/lit/ - Literature

>>5949014
At what stage are you on the picture ?

>>5949014
Dumb and pre-adolescent as this thread is, I think it does involuntarily raise a question that is maybe worth discussing.
Why is it that, whenever, in the last twenty years or so, non-philosophically-trained people have taken it into their heads to dabble in philosophy, they seem always to have been dumped back into sixty-or-so-year-old time warp (and never, for example, into a pretty much equally arbitrary period like the ascendancy of positivism and mechanism a few decades before)?
I mean, after all, it's not just smirking little junior high school kids like this guy who seem genuinely to believe that writers like Camus, Sartre and Kierkegaard are objects of interest and concern for philosophically involved people these days. The whole conception of philosophy held by the middlebrow, quarter- to one-third-educated public is, oddly, precisely just these sixty to seventy years out of date. Respected, semi-'art house' film-makers like Abel Ferrara and David O. Russell also end up in this very same childish error when they take it upon themselves to include "philosophers" in their movies. Ferrara's "The Addiction", for example, has a New York philosophy student pondering obsessively on Sartre and Kierkegaard in the mid-90s - a time when, of course, any actual such student would have been reading Foucault and Derrida who - after the first of them had made mincemeat of the poor old codger in the mid-1960s - made barely any mention of Sartre and his apparatus of 'fredoom' and 'authenticity' in either of their bodies of work ever again. Camus, of course, was a joke to the existentialist coterie already ten or twenty years before the existentialist coterie became a joke to the rest of intellectual Paris. And yet as late as 2004, David O. Russell in his "I Heart Huckabees" has the genuine Frenchie, Isabelle Huppert, burbling a lot of rusty old 1940s/50s jargon about 'nihilism' and 'the absurd' under the guise of the latest philosophical 'hot poop' from Paris.
When are smirking little trolls like this guy and his ilk, I wonder, going to muster the minimal amount of scholarly energy required to knock together some would-be comical memes about philosophers who are not ALREADY long since funny-dopey figures gathering dust on the shelves of real philosophy students?
Is it because the Derridas, Badious and Agambens of this world (I won't include Zizek here because in his case the answer to my rhetorical question is already too obvious) are already themselves inherently too ridiculous for these little trolls to try out their very limited powers of ridicule on?

>>5949098
It is good to vent out.

>>5949014
Why don't you try some of the non-degenerate things on that picture? You've only tasted the shallow swamp of trash hedonism.

>>5949098
You are aware that philosophers needs decades, if not centuries to get famous in the public, right? I think you are an idiot to not know this. Not to mention that you need to gave a grasp on older philosophy to read current academic(thus not popular) philosophers.

>>5949014
I've reached a point where I'm totally cool with my mortality, the lack of meaning, and all of that. At first I was afraid of death, as I was then too concerned with fame, fortune, knowledge, and things that are as mortal as me. When I realized that those things don't have any meaning either, and that instead I should feel the joy of life, which is the most eternal thing I have, I have felt peace. I can look at my window and appreciate the world.

However, recently I've been almost tempted to go into religion. I've been reading about how it's one of the stages of man, how it's essential for man, all of that- and it seems pretty important. Christianity in specific seems beautiful. But I can't get on board with the idea of eternal life or any kind of afterlife. But when I begin to reject it, I almost feel as though I might be wrong and that I'm going to have eternal suffering. I feel like I'm being ripped in half

>>5949098
It's probably helped along by the start-with-the-greeks attitude introduced to mixed major students at (English-speaking?) uni during introductory philosophy classes. The natural extension of this is that philosophy is to be read in order (which is not exactly wrong), but those individuals who proceed to film or science or whatever don't have the chance to develop a large scale view of the topic. As a result, "middlebrow" people who believe they have a genuine interest in philosophy (often to contrast with their peers) cannot possibly involve themselves enough even to tackle someone like Zizek. In contrast, Camus (or most readings of Camus) are very introductory: life is more or less frustrating, suicide is best avoided, so infantile coping strategies become pleasant to discuss as high intellectual thought.

This is not a problem easily avoided, since there is no way to bypass the education needed to approach modern philosophers, and by the time you have that you might as well be a philosophy student. The same thing happens when I meet /lit/ oriented people in real life and they begin to talk about philosophical perspectives on infinity, being impressed by Cantor despite the ideas they think are so revolutionary being more than 100 years out of vogue.

>>5949014
Time to read Wittgenstein.

>>5949237
>degenerate
/pol/lack detected

>>5949299
And? OP has apparently tried the first easy-tier livestyles on the chart as he himself says. He should go for the others. And yes, those others are the non-degenerate ones.

Jesus is the most patrician philosopher

>>5949246
Different anon, but his point (that plebs inexplicably like existentialism) stands despite your objections

>>5949237
>some of the non-degenerate things
what would be examples of these?

>>5949306
>livestyles
yeah alright

>>5949306
....... so you are a /pol/lack

ok which are the 'easy teir' ones and which are the 'degenerate' ones? and why?

also a more definite definition of degenerate would be nice

>>5949318
plebs like existentialism because it concerns something which everyone has, existence, and gives it context aswell

plebs dont like, metaphysics, for example, because its not something most people ever even think about, and most people feel it doesn't really matter to their life

Chart needs to be fixed.

