/lit/ - Literature

hey guys lets smell each others shit instead

>Your thoughts on religion

stopped reading here. delete your thread now.

>>2618372
How about you post a constructive response you troglodyte.

I think it started as simple musings as to the origins of, y'know, everything.
Then, as concepts of existentialism/nihilism emerged, it was comforting.
Then, add greed into the equation, and you get religious leaders adding aspects for the sole purpose of adding new followers/keeping current ones.
After that becomes prevalent in a society, fast forward a few thousand years, and... Bingo.

>>2618375
No, actually, if you read the rest of the post it's far from your usually bat-shittery.

>>2618378
Spot on.

>>2618379
i read it. there's nothing new to your thoughts. this exact sentiment is posted on the internet 500 times a day.

(This has potential to become a fascinating discussion, yet I'm too lazy to contribute...
Shit...)

>>2618375
Also I might want to add that your grammar is appauling. One might be inclined to not read your two silly, unproductive sentences.

Would you prefer I was preaching to you all, saying, "God is great!"?

>>2618378
>it started
>then
>then
>After that

No. it was always all of those things simultaneously to different people in different situations and still is today.

>I think it is truely sad that I'm a young person (18)and there are people far older so deluded that they have to commit themselves to a religion that most likely isn't even of their own ancestry or patronage

Oh fuck off.

OP, how do YOU define religion anyway?

>>2618390
let's be fair here, there's something a little more intellectually rigorous before he descends into usual pompous teenage atheist condescension. not at all original, sure, and at least 200 years old (cf Hegel/Feuerbach/Nietzsche), but there's some kind of intellectual content here.

>>2618376
>troglodyte
I don't have enough exasperated sighs to overcome this comment

>>2618396
Aren't you adorable? What's the matter son, something anger you? Why do you feel the need to not elaborate any further?

>>2618395
Sorry, I don't honestly believe it was a simple step-by-step process, I was just putting different likely elements together with a shitty transition.
I shouldn't post on literature boards when sleep deprived...

>>2618393
it's two sentences and there's nothing wrong with them.

so you're 18 and you have it all figured out. let's forget everyone way older and more experienced than you who have been asking themselves the same and more difficult questions for centuries

>>2618399
I appreciate the comment, sir. How I loath being a teenager, the years by which all negative connotations are associated.

So, religions are all false. Well, duh! Now what? Superstition is harmful, yes. Is it possible to change people's views? Yes, but difficult. OK, go do it then.

>>2618397
OP ANSWER THE QUESTION BOY

What is your personal definition of religion on which you are basing your assumptions?

I think all religions are true

>>2618393
>...appauling.
...appalling.
>>2618410
>...the years by which...
...the years with which...
Sorry, not trying to be rude, but because this is a literature board and I feel the need to be a dick to tripfags...

>>2618362
I judge religion not by truth but by health. Truth is a rather tiresome way of judging things when scepticism rules supreme. There only remain pragmatic truths, as in: Things that work and things that don't work.

So a religion that tells you to kill your instincts and sit around like a pale hungry faggot who can't hurt the ants because then you're a baddy is wrong because it leads to decay.

A religion that spurs you on towards great self-improvement and fucking bitches and killing your enemies and live a hearty and strong life is is good because it leads to vitality.

From this point of view, I may add that Islam is superior to modern Western humanism and liberalism. People in the West are so obsessed with doing no harm and respecting and tolerating that they deserve to perish.

To quote a well known dicator:

"Those who want to live, let them fight, and those who do not want to fight in this world of eternal struggle do not deserve to live."

>>2618399
wat

this is what he said before the part you said it got shitty:

>Religion, to me at least, is just the human imagination projected into a somewhat structured form. It's humanity's way of compiling all of its musings of omnipotence, godhood and origination into one big ball of mythology with many rules and commands tacked onto its sides.


there's nothing intellectual or rigorous there. religion isn't just 'compiling' these ideas. it's an attempt to come to terms with the inexplicable world and sometimes it goes down the road of omnipotence.

kids should at the very least watch the power of myth before trying to contend that they have it all figured out

>>2618434
The Power of Myth. Can we talk about that?
Campbell is essentially a pantheist, isn't he?

>>2618412
Have I figured out the world? No. Will I ever figure out the world and its inhabitants? No.

