/lit/ - Literature

>>23397929
> No it would definitely be nihilistic to worship your own false ideas in place of living in reality.
Equivocation on the meaning of words is something that I've come to expect from Buddhists. By this definition, in which you've implicitly assumed the "truth" of Buddhism, every other worldview becomes "nihilistic" because you've defined "nihilism" as "not living in reality".

Not only are you begging the question, but that's not what Nihilism means. You're describing delusion. A delusion that posits higher meaning, truth, and the persisteny reality of things is not "nihilistic". It's just wrong.

> and spout ill-informed opinions
You haven't refuted any of these. You've just impotently sputtered "n-no you" while equivocating on the meaning of "nihilism" and trying to delect to my character.

Whether Christianity or Buddhism is true or not is irrelevant to the discussion of whether or not one or the other is nihilistic.

You are not able to be honest about this

I must bid you adeu

>>23395106
Read The Contungency of Knowledge and Revelatory Theism. It's a relatively short essay on epistemology that should help you with what you're looking for. Pair that with the essence/energies distinction and you should be golden. >>23395271 is a good place to start; I also left atheism through Plato. It took a few years to come around to Orthodoxy. Get into some metaphysical arguments against atheism then see where an honest mind takes you.

Here's the pdf of that essay:
https://files.catbox.moe/24azdy.pdf

>>23264993
> Has porn been tricking me all along?
Absolutley! Allow me to elaborate on the differences between women and gay men (drawn partially from my own experience with both groups) and how porn producers/artists are covertly turning you gay:

The biggest thing to understand about women's sexuality in relation to men's is that for them, a man's status and physical attractiveness are on the same axis. A man with more money is literally more physically attractive (my own mother told me this). Ultimately this is about power--something that gay men are also often attracted to, and for the same reason: power = potency = virility (at least to the lizard brain). The difference, though, is how women and gay men position themselves in relation to that power. It's a well known fact that you can basically stack gays on top of each other like Legos. The more the merrier. This mirrors the ways in which men collaborate and compete with each other in other creative enterprises--homosexuality, like all deviant sexuality, is a degenerated corruption of the interpersonal psychology of the creative process. You and your buddies getting together and cooming is just one big death-reeking jazzy jam session from Hell.

Women, on the other hand, are fundamentally at each other's throats for access to "the best" Chad. It's a giant battle Royale amongst all of womankind. This appears to be so fundamental as to be baked into their primary attraction axis, which can now be thought of as unified status-physical-exclusivity. This next point is very important:

If a woman APPEARS to match the level of promiscuity of a man, it is because she is either BROKEN, or else SCHEMING for status and/or attention that she can use to net the man she perceives to have the highest net status-physical-exclusivity value in the space.

Am I saying that women can't be genuinely promiscuous? No--I'm saying that the difference between men and women is the difference between pouring sand and pouring sticks: sand has smooth stones that easily pour into any configuration; sticks bunch up and create rigid structures that gum things up and don't move easily. In other words, the hierarchical social complexity inherent to female sexuality makes it so that rigid social hierarchies rapidly form and prevent the kinds of loose and free organization of spontaneous action that made gays the AIDS kings of the world.

When male pornsmiths craft their women after the male mind, they're setting men up for expectations that women fundamentally cannot keep up with--only deranged ftm transsexuals have ever come close in my experience, and you really don't want to go there. Relatedly, consider what I said above about how women are man(not cosmos)-oriented. Interest in sexuality for its own sake in the abstract is a male-brained pursuit. If you go down that dark road (don't), there comes a point where you evolve beyond what most women are capable of. Women are other halves, not exact equals.

>>23261158
> the dead end of western autonomous epistemology is "graduating philosophy"
You're right that he should become a monk, but you don't need Kiergekaard for it.

Read "The Contingency of Knowledge and Revelatory Theism" and pair it with the essence/energies distinction to allow for a real distinction between God and the Creation and you're good to go Ortho, which didn't get totally infected by autonomous epistemology through Aristotle like the West did