/lit/ - Literature

>>22099240
>Go to hell
what do people mean by this?

Day was departing and the darkened air
released the creatures of the earth

3
from their labor, and I, alone,
prepared to face the struggle—
of the way and of the pity of it—

6
which memory, unerring, shall retrace.
O Muses, O lofty genius, aid me now!
O memory, that set down what I saw,

9
here shall your worth be shown.
I began: ‘Poet, you who guide me,
consider if my powers will suffice

12
before you trust me to this arduous passage.
‘You tell of the father of Sylvius;
that he, still subject to corruption, went

15
to the eternal world while in the flesh.
‘But that the adversary of all evil showed;
such favor to him, considering who and what he was,

18
and the high sequel that would spring from him,
‘seems not unfitting to a man who understands.
For in the Empyrean he was chosen

21
to father holy Rome and her dominion,
‘both of these established—if we would speak;
the truth—to be the sacred precinct where

24
successors of great Peter have their throne.
‘On this journey, for which you grant him glory,
he heard the words that prompted him;

27
to victory and prepared the Papal mantle.
‘Later, the Chosen Vessel went there;
to bring back confirmation of our faith,

30
the first step in our journey to salvation.
‘But why should I go there? who allows it?
I am not Aeneas, nor am I Paul.

33
Neither I nor any think me fit for this.
‘And so, if I commit myself to come,
I fear it may be madness. You are wise,

36
you understand what I cannot express.’
And as one who unwills what he has willed,
changing his intent on second thought

39
so that he quite gives over what he has begun,
such a man was I on that dark slope.
With too much thinking I had undone;

42
the enterprise so quick in its inception.
‘If I have rightly understood your words,’
replied the shade of that great soul,

45
‘your spirit is assailed by cowardice,
‘which many a time so weighs upon a man
it turns him back from noble enterprise,

48
the way a beast shies from a shadow.
‘To free you from this fear
I’ll tell you why I came and what I heard

51
when first I felt compassion for you.
‘I was among the ones who are suspended;
when a lady called me, so blessèd and so fair;

54
that I implored her to command me.
‘Her eyes shone brighter than the stars.
Gentle and clear, the words she spoke to me—

57
an angel’s voice was in her speech:
‘“O courteous Mantuan spirit,
whose fame continues in the world

60
and shall continue while the world endures,
‘“my friend, who is no friend of Fortune,
is so hindered on his way upon the desert slope;

63
that, in his terror, he has turned back,
‘“and, from what I hear of him in Heaven,
I fear he has gone so far astray

66
that I arose too late to help him.
‘“Set out, and with your polished words;
and whatever else is needed for his safety,

69
go to his aid, that I may be consoled.
‘“I who bid you go am Beatrice.
I come from where I most desire to return.

72
The love that moved me makes me speak.
‘“And when I am before my Lord
often will I offer praise of you to Him.”

75
Then she fell silent. And I began:
‘“O lady of such virtue that by it alone;
the human race surpasses all that lies

78
within the smallest compass of the heavens,
‘“so pleased am I at your command that my consent,
were it already given, would be given late.

81
You have but to make your desire known.
‘“But tell me why you do not hesitate
to descend into the center of the earth;

84
from the unbounded space you long for.”
‘“Since you are so eager to know more,”
she answered, “I shall be brief in telling you

87
why I am not afraid to enter here.
‘“We should fear those things alone
that have the power to harm.

90
Nothing else is frightening.
‘“I am made such by God’s grace
that your affliction does not touch,

93
nor can these fires assail me.
‘“There is a gracious lady in Heaven so moved;
by pity at his peril, she breaks stern judgment

96
there above and lets me send you to him.
‘“She summoned Lucy and made this request:
«Your faithful one is now in need of you

99
and I commend him to your care.»
‘“Lucy, the enemy of every cruelty,
arose and came to where I sat

102
at venerable Rachel’s side,
‘“and said: «Beatrice, true praise of God,
why do you not help the one who loved you so

105
that for your sake he left the vulgar herd?;
‘“«Do you not hear the anguish in his tears?
Do you not see the death besetting him;

108
on the swollen river where the sea cannot prevail?»
‘“Never were men on earth so swift to seek;
their good or to escape their harm as I,

111
after these words were spoken,
‘“to descend here from my blessèd seat,
trusting to the noble speech that honors you

114
and those who have paid it heed.”
‘After she had said these things to me,
she turned away her eyes, now bright with tears,

117
making me more eager to set out.
‘And so I came to you just as she wished.
I saved you from the beast denying you

120
the short way to the mountain of delight.
‘What then? Why, why do you delay?
Why do you let such cowardice rule your heart?

