/lit/ - Literature

Because that would deprive certain people of prestige.

Communism was a failure.

>>4698387
>Robespierre and Cromwell
>democracy

Inside of us all there is light and dark, and for us to create heaven we would have to suppress and then eliminate the darkness, which is currently impossible and likely inadvisable as well. We are who we are, and the idea of Heaven is incompatible with our species as it currently exists.

My mind suddenly leapt to Evangelion shit. You know, applying engineering to metaphysics, logic to the mystical, and all that stuff.

God, I wish it were real. I wish you could build, construct, and organize the immaterial.

True equality is unachievable

>>4698457

I wouldn't say that Heaven necessarily has to be a place of true equality to be considered Heaven. After all, true equality would be rather boring, would it not?

>>4698457

this isn't useful to say

it's like pointing out that "nothing" exists only conceptually...

there is sort of a practical "equality" that exists that we conceive of by default

>>4698472
>practical "equality"
Slogans and feel-good nonsense meant to placate the mediocre mass

>>4698457
Absolute equality is achievable.

>>4698504
>unachievable
fucked that up

>>4698504
In a mass grave, where all are inert matter

>>4698510
But that's like saying a life without death isn't possible, so fuck medicine.

>>4698356
Check out the Georgia Guidestones.. Essentially Illuminati Conspiracy theory stuff about creating Heaven on earth for the elite few after using the masses up and then commiting socio-economic genocide on all but the "best of us.

Sorry Anon, you're fucked

>>4698516
You seem to be under the illusion that life and equality are inherently good.

>>4698533
You seem to be under the illusion that seeing life as good is an illusion. My opinion on equality being inherently good is still being formed, but I find you're cynicism detestable

>>4698539

different anon here:

i agree that "life is good" does not qualify as an illusion.

isn't it accurate to call that a lens, though?

>>4698543

which makes anon's criticism valid, still?

>>4698356
We should. Pass it on OP.

>>4698416
Hokum. I do doubt we'll ever achieve "heaven" on Earth, a paradise, but we should stop trying.

>>4698457
When we speak of "equality" we know damn well every one of us is different and either lacking or superior in numerous categories, what we mean by it is "equality under the law". Fairness. Kindness. Fraternity. Brotherhood. Peace IS achievable.

heaven already exists on earth

>>4698356
Heaven requires non-material existence and eudaemonia or happiness-as-state-of-being, the elimination of sin from man, etc. If you believe in these things, or the Christian Heaven, then you realize why Heaven can't be a physical place on Earth and you'll get it anyway after death.

If you don't mean Heaven in the actual sense of Heaven, then you're just asking "why shouldn't we just make the world a really nice place to live m8"

As an aside, you talk like a fag, cut it out. It makes you sound like you have no idea what you're actually saying it and using a deliberately oblique way of talking to make yourself sound smarter, it's a pain in the ass.
>Should it not?
>would it not?

>>4698560

>you'll get [happiness] anyway after birth

you what, mate?

>>4698539
Life in itself is not inherently valuable (ie good), it is only subjectively so.
>>4698550
>Peace IS achievable.
Only through explicit superiority (hierarchy) and domination.
>Fairness. Kindness. Fraternity. Brotherhood.
Justice. Order. Blood. Soil.

>>4698566
>after birth
What?

Besides that, Heaven is more than "just happy" in the temporary "I just ate a really nice cake" way you might be intending.

>>4698576

i like your nouns better but does "order" account for love and thought and art and drugs?

>>4698580

yeah, i meant to say "after death" of course. human brains etc

how can i experience that feeling if i don't exist? i'm not very well versed in theology so most of the time i have no idea when these discussions are and aren't literal btw

>>4698585
>love and thought and art
Love, thought, and art are intrinsically and/or naturally "orderly" or are at their best when they are.

>>4698600
>"orderly"
here comes a game of semantics that go nowhere, I'm out.

>>4698600

>>love and thought and art

i see what you did there

>>4698596
>how can i experience that feeling if i don't exist?
You don't "stop existing" if you're in Heaven. That is, if Heaven exists. Regardless of whether it actually exists, as a state of being of a soul's unity with God after physical death, it is almost entirely by definition incompatible with any earthly incarnation of it because of the things that are necessary for it.

It's okay to not know about this stuff though, don't worry too much.

