/lit/ - Literature

>>17204797
It's fairly alright, if you want similar with more edge, look at Balthasar Gracian, Art of Worldly Wisdom

>>17204825
ah yes, the book that every self-help book has been plagiarizing since

>>17204825
Thanks for the rec, looks good bro

>>17204797
Pascal is trash. His "wager" is nothing short of a con man trying to sell you a used car. "Hey, I know this is completely unprovable, but just believe it lol, you'll die either way so might as well, it's totally a binary choice just ignore every other religion and denomination". Embarrassing.

>>17204797
>Imagine a number of men in chains, all under sentence of death, some of whom are each day butchered in the sight of others those remaining see their own condition in that of their fellows, and looking at each other with grief and despair await their turn. This is an image of the human condition
He is truly one of the greatest philosophers who ever lived

>>17204901
>t. hasn’t read Pensées

>>17204901
You got filtered

>>17204907
>>17204797
Imitation of Christ is also good.
https://sacred-texts.com/chr/ioc/ioc024.htm

>>17204911
>>17204914
>Typical reactions of cult members to any criticism
Maybe one day you anons will be able to break out of your limited worldview.

>>17204901
Dude take 5 minutes to read the first three pages at least. You sound like a complete moron.

>>17204955
Ah yes, your post of "you're a moron" has convinced me of the value in a work which is manifestly trash. Thanks anon, I never would have known without the deep insights you have imparted in this post.

#32 "... Nothing makes us understand better the ridiculousness of a false sonnet than to consider nature and the standard, and then to imagine a woman or a house made to that standard."

Subjectivism BTFO'd

>>17204973
imagine criticizing a work you haven’t read and then demanding others to spoonfeed you its contents

>>17204973
>maybe one day you anons will be able to break out of your limited worldview
>this work I have never read is awful because reasons

>>17204998
I have read it, and you add yet another post completely devoid of content

>>17204980
Took me a while to get it. Amazing.

>>17205013
>You didn't have the exact same reaction I did to reading a book
>You must not have read it!
Consider your posts for a minimum of a few seconds before pressing post, for everyone's sake.

>>17204973
>just confirmed that he's a retard who can't read
Dude, read it and then actually try to argue against that, pascal was the forerunner of a lot of shit and is considered one of the greatest mind in history, you should at least read what he actually meant

>>17204980
I don't get it

>>17205030
>just ignore every other religion and denomination
that’s how we know you haven’t read it.

>>17205034
I have read him, and he has overt contempt for people like me. Why should I have anything but contempt for him, especially with how cheap, nasty, and vulgar his assertions are?

>>17205037
I'll give you an example (not that anon but this is how I understood it):
>"There's nothing objectively wrong with sexual liberation! That's like, your opinion. Nobody gets harmed if its consensual!"
>imagine woman made to that standard considering their nature
>women release less and less oxytocin with each consecutive sexual partner
>statistically, the larger her sexual past, the more unstable a woman's marriage becomes
>more likely to cheat
>her children grow up with crazy liberated feminist mother, Laura Dern in Marriage Story style
>Conclusion: the standard of sexual liberation makes terrible mothers and wives out of women. It is a false sonnet.

>>17204901
Pascal's wager is not proof for God's existence, but rather a reason to believe in God if you think the evidence both for and against His existence are equal. I'd recommend watching this vid: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzbA_Nq-ics

>>17205187
I'm curious if you accept that rigid structures of morality, particularly around sex, can lead to a state where some individuals feel smothered and crushed and ultimately extremely unhappy in the role assigned to them in that structure? I personally hold personal liberty in high regard, but also believe that sexual promiscuity has a degrading effect on society at large. Do you accept any validity in both sides or is the other side purely a "false sonnet"?

>>17205215
That postulates that God will accept a very shrewd, self serving reason for belief, namely, the fear of punishment. And, in fact, it calls on a person to give up their principles and believe on this gamble, this wager. It is demeaning to both the speaker and the one addressed, and, in fact, to God, if you believe in him.