123
Why are you not more spirited and sure,
‘when three such blessèd ladies
care for you in Heaven’s court

126
and my words promise so much good?’
As little flowers, bent and closed
with chill of night, when the sun

129
lights them, stand all open on their stems,
such, in my failing strength, did I become.
And so much courage poured into my heart

132
that I began, as one made resolute:
‘O how compassionate was she to help me,
how courteous were you, so ready to obey

135
the truthful words she spoke to you!
‘Your words have made my heart
so eager for the journey

138
that I’ve returned to my first intent.
‘Set out then, for one will prompts us both.
You are my leader, you my lord and master,’
I said to him, and when he moved ahead

142
I entered on the deep and savage way.

brb, intrando per lo cammino alto e silvestro

can someone post the images ? I'm range banned. OP?

> 94-99 of 2nd canto is weird. Mary breaks the stern judgment of God? Really?
She is the mother so my guess is god feels for her.

>Also this whole messaging between the three heavenly ladies and finally Virgil remind me of the Iliad.

Can you expand?
I’ve not read the Iliad.


The beginning of the poem reminds me Rimbaud, does anyone know if Rimjob read Dante? It also remind me of Ashbery and Robert Duncan, and of course TS Elliot. The idea of memory and emotion to create, and the muses. Dylan has mother of muses which links his craft to Mnemosyne.

I’m really liking this epic, and finding a lot of insights into my own philosophy of poetry.

Alright, this is OP, here are my thoughts

Dante is now shown to us as something of an inversion of the classical hero. The hero himself here is a poet. Not just someone composing poetry, as for example some of the Greek lyricists (and Dante writes an epic from the first-person, a voice traditionally reserved for lyric poetry), but someone whose calling and sense of purpose is poetry rather than warrior or hero in the conventional sense. I want to cover more on this but once we get to limbo. The other major point is Dante is not a tragically flawed hero from classical conception either, his major flaw in this canto is cowardice, decidedly the one flaw no tragic her can have. But also this is a comedy, not a tragedy, and as a result Dante is to overcome his failings rather than become the victim of a tragic flaw. In a way, then, comedic flaws. Comedic is apt here as well since comedy then did not just indicate a happy ending (neither the Aeneid nor the Odyssey has a bleak ending) but more crucially a lower style and subject matter. Dante, being a coward, is a lower subject for a poem. The lower and more casual style is also employed by Dante at times which would not be possible in a tragedy. At other times he uses very dense philosophical language. Many styles and linguistic nuances are brought to bear, and this diversity is allowed under the rules of comedy, which is why Dante opts for that genre.

Beatrice, we see, does not function as a conventional muse, but a transformative one. Dante's very action which drives the poem is impelled by her. Virgil gives Dante the order to make the journey but it is learning about Beatrice which gives Dante the resolve. Without that resolve, where would he be, since he is helpless to the beasts and, as Virgil stated, the only way to escape them is to embark on the spiritual odyssey? Dante would perhaps himself be damned. So the significance of Beatrice as spiritual guide is very real within in the poem. Perhaps in reality as well, for Dante in composing the poem was consciously trying to depict himself at the time the poem takes place, which is several years before he began to compose it. Dante sees himself as a man who was helpless to vice, namely three; the identity of the vices is disputed but one common reading is the lion as pride (a vice Dante will, much later in the poem, accentuate that he struggled with), the leopard as fraud (that is, lying), and the she-wolf as lust.

>>22099324
>lion as pride
was dante a prideful mothafucca?

>b-bump?

Nice canto. Sorry I’m a brainlet so I don’t have much to say about it. But uhh we need to keep this up guys. Any way to keep these threads more interesting?

>>22099856
idk. OP just posts few paragraphs and then fucks off.