Do me a favour and depart with your claims and assumptions. I know I'm a teenager and I know I might come off as pompous or arrogant, but I am not wise by any means compared to men that have dedicated their lives to subjects like these. I know that full well, so stop lecturing me.

It's a common assumption, isn't it, to assume that because I'm a teenager I think I am a god. No.

Fuck that. In that case I'm much wiser. There are people my age that can barley count and they think this.

>>2618416
Just what I explained in my original post. I'm not religious. I just value some of the views of monotheistic and polytheistic religion. I respect my ancestors more than any man-made god, because they are the ones who made me, not an imaginary figured created solely for the purpose of reassurance.

>>2618438
In all bluntness, isn't pantheism just atheism but with reverence for... Well, the universe?

>>2618426
Yes I realized these errors and was rather embarrassed. I would say that they were written with haste, but that’s a shitty excuse, eh?

>>2618434
>there's nothing intellectual or rigorous there. religion isn't just 'compiling' these ideas. it's an attempt to come to terms with the inexplicable world and sometimes it goes down the road of omnipotence.

well, i mean, that's your account of it, sure, but the projection account of it is another one. it's an idea with weight to it. i mean, that's basically a one-line cocktail party version of feuerbach's concept of divinity - we project human forms and modes of being onto nature. it's a specific account of a mechanism by which man uses divinity to come to terms with the world. i guess.

um yeah, i guess i'm just trying to say that it's not like OP's post was all "dumb sheeple believe in god, only idiots do this." by the incredibly low standard of dumbass teenage atheists on the internet, he's at least got something going on there. still a pompous little shit though.

>>2618448
Indeed it is, but I frequently have to make the same excuse, so it's forgiven.

>>2618427
what's with all the racist republicans on /lit/ lately?

>>2618440
see, your view of religion is narrow

You're implying it needs an "imaginary figure"

there is more to many religions than that

OP, why did you even mention that you were a teenager in your opening post if you were aware there was a stigma attached?

>>2618427
fuck you Islam is the cause of extreme oppression of women and other horrible shit

>>2618455
I know this. There are religions being reconstructed as we speak, old polytheistic ways of the Germanic tribes. I realize that the pantheon would count as 'imaginary figures' in what I previously said, but there are values that make these ancient religions more about the mythology, like you've said.

>>2618450
I'd rather be a pompous little shit than a blind little shit, eh?

>>2618454
not republicans, neo-nazi stormfront motherfuckers

let's not slander the party of lincoln here - whatever depths it may have sunk to, it still is not really the home of these insane white nationalist motherfuckers. and let's certainly not slander small-r republicanism...

Explain Confucianism with those ideas.

>>2618438
I don't honestly no. I've never really heard him describe his own position. but bill moyers mentions he has a devotion for all mythology. that would imply that he takes god as a story, a powerful narrative and an essential one but i've never heard him say that he believed or followed one in particular. pantheism would be on in particular.

>>2618468
>I'd rather be a pompous little shit than a blind little shit, eh?

Alternate suggestion: retain wisdom and insight, discard pomp and arrogance.

>>2618476
That too.

>>2618450

em no, that line doesn't say anything. it's too vague it's like saying 'religion is a collection of ideas'. it's not insightful. it's just general.

>>2618362
>Your thoughts on religion, /lit/?

If religion keeps someone from mugging me, if it makes people try to treat others as they would want to be treated, then from a pragmatic point of view I have no problem with it.

I'd disagree with their metaphysics but so what?

>>2618476
>>2618476
BLASPHEMY.

>>2618470
How was my post either racist or nazist? I subscribe to some form of social darwinism perhaps, but I would never deem a race as superior on arbitrary reasons. I merely believe that those who thrive thrive, and those who don't do not.

There's no debate about superiority necessary because the winners will win. It's just that I see no injustice in this.

>>2618472
I'm waiting OP.

>>2618486
You could talk to me, the person who wrote the post, instead of bantering back and forth with someone about its value.

Feels a little strange, don't you know?

as far as religion, we know that religious belief it correlates strongly with overactive pattern recognition, which usually entails seeing agency where there isn't. religious experience can also be induced by pushing the right wires in the brain.

from a biological perspective, it's a natural evolutionary bias from the ancestral environment.

logically, bayesian reasoning is generally weighted against religious entities.

If you ever find Russell's teapot, let me know. I'll be the one saving 10% on sunday.

