/lit/ - Literature

Right here buddy:
>Take notice how a “moral man” behaves, who today often thinks he is through with God and throws off Christianity as a bygone thing. If you ask him whether he has ever doubted that the copulation of brother and sister is incest, that monogamy is the truth of marriage, that filial piety is a sacred duty, then a moral shudder will come over him at the conception of one’s being allowed to touch his sister as wife also, etc. And whence this shudder? Because he believes in those moral commandments. This moral faith is deeply rooted in his breast. Much as he rages against the pious Christians, he himself has nevertheless as thoroughly remained a Christian — to wit, a moral Christian. In the form of morality Christianity holds him a prisoner, and a prisoner under faith. Monogamy is to be something sacred, and he who may live in bigamy is punished as a criminal; he who commits incest suffers as a criminal. Those who are always crying that religion is not to be regarded in the State, and the Jew is to be a citizen equally with the Christian, show themselves in accord with this. Is not this of incest and monogamy a dogma of faith? Touch it, and you will learn by experience how this moral man is a hero of faith too, not less than Krummacher, not less than Philip II. These fight for the faith of the Church, he for the faith of the State, or the moral laws of the State; for articles of faith, both condemn him who acts otherwise than their faith will allow. The brand of “crime” is stamped upon him, and he may languish in reformatories, in jails. Moral faith is as fanatical as religious faith! They call that “liberty of faith” then, when brother and sister, on account of a relation that they should have settled with their “conscience,” are thrown into prison. “But they set a pernicious example.” Yes, indeed: others might have taken the notion that the State had no business to meddle with their relation, and thereupon “purity of morals” would go to ruin. So then the religious heroes of faith are zealous for the “sacred God,” the moral ones for the “sacred good.”

>>9759175
>So we don't choose, but we still must be held responsible for what we do (even though we have no free will and didn't choose, can't help what we like, how we are, etc
sam harris OUT
>must
what did he mean by this? there is a difference between we probably will and we "must" (either as a moral/practical stipulation or that it is necessary and impossible for something otherwise to happen)

>>9449424
>>9449429
That all things are nothing to me.

I have no friends or family. I quit my job and now I work part time, I am taking writing very seriously now and I'm writing books and screenplays, how fucked am I?

I have no friends or family. I quit my job and now I work part time, I am taking writing very seriously now and I'm writing books and screenplays, how fucked am I?

>>9401159
>shouldn't

The selfish purpose resists all but the irresistible (death).

>>9354022

The Ego and Its Own

The Stranger

The Plague