>>22099856
also I'm a brainlet too (and a esl on top of that) so I was relying on you guys to start the conversations so I could understand this work better

>>22099304
>She is the mother so my guess is god feels for her

I know but isn't he all-good and can't do anything wrong? If the Virgin Mary needs to let's say "advise" him that makes me feel that Dante raised her into divinity. Which does make sense considering the catholic tradition.

>Can you expand?
I’ve not read the Iliad.

In the Iliad there are conversations and messaging that happen in god-god relation and god-human relation. There is constant dialog and action taken from the gods where they intervene in the war and battle between each other. I feel this is where Dante drew inspiration from when he was writing about Mary, Lucy and Beatrice intervening to help Dante.

dante looks like smug cunt, why is that?

>>22099272
Dang I mostly understood that. If I know spanish should I just read it in its original form?

I really want to believe in religion and shit, but, it's so fake and morally gray that i can't bring myself to believe it. I wish I was a idiot

>>22100283
Side by side translation

>>22100522
I'll give it a shot

Anyone know the best spanish or french translation of the Divine Comedy?

where are the rhymes? and what is it about this text that is so great? I'm genuinely curious about this

>>22100368
Don't worry, you are.

>>22099856
>>22099884
Watch this Yale course while you read. I'll probably have to post this link to every one of these threads. The video recorded Yale course is in depth course on the whole Divine Comedy.
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=679FGDpZBew&list=PLD1450DFDA859F694
>>22100220
Because he is.
>>22100368
Idiot atheists think that its about the magical sky daddy while in real life it is about the Absolute. Also, while Divine Comedy touches on religious matter, it does much more than that, being an encyclopedic work.
>>22100669
You'll probably find a proper answer to this by googling. Shortly, it is the Italian national epic, and for a good reason. Note that poetry doesn't have to rhyme, instead it can have a rhythm for example. Many things are lost in translation but none of us are willing to read fourteenth century vernacular?

>>22100567
https://es.quora.com/Cu%C3%A1l-es-la-mejor-traducci%C3%B3n-al-espa%C3%B1ol-de-la-Divina-Comedia

https://www.etudes-litteraires.com/forum/discussion/24302/quelle-traduction-choisir-pour-la-divine-comedie

https://www.reddit.com/r/france/comments/q6w8yp/la_divine_com%C3%A9die_quelle_traduction_lire/

>>22100902

No no, you've misunderstood. His intelligence (or something like it) precludes his capacity for private religious feelings, that's the point. Some people (an unfortunately small number) are, happily, constitutionally incapable of falling for the bullshit and just going with it. Their (autistic?) minds are constitutionally impervious to it, and the allure of being accepted into a human community or particular human culture (the main psychological appeal of religion, which has led countless individuals into error) is also not strong enough or appealing enough for them to get them to go along with the god stuff, to ever bring about an INTERNAL change. Christianity in particular is obliged to deny the existence of these individuals, in order to keep the blame shifted onto them (each individual can make a private choice to accept or reject Jesus and get the consequences either way. This assumes that every individual is capable of making such choice when in fact there exist minds quite incapable of accepting Jesus, or religion X).

I believe Pascal has some (mistaken) remark about how it's best to go through the motions of a religion even if one isn't privately convinced.

in mighty max virgil is a owl and the heroes weakness is being a white boy wigger (backwards maga hat)

Bump, starting on third canto

>>22100669
>where are the rhymes?

In the original Italian.

What will be discussed for each Canto? Themes? Should I read how to read a book to better join the discussion?

>>22101627
Op should ask some questions.
Meanwhile just post your thoughts. Are there any anons that have read, and studied the divine comedy?

>>22101323
>This assumes that every individual is capable of making such choice when in fact there exist minds quite incapable of accepting Jesus, or religion X).
I disagree; it's the responsibility of a civilised society to provide pathways for individuals to be able to cast aside their overactive and, frankly, natural scepticisms, such that they can achieve private religious feeling. On average, these people tend to be capable of becoming better and holier men than those who lack this sense of doubt. Religion itself descends into barbarity and idolatry when it is demoted and tailored to become an institution that can only and merely be approached as a community looking for the lowest common denominator who just wants to fit in. There isn't anything wrong with this per se, but I believe it is generally an inferior approach to religion, although that doesn't preclude such people from achieving the highest levels of godliness.