>>2618493
would you deem an arbitrary race superior if it was actually superior? would admitting that be racist?

>>2618496
Here's a little bit of realism for you, my good man:

Remember when I said I didn't know everything and I never will?

What you're asking me to do is beyond my ability. I don't even recognise or relate to the term 'Confucianism'.

I hope you appreciate the honesty. I don't care if it makes me sound like a pleb.

Now go home.

>>2618504
>I don't even recognise or relate to the term 'Confucianism'.
Next time you want to give your opinion on "religion" specify which one you are talking about then.

>>2618503
If a race operates as a collective and outmanoeuvres and annihilates or dominates another race that also operates as a collective, I would find the victors superior. I would merely be in agreement with nature.

But that is said assuming that races operate as a collective, which mostly isn't really the case. However, on a tribal level I wouldn't hesitate to proclaim it so.

>>2618504
>>doesn't recognize confucianism
>>talks about religion

Are you stupid, or are you just trying to make atheists look bad? I'll go with option 3, "kid bullshitting about subjects over his head."

>>2618504

So did you do any research on religion

>>2618516
I do wish you'd stop with the assumptions. A lot of people seem to be assuming that I study the subject. I certainly do not. The original post was just my random one-time musing on religion as a whole. I don't know about Confucianism because I don't study this aspect.

I now realise that posting what some would consider to be half-assed musings of the creation of religion was rather moronic.

See all this honesty I'm throwing at you? It's a hell of a lot better than some other 'kid' screaming obscenities, eh?

Also, using 'kid', unfortunatley, doesn't make your post or personality anymore fortified.

>>2618527
You just admitted to be bullshitting about subjects over your head though. You also admitted to being 18 years old. So, actually, there has never been a sentence more true in the history of language than that particular sentence by that gentleman.

>Be 18
>Think you know everything
>Make this thread

Stupid atheists posting everywhere are a cancer that need to be excised. Unfortunately, they've already metastasized and I think it may be too late to save 4chan...

>>2618372
Best answer to any discussion on religion!

>>2618533
In some ways, yes, but if they were 'over my head' would I be able to post about it in the manner that I did, much more recieve the comments by this man here?

>>2618450

So what's the postmoderist opinion of religion. English majors?

>>2618534
Please, for the love of humanity, see this:
>>2618440

Just because you can't see or detect something doesn't mean it is not there. You have to trust in things other than science. Furthermore, stifling some sort of spirituality with intellect and reason is like one part of the body injuring the other: it's a n injustice to humanity and what makes us special. Spirituality is part of the human experience and what it means to be human, and there will always be something we don't know. I'm not making your decision for you, man, but for me (a chemistry student by the way-I've as much reason as anyone to doubt, yet I'm a devout Christian) it doesn't seem natural that everything in the universe and beyond is purely science.

>>2618541
crucifixes look nice so it's okay to wear them as a fashion thing and/or ironically

>>2618544
And you can hide coke in them.

>>2618542
I'd just like to add to this post by saying that people like you really are irritating.

Have you ever said something, have it be ignored completley by someone and then said person claims that it's not fact when it really is?

That's our little situation here. I don't think I know everything.

Point made.

>>2618550
But you know enough about life, death and the universe to look down on the people who are older than you that are "so deluded that they have to commit themselves to a religion", and moreover that simply because the religion isn't "native" to them, that it somehow makes their belief in it any less legitimate?

See, the way you make a point is by saying something and then actually doing it, not contradicting yourself.

Bit if you want to discuss this seriously, then I have a counter-question. What makes you any better than the religious? Even free will is a religion; to pretend you're in any way better or more intelligent than others simply because you don't proscribe to the typical definition of the word "religion" only shows how closeminded and simple you really are.

I'm agnostic. But I'm somehow fascinated by the concept of god, and sometimes I'm even jealous of people who have found something spiritual in their lives, as it is simply a means to giving meaning to your existence.
I don't get why the question about the existence of god should even matter, at least in a public sphere. I fucking despise reddit-atheists who think they're on some justifiable crusade agaist religion. Believing in god is just an attempt at giving your existence meaning, which is hard enough in circumstances as fucked up as ours. I'm with Kant when he says that the existence of the trancent can never be known. But that obviously isn't an argument against believing, is it? I think it utterly disgusting observing "militant atheists" on their crusade against spirituality. Because their systematically trying to destroy the meaning of people's lives. And yet they claim to be humanists. Yeah.

