/lit/ - Literature

>>18447445

I maintain that they are answerable and the answer is precisely that Evil being the absence of Good is a false and perverse Monism for many reasons: that the Good suffers a Salafi implosion whereby it can just as easily be said that the Evil is the true Monad and the Good a fringe consequence thereof, that the Good is still said to participate in all that allegedly suffers from its absence in terminally perfidious (Catholic) arguments, that it is simply rephrasing a question into something paradoxically worse than the initial one in that the Good is made ultimately responsible for Evil. Whereas the Evil being likewise Monadic, there being more than one Monad, is actually the meaning of true Monism. The absence of Good is, in fact, Dualism: taking it to Logical conclusion, the absence itself constitutes an eternal irreconcilable other. Whereas an Evil as Monadic as the Monadic Good is, in fact, Monism: that all things are Monads, that nothing cannot be a Monad, that Monads "have no windows" and in knowing everything Dialectically know nothing; a true Monism from the inside-out and the top-down.

>>16708446

The abolish-abide dichotomy of "fulfill" is silly and both ideas are, moreover, anti-Christian in the sense of (re)absorbing Jesus in the very thing he is supposed to change, so is a third position of coinciding them. Rather, consider "fulfillment" as not so much 1, or 2, or a converging 3, but the fundamental 0 whence they all diverge: the Law neither resolving by Jesus maximizing abolishment at the expense of abiding or vice-versa, nor by finding a perfect balance between them, but by destroying the seesaw itself. It is "fulfilled" by having the FORM of Law exposed, which transforms, and I maintain destroys, its CONTENT in ways otherwise impossible. "Atheists" are incidentally right, and very Christian, in finding Atonement absurd. It is the "Christians", or Catholics, who are anti-Christian when attempting to reconcile it with Jesus Christ as if trying to put two halves of a broken object together. That they can no longer constitute a whole is precisely the point. The clothes have no emperor.

>>16607299
>not realizing that he is mocking the jews and foreboding that the man about to die abandoned by his god is them
>not understanding that this is the darkest joke ever told per the magnanimity of jesus hidden in plain sight

>>16350624
>>>/lit/thread/S15033730#p15034713

>The paradox is thus that there is no Self that precedes Spirit’s “self-alienation”: the very process of alienation creates/generates the “Self” from which Spirit is alienated and to which it then returns. (Hegel here turns around the standard notion that a failed version of X presupposes this X as its norm (measure): X is created, its space is outlined, only through repetitive failures to reach it.) Spirit’s self-alienation is the same as, fully coincides with, its alienation from its Other (nature), because it constitutes itself through its “return to itself” from its immersion in natural Otherness. In other words, Spirit’s return to itself creates the very dimension to which it returns. (This holds for all “returns to origins”: when, from 19th century onwards, new nation-states were constituting themselves in Central and Eastern Europe, their discovery and return to “old ethnic roots” generated these roots.)

>What this means is that the “negation of the negation,” the ”return to oneself” from alienation, does not occur where it seems to. In the “negation of the negation,” Spirit’s negativity is not relativized, subsumed under an encompassing positivity; it is, on the contrary, the “simple negation” which remains attached to the presupposed positivity it negated, the presupposed Otherness from which it alienates itself. It follows that the “negation of the negation” is nothing but the negation of the substantial character of this Otherness itself, the full acceptance of the abyss of Spirit’s self-relating, which retroactively posits all its presuppositions. In other words, once we are in negativity, we never quit it and regain the lost innocence of origins. It is only in “negation of the negation” that the origins are truly lost, that their very loss is lost, that they are deprived of the substantial status of that which was lost.

>Spirit heals its wound not by directly healing it, but by getting rid of the very full and sane body into which the wound was cut. It is in this precise sense that, according to Hegel, “the wounds of the Spirit heal, and leave no scars behind.”[1] Hegel’s point is not that Spirit heals its wounds so perfectly that, in a magic gesture of retroactive sublation, even their scars disappear. The point is rather that, in the course of dialectical process, a shift of perspective occurs which makes the wound itself appear as its opposite – the wound itself is its own healing when perceived from another standpoint.