>>4698615

so you're describing another happiness that is unearthly?

i'm unfamiliar with it

>>4698560
>eudaemonia or happiness-as-state-of-being

Meaningless tripe. The Greek notion of happiness cannot be separated from the actual process of living. Christian theological fantasies are teretismata and nothing more.

>>4698533
Life per se is inherently good for most of those who have it. Equality mitigates the suffering which comes with life.

>>4698621
>i'm unfamiliar with it

So is everyone, which is why it is mythological at best.

>>4698550
>but we shouldN'T stop trying.
*bonk*

>>4698576
>Only through explicit superiority (hierarchy) and domination.
Oh that's worked out real good so far. 9_9

>>4698621
More specifically, I'm describing a happiness that is not temporary or tied to a specific act. It's influenced by eudaemonia or the Aristotelian idea of happiness, and closer to a "state of being". You should read Aristotle's Nichomachean ethics for more.

>>4698623
See above, it's influenced by it because the happiness of Heaven is closer to a state of being or condition than the happiness usually spoken of in these threads. You don't have to like it, but you do have to accept that this is the framework involved when you talk about Heaven.

People look at this on all the wrong timescales.

We've barely instituted freedom for men and women across a majority of the planet.

That's a project on a long-ass timescale. Who said you'd get to experience it? Maybe your great^30 grandkids, but not you.

It isn't hard to come up with a list of shit we've made madly better since the neolithic though.

>>4698630
Why do you place judgement on that the subjective experience of "suffering" as if it were the intrinsic measure of "evil"?

>>4698639
>Oh that's worked out real good so far. 9_9
It is the only means for social congregation and organization, whether explicitly or implicitly. The polemics of resentment and jealousy were responsible for the disruption you uphold as "social progress".

>>4698630
>Life per se
>inherently
>for most
What? That is too ambiguous to take seriously, it's like you don't even want to support your own statements. How do you combine "life per se" with an inherent idea? How do you have something that is inherent, but later contradict that by claiming it doesn't apply to all? For a rough example, liquids are inherently wet, therefore all liquids are wet because wetness is a necessary property (hence "inherent") of liquids. Get your shit together.

Also, "suffering" is not inherently (this is a good example of proper usage of the word) bad or evil.

>>4698640

I mean to say that the concept of Eudaimonia in the mouth of ordinary Greeks and especially Aristotle means something akin to living nobly or beautifully through excellent action. It's an inherently worldly concept tied with societal expectations and natural or biologically inclined necessities for food, shelter, community, companionship, etc.

You reference the NE, but elsewhere Aristotle calls Plato's Forms teretismata (meaningless hummed syllables) because they have no reference in experience. They have nothing to do with the way we understand the world and so it's simply nonsense.

>>4698689
>Why do you place judgement on that the subjective experience of "suffering" as if it were the intrinsic measure of "evil"?
Reason is the tool of happiness, happiness needn't justify itself to reason.

>>4698710
None of those terms are ambiguous. To stay alive is something desirable for almost everyone, the suicidal and the extremely apathetic excepted.

>>4698713
I used eudaemonia as an example of a similar concept and it's obvious from the context, stop being such a pedant, it's hindering discussion. If you didn't know it was an example before, you do now.

>>4698724
A thing cannot be "inherently" good and then be "not good" in some cases, because then it is not "inherently" good. Something that is inherent is inseparable from what it applies to. What you said was contradictory and means nothing, please stop misusing words.

>>4698640

guy you were replying to here,

appreciate the recommendation and i plan to read it and make a note to think about this. thanks!

>>4698726

I was just tipping my fedora to prevent anyone from falling prey to your nonsense.

>>4698737
No problemo, Aristotle had a big influence on Christian theology through Aquinas, and he's a pretty good philosopher in general.

Who are you butterfly people?

>>4698724
>Happiness needn't justify itself to reason
Explain

>>4698550
>what we mean by it is "equality under the law"
That's not what a lot of people mean, at least not in the left. Leftism is more concerned with practical equality than equality under the law. It is perfectly fine with using the law to benefit or punish certain groups depending on their place in the practical balance of power.

>>4698736
Yes. "Life" as a collective something is a technically inaccurate term, since we're really talking about billions of individual lives each with its own qualities.

>>4698751
Reason's only purpose is to serve happiness. Reason is not an entity or worker being exploited by the bourgeoisie that must question their value; it is a mere tool to improve our life with, you don't use the tools to improve and repair, to justify the end of improving and repairing.