That being said, Christian or Muslim right-wing shit is obviously something else, for political reasons. But having your god to yourself is neither a bad thing, nor something futile.

Honestly, believing isn't logic. But at least it gives life a meaning, which most of us agnostics or atheists can't easily enjoy.

>>2618561
I'm not any better than the religious. I'm just as deluded.

>>2618543
Yet you couldn't possibly derive what you can't know from Christianity.

>Just because you can't see or detect something doesn't mean it is not there.

So that's an argument for anything and everything to exist. Quite a ridiculous statement.

I never got why so many people on 4chan were religious. It doesn't make much sense considering the demographic. It feels like the /storm/fags actually won a battle, marginalizing the reddit atheists and making them seem like an undesirable group to attach themselves to, when in reality agnostic atheism is the only logical belief structure that a human could have.

this thread is full of downs people, and it's not even about literature; the only reason OP posted it here is because he heard that /lit/ was "the place to go" for "intellectual discussion."

well, fuck you, nigger. go to reddit's atheism board or something.

>>2618527
So OP, why the backlash? Listen and learn, I was like you, albeit with more tact. I've worked hard to unlearn most of it, but you're starting from the opposite side. At least you're sincere, you can sharpen a blunt instrument.
You're stating the obvious, but not from a position of strength. People who don't agree have already developed an immunity to those views, they have strengthened their own, added nuance, complexity, redundancy.
You're not showing familiarity with that, so you come off as ignorant, and more importantly, aren't addressing what they actually believe.

So you come off as kneejerking, or guessing the password, instead of knowing anything, even if you're objectively right.

>>2618562
I think what the militant atheists fail to do is separate "religion" from "certain organized religions that have oppressed people/started wars/ etc."

they justify their behavior as being good for the progression of society. very frustrating

>>2618566
Not chemist poster but:

Religion generally does not work on a logic principle. It isn't supposed to. Leap of faith (Kierkegaard, eh?) and all that...

Logic/rationalism is not inherently a good thing, in my opinion.

>>2618567
If you haven't figured it out by now, I despise assumptions big and small. I've been on /lit/ for a long time. I know that it's primarily a literature board, but there is the occasional philosophy thread. I figured that this shithole out of all others on 4chan would be best suited for my crap.

>>2618427
>yfw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXY23gsHXXo&feature=related

>>2618563
Look, to show you where I'm coming from, if you don't mind a subtle redirect, then how do you address the issue of free will?

Theism =/= religion. Atheism =/= Non-religion.

Religion is an activity; theism is a thought.

Religion is one of the fundamental activities of human being. Whatever your opinion on the truth value of currently existing religions, religion (ritual) and mythology (narrative) are what have always made us what we are. Apes construct spears; Ants build cities; only Man feels the Wind and hears the Word.

Myth and religion are intrinsic to our psychology and we can not be rid of them, nor should we want to be. We should, however, work toward better religion and against bad religion.

>>2618577
>I've been on /lit/ for a long time.
Who gives a shit?

>there is the occasional philosophy thread.
This is barely philosophy.

>I figured that this shithole...would be best suited for my crap.
People complain that this thread is posted 500 times a day because it actually is posted 500 times a day. This is stuff people think about when they're first questioning religion, dude. I'm not trying to tell you that your opinions are any more or less worthy than others, but don't respond condescendingly when people reject your tired discussion topics.

God is a creation of the mind -- similar to other creations like mathematics, language, science and philosophy. Nobody would argue that any of these things are useless. Similarly God is not useless.

There will always be an unreachable plane where we can only rely on faith since nothing can be fundamentally known. Always what we don't know (unreachable plane) supports what we do know (our world). it's important to keep this in mind by having respect for attempts to take us there (accept one if you wish) but not excessively prioritising or favouring any in particular.

my reverence isn't directed at any specific mythology but for man's capacity to create myths. it's a sort of meta reverence that ultimate holds the same function as particular faiths. It benefits from them where i deem appropriate to my desired virtues but i set a cap on it by not defining myself as anything hopefully preventing my ideological corruption. Most commonly I borrow from catholicism since that's the particular myth that is dominates my world but I learn from everywhere.

>>2618585
People like you are so curiously irritating.