>>22101807
>Op should ask some questions.
everyone should ask more questions. but I think the questions will come later as we progress through the story

No one knows when Dante began composing his great poem, The Divine Comedy (the word Divina was added to Commedia by posterity)-some say perhaps as early as 1307. In any case, the Inferno was completed in 1314, and it is probable that the final touches to the Paradise were made, as Boccaccio states,
in 1321, the year of Dante's death. The Divine Comedy is to some degree a result of the poet's determination to fulfill the promise he made at the close of his Vita nuova: " . . . if it be the wish of Him in whom all things flourish that my life continue for a few years, I hope to write of her that which has never been written of any lady. " But the moving purpose of the poem, as Dante reveals in his epistle to Can Grande, is "to remove those living in this life from their state of misery and lead them to the state of felicity. "

From Mark Musas introduction.

>>22102569
Forgot to put the letter, Dante to Can Grande della Scala

https://faculty.georgetown.edu/jod/cangrande.english.html

>>22102569
why "comedy" ??

>>22102619
I’m Dantes own words >>22102579

“ The title of the book is: `Begins the Comedy of Dante Alighieri, Florentine in birth, not in custom.' In order to understand you need to know that *comedy* comes from *komos* `village' and *oda*, which means `song', whence *comedy* sort of means `country song'. And comedy is sort of a kind of poetic narration, different from all others. It differs, therefore, from the tragedy, in matter by the fact that tragedy in the beginning is admirable and quiet, in the end or final exit it is smelly and horrible; and it gets its name because of this from *tragos*, which means `goat', and *oda*, sort of like `goat-song', that is, smelly like a goat, as can be seen in Seneca's tragedies. But comedy begins with harshness in some thing, whereas its matter ends in a good way, as can be seen by Terence in his comedies. And thus letter writers are accustomed to say in their salutations in the place of an address `a tragic beginning, a comical end'. They differ also in the way of speaking: the tragedy is elevated and sublime, the comedy loose and humble, as Horace tells us in his *Poetria*, where he permits now and again comic writers to speak like tragedists and also vice versa (citing *The Complete Works of Horace*, transl. Kaspar J. Kraemer, Jr. Modern Library 141 (New York: Modern Library, 1963)”

>>22102619
>>22102634
I’m Mark Musas intro

This letter also tells u s why Dante called his poem a comedy. The word, he says, is derived from comus and oda and means a "rustic song. " Unlike tragedy, which begins in tranquillity but comes to a sad end, comedy may begin under adverse circumstances, but it always has a happy ending. The language of comedy is humble, whereas that of tragedy is lofty. There fore, because his poem begins in Hell and has a happy ending in Paradise, and because it is written in a most humble lan guage, the Italian vernacular, it is called the Commedia

>>22102634
>>22102638
thanks. much appreciated

started with the 3rd canto. can someone get the new thread up please

>‘I was among the ones who are suspended;
>when a lady called me, so blessèd and so fair;
>that I implored her to command me.
simp

>>22102461

Thank you for the thoughtful reply (I hadn't expected one), as civil and interesting as it is wrongheaded.

My rephrase of your central observations:

1) Society ought to encourage people towards religion.
2) Sometimes, certain skeptics/atheists/fedoras and the like can make better converts than the peasants and plebs, because in certain cases they may be more intelligent (and sometimes not!), and the psychological drama of such a private conversion/about-face is useful to (PR for) a religion. Whence the value of the deathbed conversion: "See, we got 'em!" (I think of the painter Francis Bacon, who to his credit resisted this trap and thereby died in the Truth).
3) According to you, certain thoughtful skeptics have the capacity for greater religious feeling (than uncritical plebs) precisely because of their capacity for doubt (Jesus himself doubted). Here you conflate a certain capacity with intelligence, almost a sort of classism. I don't necessarily disagree with it, but it's useful to note.
4) Religion is devalued when it's just a social club/in-group as opposed to a phenomenon which manages to instill the specific and private religious feelings in the individual.