>>17205231
I do not accept validity on both sides because I believe sexual liberation is harmful to the institution of the family. It harms women's capacity to be good mothers and wives and therefore her children. Not to mention the creation of single mothers which is also a huge problem for any civilized community.

>>17205248
>That postulates that God will accept a very shrewd, self serving reason for belief, namely, the fear of punishment
this is not unbiblical in the slightest. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. Seek God and you shall find him, etc. And if you had read Pensées, then you would know that choosing to seek God does not necessarily mean you believe as the average Christian does.

>>17205261
So your position is that no woman can make the decision to not start a family? To not become a mother and wife? Are people not free to reject the institution of family if it does not serve them or is every single individual to be forced into this prefabricated system? I'd like to reaffirm my position that, for the sake of children, the monogamous coupling of the mother and father appears to be the best state of affairs, but my questions still stand.

>>17204901
>yet another moron who has never read Pascal and believes his wager is anything more than a thought experiment lost in one of the greatest literary work in Western history
>>17205015
Your own posts are devoid of content. You criticized a relatively irrelevant but overhyped part of Pascal's work (the part that retards typically latch onto when they have heard of him but not read him) and act as if you can dismiss his entire work. I've seen highschoolers with better takes honestly. Pascal is a forerunner of Nietzsche and Kierkegaard (and of existentialism in general) and his analysis of entertainment is extremely relevant to this day (that's not even getting into his theological insights, which I know you won't care for). Start with addressing that at least.

>>17205293
>So your position is that no woman can make the decision to not start a family? To not become a mother and wife?
Yes they can by choosing a life of celibacy. If there is a subset of a population that chooses to remain single for the sake of sexual freedom, this will have a corrupting domino effect on the rest of the community and the culture as a whole. Bad apples analogy and whatnot. It will create a subculture of bachelor men who chase the impressionable, easily deceived, weak-willed young women. Consider human nature, as Pascal said, and the harmfulness of the standard becomes clear.

>>17205312
>You criticized a relatively irrelevant but overhyped part of Pascal's work
It's exemplary of his deluded thinking on the subject, and is likely deemed irrelevant by you for that reason
>Pascal is a forerunner of Nietzsche and Kierkegaard
Ah name dropping, well at least you picked appropriately poor company for him.
>his analysis of entertainment is extremely relevant to this day
That analysis is on par with your average 4chan shitpost "theater bad". Not impressive.

>>17205352
>this will have a corrupting domino effect on the rest of the community
Do you have such little faith in the merits of your beliefs that men will forsake them if "a small subset of women" are sleeping around? Is totalitarian control over the sexuality of women, if assumed to be a good (debatable), even viable in the slightest? Even among the hardcore religious, premarital sex is rampant, and divorce is higher than among the secular ranks. Your world view seems to me to be quite utopian and would in reality be both detrimental to those under it and unfeasible to enact to begin with.

>>17205277
Precisely, this way of reasoning demands that you become a sublimate serf to the divine judge, to give up your own reason and principles, to become the ultimate slave to the ultimate master (as Nietzsche would say).

This destroys human dignity, human spirit. Any genuine, thinking person should reject this, especially on the cynical base of a "wager".

>>17205412
>Is totalitarian control over the sexuality of women, if assumed to be a good (debatable), even viable in the slightest? Even among the hardcore religious, premarital sex is rampant
I genuinely believe in patriarchy, that a woman should be the property of her father and then her husband, in the same way man is the property of God and has no right to go against His will.
The hierarchy of authority is thus: God > man > woman. This is Biblical.
Modern Evangelicals have forsaken this natural order in favor of modern conceptions of gender roles, and thus consequences have ensued, which is what we witness in the mess of our modern culture.
>Your world view seems to me to be quite utopian and would in reality be both detrimental to those under it and unfeasible to enact to begin with.
It is not tyrannically arbitrary. It has moral legitimacy. Morality is practical reason, and I showed you the reasoning. When law is backed up by moral legitimacy, it becomes what we call "justice".