1:'Who gives a shit?'.
You could've not written that. This would have a) saved your time, and b) not made yourself look so juvenile as this is, indeed, a trivial matter.

2:'This is barely philosphy'.
I know that. Actually, you know what, I'm not even going to go into that. It's common sense. Figure it out for yourself why I posted it here.

3:Justified, most of my responses were justified.

4:Here is where I will be a little pompous. You say that my original post are like a religious guy's first musings. Surely you know that there are a large amount of people in this world that are religious, yet don't go to church, for example? I'm sorry but, however it may sound, half of the people that I know that are Christian, for example, haven't even read the bible or know what Abrahamic means.

>>2618588
for narrative, sure. but for making accurate models of the world, some ways are more effective than others, and some ways are provably, mathematically superior to others.

>>2618576
>>2618576

I agree (partially).

IMO, religion - at least in the christian form, and some others - is a legitimate attempt at overcoming rationality. The core concepts of Christianity (love thy neighbour etc.) are essentially means to overcome the coldness of human intercations. 20th century (and it's theoreticla products, i.e. post-modernism, Frankfurt School) has schown us how dangerous it can be to just rely on rationality, at least rationality as we know it. True conclation between humans has yet to be realized and rationality hasn't yet managed to provide a real solution to this. So why not rely on seemingly irrational notions until then?

Also, who knows, if you take Feuerbach's assumptions for example - that God is something in which man's unconscious deficiencies or his inner longings are manifested - religion might actually be a way to access the actual essence of human potential and thus an anticipation of "utopia" in the broadest sense (yeah it sounds bold).

>>2618598

>>2618605
>Lays out logic and reasoning in clear and concise points
>Recieves trollface.jpeg

This proves my original point. You are a juvenile.

>>2618602

Sorry for bad language. Drunk Germanfag here.

>>2618599
only if math is a narrative more meaningful to you than any other. for some people, their harmony is not in fractal recursion and astronomical models, math isn't perfect.

>>2618599
I like the bit in Notes from Underground where the guy is like"2 x 2 = 4? Yeah cool who gives a shit 2 x 2 = 5 is just as nice"

math only does so much

Listen, child. You know nothing. You should not be permitted to speak unless in direct response of your betters. Stop talking. Think more. Realize that you are worthless clay yet to be molded.

>>2618607
no, but for empirically testable models, it's mathematically superior to models using narratives.

>>2618618
Adorable.

Okay, sage, I shall listen to you since you are the equivelant of Herodutus, Odin, Tacitus, Plato, Aristotle and every other wizened figure known to man.

>>2618616
i found 'letters from the underground' today. i didn't buy it because i heard cj hogarth's is a shitty translation. did i choose wisely? should i just have got it or is it worth waiting for another version?

We either have a world filled with self-delusioned people or a world filled with existential nihilists. Which do you think is evolutionary viable?

with tripfags, at least you learn which threads to hide.

>>2618620
empiricism is the criteria of math and science so yes math and science will always be regarded highly using their own criteria.

>>2618623

I am no sage. I am nonetheless your better. Those names you mention are clearly only names to you. You would be well served talking to them rather than talking to us.

Stop posting.

>>2618616
"2+2 = 4" produces fiber optics, genetic engineering and nerve gas. "2+2 = 5" won't get you a wooden bridge. Then you get cluster bombed and your oil stolen, and your narrative ceases to exist, unless the victors choose to permit it to.

>>2618630
false dichotomy, clearly

>>2618630
Glorious point.

Not even samefag.

>>2618624
I'd go with pevear/volohonsky since I hear their good

I read a revised constance garnet one which was fine

Can't speak much to hogarth, but the title is a strange translation. It's certainly more accurate to call them "notes" as opposed to "letters"

>>2618633

So what you're saying is math is responsible for the deaths of millions and millions of people.

How do you perpetuate this with a clean conscious?

inb4 heartless utilitarianism

>>2618643
*they're

so sorry

>>2618633
2+2=4 has its place in the ambitions of technology but for other questions (like why and how should we value technological ambitions) 2+2=5 may well be valid.

>>2618648

Yes.

>Your thoughts on religion, /lit/?

I'm an agnostic atheist, if that helps.

>>2618648
inconsistent statements are invalid by self-definition.

>>2618643
the title was actually 'letters from the underworld' which is even worse probably. there was one review on amazon that iirc said it contained spelling and grammatical errors so i like nooope.jpeg

>>2618639
By self-delusion I wasn't just saying religion. You either value things on faith alone, or accept that nothing has inherent value.