>>4698650
Even on the smaller timescale of political theory, the idea of freedom for everyone is pretty new.

>>4698765
>Reason's only purpose is to serve happiness
What kind of purpose are we talking about here

>>4698737

FYI

NE can't be read without comprehending Aristotle's technical vocabulary developed in the Physics and Metaphysics. You must absolutely also make note of his method which runs in contrast to most philosophers in that he seeks to preserve the wise opinions (doxa) rather than prove something external to them. Read carefully or you'll make the same mistakes as Aquinas!

>>4698749
I'd like to remain me, thank you.

>>4698752
You don't get it. And yes, a few "leftists" don't get it either. Fine, I'm not your teacher. I'll assume you're old enough to figure it out on your own, like I had to.

>>4698780

ah, man. I might not even be equipped for reading that technical right now. maybe there's a supplementary text you could recommend, for clarity?

>>4698724
>Reason is the tool of happiness, happiness needn't justify itself to reason.
Reason is the tool of the will, not of your base desires and fleeting joys.
>To stay alive is something desirable for almost everyone, the suicidal and the extremely apathetic excepted.
Yes, to stay alive is in most cases "good" from each individual perspective, but each man values his own life above the others and if his is threatened most would hold no qualms about taking it from another. Thus "life" is not valuable in and of itself, only the subject's person.

>>4698786
>Reason is the tool of the will, not of your base desires and fleeting joys.
What if that is your will? What piffle.

>>4698755
Then don't say life in itself has an "inherent" quality and then claim that it doesn't apply to life in itself. Why would you say "in itself" and then turn around and say "not in itself, just for some of the individuals"? That's not "in itself" or on its own at all.
>Life in itself is inherently good
>well, not in itself, just as it is for some individuals
>well, not inherently either
You're not even making a coherent argument, please leave before you dig yourself a deeper hole.

>>4698782
>I'll assume you're old enough to figure it out on your own
I'll assume you have no idea what you're talking about
>you just don't get it!

>tfw no Outer Heaven

>>4698786
>Reason is the tool of the will, not of your base desires and fleeting joys.
Happiness is a lot more than base desires and fleeting joys

>>4698789
Each life is different, but most lives are of inherent value to their holders.

Heaven does exist

>>4698788
Not all willful action and the reason employed is directed toward "happiness", butterfly.

>>4698785
Despite what he said, Aquinas' commentaries on Aristotle are considered some of the most authoritative in the field. There's MacIntyre and Heidegger too, but they present their own prerequisites. You're probably better off reading Aristotle first or not worrying too much about it on a first reading of NE.

>>4698796
Then that's not "life in itself", that's "some lives". Please read a dictionary at some point in your life or at least google words before you use them to make contradictory statements.

>>4698809
Not "some lives", the great majority of lives.

>>4698815
Life "in itself" does not mean "majority" it means "in itself". Inherently does not mean "majority" it means "all", because what is inherent to a thing is a necessary and inseparable property of the thing. Why are you even defending this? You can just accept it, alter your statement, and move on. This is the stupidest thing to try to defend.

>>4698785

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNIPAwZVqb4
www.iep.utm.edu/aris-mot/
http://www.iep.utm.edu/aris-met/
http://www.iep.utm.edu/aris-eth/

It's not insurmountable, one simply has to take care not to impose later thinking onto his work. He has more in common with Wittgenstein or Heidegger than Plato. He was in fact the inspiration for Heidegger's Being and Time.

>all these anti-nihilist sentiments
you fucking disgust me

>>4698825
>water is valuable
This is the stupidest thing to try to attack. Value is completely subjective, that doesn't mean that intrinsic value is therefore a misnomer.

>>4698857
I'm not a nihilist, I just don't believe happiness/pleasure/life and suffering/death to be the foundational pillars of morality.

>>4698872
hence my disgust
>>4698869
but not as bad as this useless sack

>>4698872
They're the foundational pillars everything humanity has achieved.

>>4698869
That is neither a defense nor a response to what I actually said. At least make applicable analogies.

>responding to tripfags
I don't know what I expected besides this kind of shit, oh well.

>>4698880
Go to bed, JS Mill

>>4698877
That is a defense. Everything for us, including what is supposedly inherent, stems from our perception. If you can say, "Well others might see it this way," then nothing would be inherent because there are countless conflicting perceptions.

