and by, when he is come from the field, Go and sit down to meat?Instead, will he not say to him, 'Prepare what I may eat, and having girded yourself about, serve me while I eat and drink; and after these things you shall eat and drink'?Doth he thank that servant because he did the things that were commanded him? I trow not.

Tis a shocker I know.

>>18377980
It wasn't obvious to me. But I've already answered your question. Predestination is orthodox theology. Just look at Thomas Aquinas, he was Catholic and believed in predestination. Predestination is confirmed by Scripture.

So if you find predestination immoral, then you are a spiritual communist; you should also find it immoral that some people are born wealthy, or healthy or anything else where blessings are bestowed unequally.

You won't get moral philosophy from me on this point, because if I tried to explain it away, I would simply be another spiritual communist, except I would be the mentally defective spiritual communist, and it would be up to you to show me that I was a philosophical dunce.

But that's never gonna happen, because I reject your moralism; I'm perfectly comfortable with the fact that people are what they are, and that while God can change them, I cannot. You should be ashamed for envying the spiritual good of others, just like real communists should be ashamed for envying the material wealth of others. What other people have, has nothing to do with you. It is not your right to correct inequalities.

>>17897626
>I don't understand how people like you are real
What, are you 12? One day you will grow up and realize that the only thing humanity deserves is a kick in the ass. That's all that a just God would give to a bunch of arrogant complainers.

But if you don't feel willing to complain or join in the useless pride and arrogance of mankind you are one of those dirty, anti-social, misanthropic Christians, or one of those nasty philosopher-types. All your name-calling doesn't change the facts though, you just don't like being called out for your bovine philosophy.

>>17693464
Good, but arguably you could stop reading after point 1 of the Enchiridion.
>Some things are in our control and others are not. Things in our control are opinion, pursuit, desire, aversion, and, in a word, whatever are our own actions. Things not in our control are body, property, reputation, public office, and, in one word, whatever are not our own actions.
>The things in our control are by nature free, unrestrained, un-hindered; but those not in our control are weak, slavish, re-strained, in the power of others. Remember, then, that if you suppose that things which are slavish by nature are also free, and that what belongs to others is your own, then you will be hindered. You will lament, you will be disturbed, and you will find fault both with gods and men. But if you suppose those things to be your own which are your own, and what belongs to others to be theirs, then no one will ever compel you or restrain you. Further, you will find fault with no one or accuse no one. You will do nothing against your will. No one will hurt you, you will have no enemies, and you will not be harmed.
>Aiming therefore at such great things, remember that you must not allow yourself to be carried, even with a slight ten-dency, towards the attainment of lesser things. Instead, you must entirely quit some things and for the present postpone the rest. But if you would both have these great things, along with power and riches, then you will not gain even the latter, because you aim at the former too: but you will absolutely fail of the former, by which alone happiness and freedom are achieved.
>Work, therefore, to be able to say to every harsh appearance, “You are but an appearance, and not absolutely the thing you appear to be.” And then examine it by those rules which you have, and first and chiefly by this: whether it concerns the things which are in our own control, or those which are not; and if it concerns anything not in our control, be prepared to say that it is nothing to you.

>>17158384
Except that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and climbed right the fuck back out of that tomb. I'm sure you can imitate the dying bit, but even Houdini had a hard time with part 2 if you know what I'm saying.

>>17131542
>Socrates, Buddha, Confucius, Jesus, Plato, Augustine, and Kant. (wew)
What was this like to even read? Can the man explain this inexplicable jumblefuck of religious and philosophical figures in his purported examination of philosophy?

>>16900580
I read that book and I came to the conclusion that it was far too pessimistic. You can do plenty of things you regret and life will turn out fine.

But to answer your question, the real issue is that Ivan Ilych's life is all about appearances. His wife looks nice (but she's really not the right woman for him), his house looks nice (but it was decorating his house that killed him), his children look nice (and he ignores them), his job looks nice (but in fact the labour wherein he labours is the acme of human suffering).

Ivan's life is unexamined; he hadn't even considered the day of his death before he became terminally ill.

>>16901574
The quote is from Kierkegaard, so perhaps it is the essence of living in Denmark.

>>16797604
Epictetus unironically;
>Some things are in our control and others are not. Things in our control are opinion, pursuit, desire, aversion, and, in a word, whatever are our own actions. Things not in our control are body, property, reputation, public office, and, in one word, whatever are not our own actions.

His thesis is that feels determine so much of how we think and react that we need a philosophy of managing feels.