You either are an efficient breeding machine or are not. Nihilists and the like are broken machines, religious people are the finest tuning of anthropomorphising there is.

>>2618660
2+2-5 wasn't meant literally in that comment.

2+2=4 was a symbol for math and science

2+2=5 was a metaphor for any and all justifications not inferred from math or science

>>2618639

Agreed partly. You have to wonder though, since it has been shown how solely relying on (instrumental) rationality can lead to behavior which would have to be called nihilistic. (see: Horkheimer/Adorno about de Sade).

>>2618662
I would say you made a good decision then.

It's a swell little book, though, so you ought to find a copy of decent translation. The underground man was easy to relate to in a pitifully funny way. His interactions with other people reminded me a lot of some of the sorts of people you'd find on 4chan (the second half of the book is like one big pocket spaghetti story).

>>2618670
are you saying nihilists don't breed? because nihilists do breed.

nihilism says nothing has inherent value but it doesn't say we can't value anything. if anything it merely confers equivalence of valuing everything.

>>2618662
>>2618662

War, what is it good for?

>>2618672
it's been a while since I read notes from underground. of course some justifications can't into endless recursion, but their goals, potential fulfilment, and the means, can be rationally discussed, and rationality can be interpreted mathematically, the most efficient decision theory selected, and thus optimized into oblivion.

>>2618689
all i was saying is ethics and the reason to even do science and math in the first place and to who's end we implement technologies doesn't come from math or science. 2+2=5 was representative any of those ideas

>>2618686
it's good for pruning probability space of narratives you don't like.

>>2618684
One chooses to give his existence value, the other knows that the world was made for humans to exist. I'm just saying that from an evolutionary perspective a nihilistic society would not fare well against a devout Christian one.

>>2618713

How old are you?

ahah this is really the lowest level ive seen /lit/ on for quite a while. keep you shallow thoughts for yourself people.

>>2618713
> the world was made for humans to exist

the society who believes this is the one that is destroyed by climate change or asteroid collision because they think humans have divine right to be instead of acknowledging that it may well have been a happy accident that requires our input and protection.


the nihilist who chooses to give existence value and the christian who accepts the value of his life is ultimately the same thing. both have chosen to value existence.

>>2618713
when you arrange some pink mush just so...you get sounds coming out that call that a narrative.

empirically...that's bullshit.

>>2618727
I meant that in a Christian world view Humans are the masterpiece in God's creation, not a happy coincidence.

The world exist because God had to put humans somewhere.

>>2618737
the christian world view is a narrative to value existence. the existential nihilist still has a narrative even if it's unnamed and doesn't follow the same coherence demanded by religious figures. the two are still in the same position: valuing existence.

>>2618747
Okay, my bad.

>>2618737
>The world exist because God had to put humans somewhere.

so humans are frivolous bits and bobs stashed in a corner cupboard out of the way because they've 'got to go somewhere'

your word choice is terrible. never write again until you read more.

>>2618752
English is not my native language, I can't make the same nuances as easily as you.

Bump for interest. /lit/fags I think you can do better than turning this into a shit-fest for extremists. Let's have an actually interesting discussion here for once

>>2618747
narrative is a inferior, deliberately obscurantist word for a subset of a broader thing: goal systems. If you read about graph analysis, AI design, and decision theory, instead of Chesterton, Boudrillard, and the Frankfurt School, you would understand this.

Some people like to control and others like to be controlled. The mystical suffices for both their desires, often because these desires are one and the same: the one who seeks control sees him/herself as a part of what is controlling, and the one who seeks to be controlled sees him/herself as a part of the whole which controls.
It doesn't matter if the story is true if people believe it to be true. The mystical story is not restricted only to religions.
Outside of, or perhaps between, these two mentioned peoples, those who desire control and those who desire to be controlled. you will find those who do not believe the mystical as axiom. They are very rare and they do not do much because they have no desire to do much.

>>2618682
Would you say glorious hedonism is nihilistic?

>>2619013


Yeah I don't really know about that. I think hedonism, understood as the notion that human pleasure is the highest good, is not nihilistic. It's basically humanism in its purest form, isnt't it?