And my response:

1) It is true that human beings unfortunately seem to be hard-wired for religion, and that is precisely the problem, the defect with the human being itself. This is what the apologist routinely misses. The half truthful appeal to nature (health benefits of prayer, benefits of belonging in a community no matter what its principles, etc) are lazily used as secondary excuses to justify religion when the point is to overcome the need for religion at all so that human beings, or their descendants, can be in harmony with reality. The will to religion is a cope, and the point is to overcome that cope and to become stronger than it so that we can do without it. I wouldn't like to locate the responsibilty in "a civiliz(s)ed society", but there does exist some such responsibility not to encourage private religious feeling, but to eliminate it altogether, so that no individual human being experiences private religious feeling.

2) The point is to prevent certain thoughtful people from falling into error by subscribing to a particular religion/human community. They should be made incapable of being seduced. Incapable of going along to get along. That is the world that we ought to live in, according to me.

3) It's easy to point to very intelligent people (Newton, the inventor of the LASER (look him up) ) in defense of theism. These smart sorts are the easy examples in defense of theism. But once again, and according to me, they fall victim to the same fundamental human defect, simply because they are HUMAN. I repeat that the will to belief is a defect in the human condition in itself, and that it is a mistake to excuse or explain this belief by appealing to the set's best members.

cont.

>>22101627
Internet is full of discussion for each canto and you may provide yourself quality information about each Canto, like the link in >>22100943

>>22101807
Yeah I've read Inferno twice, and Purgatorio is waiting on a shelf

>>22102569
For the best experience of Divine Comedy, one should read La Vita Nuova as well (and Virgil's Aeneid)

>>22102619
>>22102634
>>22102638
I always thought simply in terms of the story starting on bad terms and ending in good terms as we go through hell, rise through purgatorio and end up in paradise. And, if you one wants to be really picky about it, one might say it is not possible to write a Tragedy in a Christian setting (because Jesus saves and all sins can be forgiven.)

>>22102743
I'll put one up

Finishing the above:

4) You yourself know that religions in general function as human cultures, and do and must operate as external human cultural phenomena (implying lots of plebs who just conform to the culture in a vague way). This is a commonplace. It's fine to distinguish between the external cultural show and the internal change/acceptance/private feelings (the real point of religion), but in a sense it's pointless to complain about human culture when human culture and communication is necessary to communicate religion at all. If you want to inculcate a (private, internal) belief in our world in a subject, then you have to go through the external world. You have to demean yourself in the disgusting process of engaging with the world and trying to get followers.

Thread for Canto III
>>22103027

>Imagine not knowing that heaven exist

I understand, it is ez to remain a goy. Ignorance is bliss for the sensual

>“And when I am before my Lord
>often will I offer praise of you to Him.”
how does this work?

>>22103037
It means she will return to Paradiso and will talk favourably about Virgil (who is in Hell). Dante gives here and in other places of the Inferno hints that he'd really like to have someone as wise as Virgil in Heaven rather than Hell.

Shameless bump for Dante, the greatest Medieval poet

Why did Dante despair in canto 2?

>>22103008
>It is true that human beings unfortunately seem to be hard-wired for religion, and that is precisely the problem, the defect with the human being itself.
Hard disagree. This is the very meaning of what it means to be human or sentience. I don't mean this pejoratively, but your brand of atheism is quite literally death worship. The only thing that separates (and always will) man and AI is religious feeling. As for the "will to religion" that phrase means nothing to me beyond the will to see the whole picture of things (note: that the word 'holy' comes from 'whole') kind of like you're doing right now. To collectively eliminate this and modulate a consensus reality (I'd imagine with some veneer of scientism in this case, to, ironically, satisfy the religious impulse) is the very essence of communism. I won't explain why or go on further than that, as the rest of your post (of which I agree with in some parts) is holistically predicated upon faulty metaphysics and a poor (common) understanding of religion. I will ask you one thing, however, although I don't expect an unpredictable answer, sadly: considering you've excised the Divine as a concept entirely from your modus operandi, what exactly do you define as living in "harmony with reality" and "dying in Truth"? Why would these things matter at all?
Anyway, I'd be rejoicing if I were you, because as Rudolf Steiner said, and I don't know if he was being symbolic or not—I happen to agree with him—in the 21st century, they will be able to innoculate religious feeling out of people with a vaccine-like mechanism. In fact, I would argue that's the culmination of the world since the Reformation.

>>22104405
>The only thing that separates (and always will) man and AI is religious feeling
I only mean it always will insofar as man remains man. Of course, cyborg transhumanism is practically the wet dream of capital T truthfags doing their best to immanentise the abyss.