>>17205469
we’re all slaves to something. We all fear something. We all have beliefs without certainty. Anyone who seeks God and follows his commandments will live a happy life. The Bible is a guide book for your happiness! It would not have so much wisdom otherwise.

>>17205469
>Precisely, this way of reasoning demands that you become a sublimate serf to the divine judge, to give up your own reason and principles
You say it like it is oppressive, when in fact it is liberating. It liberates man from his passions, as St. Augustine said:
>"Thus a good man, though a slave, is free; but a wicked man, though a king, is a slave. For he serves, not one man alone, but what is worse, as many masters as he has vices"

>>17205479
You have stated what you think "should" be, and that the bad things in modern society are a result of things not being aligned with your prescribed way.

I wonder what method you assume has "moral legitimacy" to enforce this property right of her father and then husband. Biblically, stoning to death on her father's doorstep is one method. When such extreme pressure is placed on humans to adhere to a code, it tends to create an equally strong rebellion against that code. In short, authoritarianism is unstable and untenable and all historical evidence supports that.

>>17204797
>the first existentialist
>one of the first to aplly he scientific method
>created the first calculator
>started probability theory
>he influenced de development of calculus
How can one man do it with barely 30 years?

>>17205498
>>17205520
See, I view the Buddhist idea of Zen as a much stronger candidate for the amelioration of one's vices. We need not be slaves at all. We need not have uncertain beliefs. These are concepts designed to bend you to another's will. Develop your own will, seek truth, beauty, and goodness in your own, honest way. Break free of these false, restrictive belief systems of power and control.

>>17205530
>You have stated what you think "should" be
Exactly. The human mind/soul works by striving for ideals. This is why ancient statues portrayed ideal beautifully athletic bodies. It's not that the average person looked like that. It's that humans need an ideal to strive for.
Following this line of thought, the figure of Jesus Christ, God in the flesh, has become the ideal image for humanity to strive for.
>And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another. For this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit.
2 Cor. 3:18
>your prescribed way.
God's prescribed way. God is never arbitrary. I trust He has our best interest in mind because He is our Creator. Reason only confirms the moral legitimacy of his commandments.
>I wonder what method you assume has "moral legitimacy" to enforce this property right of her father and then husband.
The classical pater familias-style family structure. It aligns with the natural order imposed by God, evidenced in our natures. The woman has not been endowed with the temperament for authority, because that has never been her purpose.
>Biblically, stoning to death on her father's doorstep is one method. When such extreme pressure is placed on humans to adhere to a code, it tends to create an equally strong rebellion against that code. In short, authoritarianism is unstable and untenable and all historical evidence supports that.
Those were God's commands for the specific purpose of allowing the nation of Israel to survive otherwise insurmountable odds in order to eventually fulfill the prophecy of the Christ. The fact it did not disappear like so many other nations would have in their place is nothing short of a miracle, and it probably would have disappeared were not for these drastic measures. Look at this quote by Saladin for reference.
It is no coincidence that so many civilizations throughout antiquity enforced harsh punishment for adultery. The ones that didn't were destroyed. Nations of the past simply did not survive the weakness created by the sort of degeneracy our culture is engulfed in. The world was a harsher place back then.

>>17205555
I am no god. I am merely a man, and I accept my place as such. I need the Savior; for I cannot save myself from evil.

>>17204797
I enjoyed the first part and the musings quite a bit. Dragged a little at the end with the more theological notions I was not fully set on, but I agree, He had a delightful mind and a great way of stating things.

>>17205623
You sell yourself too short

>>17205555
based buddhist quad poster

>>17204901
Is an argument for faith, contra evidentialism.

>>17205555
>>17205726
>We need not be slaves at all.
But thats just a restatement of relationships. that sounds purely semiotical. We need not be slaves just as much as we need to be slaves, they are both aspects within a whole, a not x is just the antithesis of x, you are not liberating yourself from slavery here you are simply rejecting the actuality of something despite even if that something being illusory, by its very statement of being an idea it is a thing. your antithesis still requires that thesis which both exist within the system.