/lit/ - Literature

>>22471229
I also do not accept Neo-Darwinists and view evolution as a creative, processual force and accept arguments that Earth's biosphere constitutes a superorganism.

Read Klages' essay "Man and Earth" to understand why I'm pissed:
https://www.revilo-oliver.com/Writers/Klages/Man_and_Earth.html

>From time immemorial, the "love" of the Christian has never prevented him from persecuting religious pagans with a murderous hatred; and this same "love" doesn’t prevent him even now from abolishing the sacred rituals of conquered tribal cultures. It is a well-known fact that Buddhism proscribes the killing of animals, because the Buddhist recognizes the obvious fact that each and every earthly creature shares a common nature with man himself. But when one objects to the Italian’s murdering of an animal, he will immediately respond by assuring you that the creature "has no soul," and "is not a Christian." This indicates clearly that, for the devout Christian, only man has a right to live. To the people of the ancient world, religion, which at one time also proceeded according to this pattern that even now springs up in hovels of the people, restrains its standard bearer, and yet it excites him on the other hand, and permits the power of one who threaten the peace of the world to prosper until it has become the terrifying megalomania that considers the bloodiest offenses against life to be permitted, and even commanded, provided such deeds result in "benefits" to humanity. Capitalism, along with its pathfinder, science, is in point of fact the fulfillment of Christianity; the church, like science, constitutes a consortium of special interests; and the "one" that is addressed by a secularized morality is indistinguishable from the life-hostile "ego," which, in the name of the unique godhead of the spirit—only now coupled with a blind cosmology--accounts for the war that has been waged against the innumerable, "many" gods of the world; earlier ages were at least more honest in their opposition to the cosmic deities, for they frankly approached the fray in the menacing aspect of judges…

I think Empedocles had by far the most sensible and intuitive cosmological framework, his dualism of love and strife seems to correspond very closely with our lived experience. There are many metaphysical elaborations that can be made upon that basic fact, eg. a heaven or nirvana in some space of pure love without strife, and many ethical implications as well.

My question is why is this not the most common philosophical or religious system when it is so clearly the one that describes the world we live in, good and bad warring against each other, neither omnipotent, but each winning at different things so to speak. Why are our religions almost all monist or eliminationist? They all seem to elide this basic dimension of good and bad, however they cut things up.

Here is a pdf of his fragments if you want to read them
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://dokument.pub/dl/empedocles-fragments-and-commentary-24grammatacom-flipbook-pdf&ved=2ahUKEwj04NjS9uHxAhWaG80KHaeXC7cQFnoECAQQAQ&usg=AOvVaw0_xOMUrggwAK2SLJ4UuB3i

>>17202554
If life is a fire then let's fucking rage

Did he really throw himself into a volcano and think he was god incarnate?