/lit/ - Literature

>>12054362
>Settle down.
oh FINE
>but the inner self be like

>>12054380
>Should Christians accept anti-Christians? This is THE apocalyptic question. If the answer is no, do you not cease to be Christian? If the answer is yes, isn't the futility of Christianity revealed? It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation.
it's Augustinian stuff. not only was it a question of Christians accepting anti-Christians, it was also a question of Christians refusing interpretations of Christian doctrine that didn't fit *that* narrative. again, Augustine is an important figure. Augustine fights a lot of heresy *in* the church itself, and of at least two kinds: the puritanical Donatists and the freethinking Pelagians. and many others. Christianity *itself* was riven, and this boiled over in the reformation as well. *schism* is old, old stuff. to my mind, it calls for the open hand and not the closed fist. it is part of the *charm* of the Church that it was able to resolve opposites into itself in ways that contributed to its majesty and did not detract from. and yet this is also the problem of 'worldliness.' i'm glad i'm not Augustine. i would not want that job. but the formation of an orthodoxy is an important phenomenon: there is no more *tragedy* in the middle ages than there is *heresy* as we would understand it today in Athens. i feel this is crucial, and so is Augustinian thought in general.

>What we're seeing now with Trump and idpol is the realization of that because Christianity has failed and necessarily will fail, the optimal thing to do is "Will to Power for your group" (mimesis of the Jewish strategy).
except it's not going to work. or at least it's not trending in any directions that i would say are commensurate with what human beings are capable of in a genuinely Level-2 sense.

>(My respect for Girard skyrocketted after reading this btw)
he's the boy.

>What is the solution? Optimality.
this. *all* of this. human optimization. Cosmotech/Anthropotech. it has to happen. neo-Enlightenment. and without repeating itself, ad nauseum ad inifinitum.

>Idpol is here to stay, unless you're willing to give a different answer to The Apocalyptic Question - unless you're willing to choose to embrace paradox and hypocrisy, or to wait (indefinitely).
i'm absolutely willing to embrace paradox, which doesn't imply hypocrisy either. everything happens in co-participation. it's poverty, ignorance, the sad passions that have to be worked on, not channeled and directed into rage politics.

when Napoleon was going to conquer Europe, who was it that helped the Brits with the money? the Rothschilds. i personally don't have any bones to pick with Bonaparte, he's quite the fascinating guy. what i want is a system that helps people become what they are. it's a complicated one, no doubt, and certainly paradoxical. Aminom already laid out the core metaphysics for me also. once things turn over and require men like Augustine or Confucius, that's another thing.