However, individualistic hedonism as you could practice it today would probably lead into some form of hedonism. I assume that the desires we feel in our current society are heavily obscured and could not lead to "true" happiness, as it would be possible under truly humane circumstances, anyway. Consequently leading your personal life according to some hedonistic agenda would probably lead to deeply egoistic behavior, which would not be in the interest of humanity at all, but rather interfere with our chances (as a "race) to achieve a state where true happiness would be possible, and thus also hedonistic behaviour would be possible without other people suffering from it. (Sorry for language, non-english + drunk).

I wouldn't say someone like Sade or his libertine characters are nihilists in the strictest sense of the word. They accept that life has no inherent meaning, but come to the conclusions that everyone and everything is guided by the will to pleasure ('sup Freud) and proclaim the pursuit of pleasure as the only goal a person can rationally pursue. They do tend to fill the void, as it were. They adopt a form of meaning. Their life has structure and goals. I'd say it could be a sufficient worldview for many a person.

Of course, people deem this sort of life to consist merely of 'lowly' urges, and therefore lacking in 'higher' meaning, this earning the label nihilistic.

Also, Sade or Sadeans would probably not strive for the greatest amount of pleasure for all. If anything, they are so realistic as to confess that there is a lot of pleasure to be found in another persons suffering. Or merely in the contrast that you have nice things that they don't. Utilitarian hedonism would rob life of it's spice.

>>2619085
>that awkward feel when libertinism sounds great before but bleak after orgasming.

>>2618362
>Your thoughts on religion, /lit/?

It's interesting that contemporary evangelical Christians in the U.S. today are willing to take a 100% literal-interpretationist stance toward the *entire* Bible, Old & New Testaments alike--but then find the distinguishing tenets of Mormon belief to be loony and absurd.

There's a sort-of cut-off point (sometime between 500 and 1000 C.E.), before which *anything* is fuckin' possible; after which, they become total sceptics.

That said, it's interesting that the mythology of one group of desert people, who'd been variously enslaved & subjugated--and in fact an offshoot variety of it that arose within a backwater roman province--became the dominant relgion of that empire and then later one of the largest in the world. is that due to semi-random historical chance? or the fact that proselytizing is woven into its central doctrines? is it because, in spite of all the atrocities committed in its name, the message it carries is fundamentally very positive & agreeable? OR IS IT BECAUSE IT'S ALL COMPLETELY TRUE???

>>2619428

A lot of it has to do with the fact that the Romans, i.e. Constantine, made Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire. Before that, Christianity was not really more than a small cult, albeit it was gaining momentum. It should be quite clear that becoming the official religion of the largest empire in the world would boost the development quite a bit.

Now, why exactly Constantine converted to Christianity I can't tell you. I know he supposedly did it, according to some historians, to restore unity and security in the empire, but why did he chose Christianity I don't know. Heard a lecture about this some time ago but I forgot most of it.

>>2619467
He saw a cross in the sky before battle and heard "fight under this name/symbol/whatevs" and you'll win and he did so he kinda felt like he owed jesus.

>>2619428

The phrase "Good news!" Really felt liberating back in the late Roman Empire. Moreso if it involved free passage into Heaven (eternity of bliss? holy shit!) instead of fucking Hades. That's how it spread. As for how it came to DOMINATE, well, Christians were really fucking belligerent. 1/3 of the Empire came to be Christian, and Constantine's family decided "We ain't Christian, but we'll be friends with them and learn to understand their beliefs". You can imagine where that led to after a few generations.

>>2619475

He actually saw a chi-rho, which were the Greek letters for CHR (Christ).

>>2619467
>>2619475
>>2619565
>>2619566
thank you.

for the most part, the present-day, mainstream interpretations of the Christian doctrines are broadly agreeable. for a liberal, you can feel as though jesus would probably support many of your policy positions. (i'm not saying that this interpretation is necessarily "correct," just that it does get interpreted that way.)

when you actually read the gospels, especially john, right away you notice that they're very polemical. a lot of it consists in a sort-of refinement, or just-plain complete replacement, of then-current jewish doctrine, with a Jesus-centered doctrine. many segments find jesus arguing with contemporary jewish patriarchs, telling them that they have to accept him as the true son of god & the only path to salvation, or go to hell. this is a central doctrine of christianity, but i think that a lot of present-day Christian progressives choose not to recognize it: in some way they assume that good people go to heaven regardless of whether they pray to jesus.