What do you guys believe Rachel stands for? Beatrice for beauty, Lucy for light.

>>22104405

Rejection of the idea of god is not faulty metaphysics, quite the opposite. At any rate I'm happy that you took the trouble to reply sincerely with your honest hatred and disgust at my worldview. The "death worship" thing is just pure emotional contempt of the possibility of atheism, there's plenty of death worship which occurs most notably in Islam, but to some extent in Christianity as well (contempt for this world/hope for salvation in the next which masquerades/copes as "celebration of life").

I don't even necessarily agree that the will towards the divine is the constitutive feature of humanity itself, although this is the point where you can probably and unfortunately make your strongest argument (because the urge is so widespread). And as I've said, that's exactly what I would get rid of in a single stroke if I had the power to do it.

What you're trying to say towards the end of your first graph is that the true/the good is co-terminous with some god, and it's pretty clear at this point that I also reject this claim. The point of why it is good to refuse a deathbed confession is because it is good to reject a bullshit game, especially when they try to get you somehow when you are at your weakest. This is the same cynicism with which christians operate homeless shelters. It's a form of preying on the weak in order to reproduce the culture.

What I actually and genuinely want is to live in a world where not a single human being experiences private religious feeling. That is the world that I want to live in. Because that would be a world in which human beings are better disposed to accurately apprehend reality, the reality of the absence of any god.

>>22105561
>>22105561
First of all, I'd like to say you should read The Varieties of Religious Experience by William James which is possibly the finest work of any American religious scholar. Secondly, I'd like to specify that my hatred and disgust for your worldview is not an emotional reaction (emotions/moral panic are worthless in this context) but an in-built part of the moral realism I'm espousing.
>The "death worship" thing is just pure emotional contempt of the possibility of atheism
It isn't, but it sounds like it is. Annihilationism is something that very much can be the case. What I'm saying is that anything outside of the religious impulse is precisely a will toward death. What Freud called thanatos has been empirically demonstrated as a physiological function (Parthanatos, look it up) that can be determined by human motivation, although this isn't the reasoning behind my point but rather just a posteriori evidence. I also think a "spiritual atheism" is possible, which while incomplete, is closer to the divine than most religious people. I see Emil Cioran as an example of this type of atheist.
>there's plenty of death worship which occurs most notably in Islam, but to some extent in Christianity as well
This is a category error. I was never defending any individual religions but religion itself. I agree with you that many religions are also death worship. Death worship extends to humans on every level of collectivity.
>I don't even necessarily agree that the will towards the divine is the constitutive feature of humanity itself
I would argue that even "humanity" is not enough in the context it is being used here. Rather, all higher life including pre-modern humans and proto-hominids. I believe, from an anthropological scientific atheistic framework, we owe our very sentience to primordial religion in the form of animism/shamanism/etc. Now this you might see as an opportunity to point out the primitiveness of religion and the need to eschew it but I would point out another fallacy you're making there when you make this leap. Something can be both, very old, and still very much 'useful' (although I don't believe the utilitarian conception of religion is complete, once again). All this tells us is that perhaps our religions need an "upgrade" of sorts, but such a claim would bring us into the realm of the theological/metaphysical, where I can personally make a case against it within that field.
(Cont.)