Galaxy brain: that which was ended by Atonement was the very idea of atonement itself, not by "fulfilling" it through a qualitatively ultimate atonement, but by exposing itself as absurd thereby, i.e. perfect self-effacement is so first and foremost towards itself, imploding to nothing while the Victor simultaneously explodes to everything.

>>15575157

The Victor.

>>15431138

You are assuming that his death sentence is contrary to his will. Not even the most aberrant theories, like those of Atonement, claim this, never mind the sound ones, like those of the Victor.

>>15043091
>mfw no one wrote them since time is an illegitimate authority that does not move forward and instead past and future merely extend telescopically from an eternal present to pervert its content by warping it towards two vanishing points of utter incomprehension which you can nevertheless dispel because jesus christ is ever looking out through your own eyes

>>15033730

From another one of his articles there:

>The paradox is thus that there is no Self that precedes Spirit’s “self-alienation”: the very process of alienation creates/generates the “Self” from which Spirit is alienated and to which it then returns. (Hegel here turns around the standard notion that a failed version of X presupposes this X as its norm (measure): X is created, its space is outlined, only through repetitive failures to reach it.) Spirit’s self-alienation is the same as, fully coincides with, its alienation from its Other (nature), because it constitutes itself through its “return to itself” from its immersion in natural Otherness. In other words, Spirit’s return to itself creates the very dimension to which it returns. (This holds for all “returns to origins”: when, from 19th century onwards, new nation-states were constituting themselves in Central and Eastern Europe, their discovery and return to “old ethnic roots” generated these roots.)

>What this means is that the “negation of the negation,” the ”return to oneself” from alienation, does not occur where it seems to. In the “negation of the negation,” Spirit’s negativity is not relativized, subsumed under an encompassing positivity; it is, on the contrary, the “simple negation” which remains attached to the presupposed positivity it negated, the presupposed Otherness from which it alienates itself. It follows that the “negation of the negation” is nothing but the negation of the substantial character of this Otherness itself, the full acceptance of the abyss of Spirit’s self-relating, which retroactively posits all its presuppositions. In other words, once we are in negativity, we never quit it and regain the lost innocence of origins. It is only in “negation of the negation” that the origins are truly lost, that their very loss is lost, that they are deprived of the substantial status of that which was lost.

>Spirit heals its wound not by directly healing it, but by getting rid of the very full and sane body into which the wound was cut. It is in this precise sense that, according to Hegel, “the wounds of the Spirit heal, and leave no scars behind.”[1] Hegel’s point is not that Spirit heals its wounds so perfectly that, in a magic gesture of retroactive sublation, even their scars disappear. The point is rather that, in the course of dialectical process, a shift of perspective occurs which makes the wound itself appear as its opposite – the wound itself is its own healing when perceived from another standpoint.

Absolutely Christological.

>>14929184

>>14893197
>Reminder that Christianity is not traditional

Of course. That's the point, the advent and such.

>>14871459

Actually, it is affirming the very bodies and separation therebetween whereby death occurs.

>>14801232
>can consciousness help humans create a large, complex, egalitarian society?
>can consciousness prevent future wars and tribal conflicts?
>can consciousness prevent ubiquitous predatory human behaviors, both toward other humans and other species?
>can consciousness allow us to effectively address global warming and other self-created existential threats?
>does consciousness give us the ability to know when we are bullshitting and when we are not?

Yes, incidentally, but the point being it is there precisely for opposing the world and that which obeys it, not for further prostrating yourself before it. What a fag.

>>14624093
>>14626619

>Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself

This ends the world.

>>14414442

Other than the Metaphysical absurdity of Atonement, that which is sacrificed could just as easily be said to have lost meaning or value after being annihilated and/or to have not actually been sacrificed inasmuch as it has not been annihilated, this is the main argument against it. It is all but forced, practically "Roman". The Victor offers the true coincidence between the "selfish" and the "selfless", and the true salvation, not only in content but also in form.

>>14148427

Yourself and God.

>>13847149

Absolutely Christological, it sounds like Pistis Sophia.

>>13834276
>be me
>go outside
>all conversations i overhear sound like nothing i want to partake in
>all people i see look like no one i want to be
>rejoice that i have unimpeachable identity
>rejoice that the world will be destroyed