>>4698890
>then nothing would be inherent because there are countless conflicting perceptions.
And you've finally reached the point most of us reached at age 13

>>4698883
Not entirely. I think his attempts at trying to systematize happiness were a bit obnoxious, but I can't deny he had more than a little influence on me

>>4698893
Please do no feed him any further, the thread is already off-topic enough as it is. He's not going anywhere with this.

>>4698893
Yes, because you're making put my hands on my knees and squat in order to talk to you.

>>4698907
So you're sucking his dick.

>>4698912
Not unless he's a tall fellow

>>4698880
>humanity has achieved.
And what is that?
Being able to grow fat, lazy and ignorant with minimal consequences?
Competing with insipid and narcissistic morons across the world in popularity contests?
Being able to destroy the conditions necessary for all organic matter on the planet?

>>4698919
Being able to explore reality in a way no other life form on this planet could fathom. Being able to create and enjoy highly complex and nuanced forms of happiness. Being able to understand and love on the deepest of levels.

>>4698916
If he was tall, you wouldn't have to squat, faggot. Jesus Christ, learn geometry.

>>4698916
>>4698936
implying my penis does not observe hyperbolic geometry

>>4698919
>Being able to grow fat, lazy and ignorant with minimal consequences?

The condition of freedom is that some people will abuse it. Maybe even most of them, but it also frees up avenues of action that were never possible before.

>Competing with insipid and narcissistic morons across the world in popularity contests?

Ditto.

>Being able to destroy the conditions necessary for all organic matter on the planet?

Hardly. Even if we wiped the surface clean, organic life from layers below would colonize and evolve again. Anyway, the possibility of destruction is always the shadow of creation.

If anything is going to make it possible for the universe to achieve the eschaton, it is self-aware entities working towards that end. Progress over the past 12,000 years has been encouraging.

>>4698936
I'm 5' 7", and while that's a might short, he'd still have to be towering for that to work.

>>4698650
nor is it hard to come up with a list of shit we've made madly worse

>>4698949
See
>>4698936

>>4698930
>being able to explore reality in a way no other life form on this planet could fathom
as if that is an achievement

your posts are always awful get the fuck outta here

>>4698930
>Being able to create and enjoy highly complex and nuanced forms of happiness.
Extrapolate.
>Being able to understand and love on the deepest of levels.
I'd like examples for this as well, reasons why this is supposedly an "achievement" and related to how a pain/pleasure based morality has achieved this

>>4698949
Please desist in this degenerate hypothetical conversation on the mechanics of fellatio

>>4698967
>Extrapolate
nigger that doesnt make sense

>>4698965
>as if that is an achievement
As if we cared what about your standards for what constitutes an achievement

>>4698969
Neither does the joy my dog seems to experience while chasing after a ball, but he's happier than me.

>>4698967
>Extrapolate.
Um, what? Do you mean "elaborate"?

>I'd like examples for this as well, reasons why this is supposedly an "achievement" and related to how a pain/pleasure based morality has achieved this
Pleasure has more short term connotations than happiness does.

It's an achievement because its selfless quality and overall feeling is incomparable to other forms of happiness.

>>4698987
He has a much better grasp of basic happiness,,yes, but he is utterly incapable of the more complex and long-term sorts

>>4698356

The eschaton is already immanentized. All that remains is for the agents to act in accordance.

Understanding and self-awareness, this will allow everything to fall into place.

It has been willed by all, and the explosions will continue until it has come to pass, one way or another.

To fight or alter the current is to fight oneself. One must seek only to become, and in doing so, strengthen the path.

If I got something out from this thread is that the only woman I've seen on /lit/ completely fails at semantics and instead of admitting her own errors she tries to pathetically rationalize them. Please read a dictionary or don't use words you don't understand next time. If troll, 8/10.

>>4698356
It isn't possible. Even if we achieved perfection,it wouldn't make us happy.

Your suggestion is that you believe heaven to be imaginary, so you want to take this otherworldly utopia and create it in the real world?

Mans goal is to make babby and try to ignore the need to make babby
womans goal is to be happy, they can make heaven

Also, we are constantly improving our conditions and institutions. It is the whole being noetic and rational animals in an unrelenting cosmic order of change that makes us look bad.

That the world can no longer sustain us is just something we will have to deal with.