[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 43 KB, 152x156, 1520143453042.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10980113 No.10980113 [Reply] [Original]

One needs to reformulate the ancient tradition to a modern person, who has a logical positivist naturalistic philosophy, and doesn't believe in superstition, like such and so getting up from the dead. The concepts of religion are not really superstitious, they are primitive folk-tales made to explain the teleology of ethical behavior, that the notion of right and wrong is defined by allegiance to a larger mind than any one individual.

The way in which such larger minds form is much like the way your mind forms from the activity of neurons. Like all the neurons in your head make up your brain, and their collective activity is your consciousness, likewise, the individuals making up a social group make up a god-brain, and their collective activity forms the god-consciousness.

These gods are local and mortal, they are born and they die. The monotheistic notion of God is a God of gods, meaning the infinite mind formed in the teleological limit of infinitely large and infinitely ancient cooperating gods in the infinite future. This is Hegel's evolutionary view of the 19th century, explained more concisely here, without Hegel's upper-class bullshit. Removing the upper-class bullshit was done by Marx, who played the role of Jesus to Hegel's formal, musty, obsolete, old-testament.

Marx took this teleology and made it a practical agent of change. First, he identified the main social dialectic, the conflict in society, as a class conflict--- people who control vs those whom they control. Then he delved into mathematical economics, and explained why the system of control in capitalism leads to economic inefficiency. Every dollar of profit that a capitalist makes individually (as opposed to getting distributed broadly in stock) is a market-equilibrium distorting inefficiency, and when added up over all the wealthy folks, it creates unemployment and recession, the boom-and-bust cycles which were inexplicable before Marx.

The economics described in Marx is simply objectively correct. That is independent of the teleology or religion. The prescriptions you adopt, however, depend on your religious teleology--- whether you are willing to forgo a ruling capitalist class, or not.

>> No.10980115

>>10980113


To see which method is appropriate, it is now instructive to take a look at Christianity. In the Roman empire, slave owners played the role of large industrialists, owners, while the mass of people worked as slaves. The main point of Christianity, ignoring positivistically meaningless superstitious nonsense, was to force the slave-owning master and the slave to share an equal social standing in the Church. Under those circumstances, the Epistle to Philemon explains, you are forced to recognize the evil of slavery, and free your slave. The Epistle to Philemon both explains Christianity's success, and how it differs from Judaism. In Judaism, freeing the slave was also accomplished, but by a process of law, that took 7 years. The Christians eventually abolished slavery outright, by the 7th century, in Europe.

The teleology of the Bible is that God demands that people do what God says. That is a circular definition, so people read the Bible and think that helps them know God. The teleology is what defines God, and to understand a teleology is the most difficult thing in the world. You can't get it by reading books, especially not old books. You need to inspect the situation, and construct the best approximation to a future social contract which is optimal compared to the one we have today.

>> No.10980126

You language is the sign of a hack.
We language is the sign of a brainlet.

DELETE THE SUBJECT.

>> No.10980345

>>10980113
I have a writing challenge for you. Are you ready? summarize whatever you wrote in 10 words or less

>> No.10980503

bump for interest

>> No.10980508

>>10980113
>Mickey Mouse gloves

>> No.10980513

>>10980345
>makes ten-word challenge.
>uses nineteen words.
wtf?

>> No.10980551

I read SSC/Samzdat too OP

>> No.10980650

>>10980551
I have no idea what those are.

>> No.10980657

>>10980650
Then you should enjoy them
http://slatestarcodex.com/2018/04/01/the-hour-i-first-believed/ describes your "infinitely ancient cooperating gods in the infinite future" to a T
samzdat.com mostly covers the rest

>> No.10980676

>>10980657
It took me around fifteen seconds to close the tab out of irritation with this guy's writing style. Sorry. Don't like it. Get to the point. I'm not a preschooler, I don't need to be "hooked" with his overly clever prose.

>> No.10980685

>>10980676
You're going to fucking hate Samzdat then. Oh well.

>> No.10980798

>>10980113
MY IDEOLOGY IS ABSOLUTELY CORRECT
IT ISN'T LIKE ANYTHING ELSE
MY IDEOLOGY IS ABSOLUTELY CORRECT
IT ISN'T LIKE ANYTHING ELSE
MY IDEOLOGY IS ABSOLUTELY CORRECT
IT ISN'T LIKE ANYTHING ELSE
MY IDEOLOGY IS ABSOLUTELY CORRECT
IT ISN'T LIKE ANYTHING ELSE
MY IDEOLOGY IS ABSOLUTELY CORRECT
IT ISN'T LIKE ANYTHING ELSE
MY IDEOLOGY IS ABSOLUTELY CORRECT
IT ISN'T LIKE ANYTHING ELSE
MY IDEOLOGY IS ABSOLUTELY CORRECT
IT ISN'T LIKE ANYTHING ELSE
MY IDEOLOGY IS ABSOLUTELY CORRECT
IT ISN'T LIKE ANYTHING ELSE

>> No.10981006

>>10980113
Some Nice ideas in there but try and name drop other authors less. Instead writer a self container summary of the element your using. This reads more like a reference list of extremely dense books within a theme than a fully realized argument OR Idea.

>> No.10981392

The style is fine, you guys are just irritated by what anon is saying.

>> No.10981414

>>10980113
A lot of words that don't say anything.

>> No.10981420

>>10981414
>A lot of words that don't say anything.
Welcome to /lit/.

>> No.10981497
File: 118 KB, 1300x955, dm24673sdf.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10981497

>>10981414

>> No.10981587

>>10980113
>buying into rationalistic Hegelian arguments
>not realizing there is no rational basis for the axioms you have chosen
>not realizing that the ground of all thought must be simple faith, and faith must be grounded in the absolute to be effectual
honestly embarrassing desu

>> No.10981616
File: 84 KB, 800x800, 1523278013826.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10981616

>>10981414
>>10981420

>> No.10981668

>>10980113
>1
>2
>3
>4
>5
2. You posit some assumption about neurons, which is fine by itself, and then grotesquely generalize it to consciousness. What is DNA in this map? I think this would help you because, like Marx, you are assuming a model.

3. God, assumed as a being, must have properties. Any policy which aims to identify them must be descriptive and not assertive. Any differential teleology will be false. The next god must be this god, and if this is not the case, then it is not god then or now.

4. Marx is merely dialectic materialism with ad hoc support from economics. His commentary, while relevant, is shallow in comparison to the master.

5. Doesn't follow from 1, 2, 3, or 4.

>> No.10981842

>>10980113
>>10980115
Cool story bro.
>You need to inspect the situation, and construct the best approximation to a future social contract which is optimal compared to the one we have today.
>optimal
By which fucking metric? Happiness? Efficiency? Market values?

>> No.10981893

>>10981842
>t. conflict theorist

>> No.10981928

>>10981893
Hey, I see the very question in the way it is presented as retarded.

>> No.10983211

>>10980798
what's your ideology m8

>> No.10983703

>>10983211
shitposting