>>22105561
>What you're trying to say towards the end of your first graph is that the true/the good is co-terminous with some god
What I'm trying to say is you cannot "reject" this claim meaningfully anymore than you can positively imply it. It is the furthest extent the left-brain can reach. It is where public language ends. What we can say is that people who experience intense private religious feeling, in a genuine non-pharisaic sense, are ideal individuals in any non-communitarian sense, in a very measurable way. The only people who would disagree with this implication are dialectical materialists, and many people fall into this category without even being aware of it. I won't fully justify this statement, it is late and I want to sleep, but to me, those are people who see the ideal society as the flesh nexus. This was the implied meaning of my "immanentising the abyss" adage.
>What I actually and genuinely want is to live in a world where not a single human being experiences private religious feeling
You only want this because you don't see that such a world would quite literally be hell. Rather, I believe the Christian hell is very much an allegory for this notion. If you were to spell out in detail what such a utopia where everybody perceives reality "rationally" would be like, you will quickly see that your very idea of what the human is, is intellectually incomplete—and likely is incomplete in a way that is only allowed through being removed from the natural world by techne. My view is that such a world would instantly collapse in a fury of despair and the earth would wait until another sentience species pops around (whether via evolution, divine or otherwise, or whatever other divine mechanism.) Perhaps this is the Great Filter...
>Because that would be a world in which human beings are better disposed to accurately apprehend reality, the reality of the absence of any god.
Circular reasoning that takes the absence of God as given. It also presumes atheists "apprehend reality" when it is very much demonstrable that they are still prey to 100% of all delusions the religious can fall under, only contained within separate language games. (Which is proof that atheists are just another variant of dysfunctional theist; this is an extremely uncomfortable thought for the average atheist so I don't expect you to understand frankly.)
Anyway, I don't believe you'll be convinced and I haven't done a half-decent job justifying myself, (and bold are the claims I have made,) but I would very well have to write a book in order to. I would recommend you read the book I mentioned and continue exploring this; don't be a stereotypical dogmatic atheist, these questions are always important no matter who or where you are.

>>22105561
A very pragmatic TL;DR: Even if religion is primitive and not an accurate model of reality, (which I absolutely do not believe,) the mass of humanity has NOT outgrown it, and I believe this is demonstrable (although social science is always fallible). This is not a blackpill for me but it very well may be for you. But your reaction to that claim is, paradoxically enough, a private religious matter of yours (it reflects on your metaphysics, namely, your very definition of life.)

>>22106361
>>22106366
>>22106410

I thank you again for your thoughtful and civil replies, which I've enjoyed considering. This is actually very rare in this forum, we've both done some effortposting. I am aware of James' work although I haven't read it. All the same, I don't believe in any, don't want to, and would like to prevent anyone else from doing so, as I've said.

Probably the most wrongheaded thing in your replies here is the idea towards the middle that the absence of god is hell. Again, it's exactly the other way round, and our task is to make a creature capable of being at peace with this (as I've said multiple times, it's sad that humans can't make peace with it). You take an is (humans are predisposed to religion) for an ought (human predisposition is purely good).

>>22106483
>our task is to make a creature capable of being at peace with this (as I've said multiple times, it's sad that humans can't make peace with it)
So you are an extinctionist then? Not sure why you denied it earlier. What exactly would the purpose of creating this 'creature' be? This is beginning to sound like a religious fixation...
>You take an is (humans are predisposed to religion) for an ought (human predisposition is purely good).
Human predisposition is the only good insofar as the concept of "good" can be extended by humans. In a non-anthropormorphic sense, reason is probably local to observer from what we know, you aren't ready for this but your kids are gonna love it. You are clearly placing some sort of basic (simple) value (i.e. telos, this inherently invokes the divine) on this externalisation that you propose.
I can logically define what the Good is. You cannot, without logical fallacy. If you can, then do it. This is beginning to sound like transhumanist tripe, which is typically ultimately predicated on certain unshakeable metaphysical presumptions of self/Other that the bearer holds for whatever reason.

>>22106538

And, about the only thing I can agree with in your above remarks is "Death worship extends to humans on every level of collectivity", which legitimately explains communism as another particular false cult. But I find your insistence on "abstract" religion itself to be "pathological" in a sense, even taking into account our natural and unfortunate predilection for it.

To be free of all communisms, all christianities, all islams. To be absolutely free, and remain alive...

>>22106581
>To be free of all communisms, all christianities, all islams. To be absolutely free, and remain alive...
Well, I believe humans are capable of this at any rate on an individual level. But that's fine, not everybody needs to get there. This is what noesis is in Plato. Anything we create through techne is about as far from this as possible.

>still no serious response
Concession accepted.

>>22099240
Would you suggest me read it in in French or English ?

>>22104405
The only thing that separates (and always will) man and AI is religious feeling.
Not really.. Consciousness and feeling of emotions is something that AI doesn't have. AI can not experience beauty and have original feelings.

>>22107533
Emotion can either be bodily instinct or something numinous. Most rarely if ever experience the latter. An AI can be programmed to have emotional reactions, the only thing that makes you feel it’s any less real is your projection or lack thereof of your own subjectivity onto it.