>Do you crave meaning?
>No
>Kill yourself

>>5949326
Sexual degeneracy that everyone can easily partake in(especially in current society) is obviously the easy-to-go option from the chart. OP himself states that he did that first.

>>5949324
>what would be examples of these?
Well that chart has Kirkegaard, zen and Hiedegger. Those are probably the most demanding out of everything, since you'll actually need to control yourself and not be epic egoist or some dionis worshipper that is already the norm in current society.

>>5949318
You are quoting the wrong post.

>>5949366
>Sexual degeneracy
the fuck is this? you mean sexual promiscuity? how is that degenerate? the greeks and romans, who basically everyone in europe had, and still has, massive proverbial boners for and who are regarded as the founders of western civilization were sexually promiscuous as literal fuck.

>>5949014
the solution can be found in examining that which has led to the manifestation of the resulting state as opposed to attempting to solve the problem by choosing one or another path that is to your liking

>>5949336
That doesn't explain why they all choose the same two or three philosophers. Sartre, Camus, and Nietzsche are the only ones they ever seem to be aware of.

>>5949404
That doesn't make promiscuity good. The Greeks were flawed in many ways

>>5949351

>>5949433
greeks had many flaws but their sexual behaviour was not one of them

>>5949098

Your point about films in which the characters engage in philosophical discussion is mildly interesting, although it shows that you know a lot less about film than about philosophy. Have you seen "Ma Nuit Chez Maud"? It includes like 20 minutes of dialogue about Pascal. It's a great film though.

I find it slightly ironic that you mention Derrida because no one is more out of vogue right now than Derrida. In fact, I would add Derrida to the list of irrelevant figures who hold a strong attraction for philosophy outsiders (i.e. those not in academia).

>>5949404
>the greeks and romans, who basically everyone in europe had, and still has, massive proverbial boners for and who are regarded as the founders of western civilization were sexually promiscuous as literal fuck.
Oh. I am well aware that raping was also common during the most christian of ages, don't worry. But we are neither currently the greeks or the romans. Also Plato, who is way more important for western civilization that the greeks as a society was against sexual degeneracy. We have the saying platonic love for instance.

>>5949443
Well you are currently not living in a city-state where more than 20000 people would be a population problem, are you? What a method to keep the population under control? faggotry.

>>5949426
Camus and Satre were celebrities while they were alive and Nietzsche is a household name either because the world nihilist is associated with him, or because of nazism and it's ties with him(his sister being the culprit of this). Also compared to them, most philosophers are like old conservative folks in their eyes.

>>5949098
>>5949474

(continued)

I also find it ironic that you mention Badiou because he himself is obsessed with no-longer-relevant (mathematical) theories just like the people that you hold such contempt for.

You can engage with ideas regardless of whether they're "in fashion." Academic philosophy is not some infallible authority on what's interesting. In fact, the fact that academic philosophy has such a strong notion of "fashion" seems to me to be a strike against it. However I wouldn't try to defend existentialism in particular; I never found it very interesting.

>>5949336
That is a rather optimistic diagnosis.

You're describing the very way that Sartre and Raymond Aron felt when they discovered Husserl and Phenomenology as university students, almost a hundred years ago. But just to draw a line between that and 'metaphysics' without considering everything that has happened between 1925 and today suggests that you are not taking philosophy seriously as an intellectual discipline at all.

Serious practitioners of every discipline pay attention to what is going on around them, even if they leave themselves open to the charge of being un-serious and just 'following fashion' by doing so.

Whatever a 20th-Century musician might have thought of Schoenberg and his atonality, one had to be an idiot or a crank (the kind of loony who whistles and boos at Harrison Birtwistle concerts and churns out 200-year-late variations on Mozart's Jupiter Symphony) to compose music, in 1920 or 1940 or 1960, that didn't somehow contain an acknowledgment of and response to him.

I'm very ambivalent myself about a lot of what came after Sartre in French philosophy. If it's a choice between the latest mish-mash of pop culture allusions and obscurantist gobbledeegook from Slavoj Zizek and Sartre's wrestling with his own 'authenticity', then I think I'd say 'give me Sartre'.

But the fact remains that between 'Being and Time' and Zizek French philosophy - and its various receiving disciplines in the Anglo-Saxon world - did produce text after text of insightful and rigorous argument that left, by about 1970, philosophy done in the way Sartre did it, as much of a quaint curiosity as opera a la Rossini or Donnizetti was left after Wagner had written Tristan and The Ring.

Levi-Strauss began it already in the 40s by calling Sartre's philosophy, in passing, 'a philosophy for shopgirls', obsessing over their own petty anxieties and concerns. And there are few people writing in French now who do not accept that the real philosophical history of the 1940s and 50s was not being written by Sartre's very public circle but by obscure scholars' like Georges Canghuilhem who never used the word 'I' in their writings nor talked about 'liberty' or 'authenticity'.

And by the way, what has swayed most people to the view that post-war philosophy was really Canghuilhem's and not Sartre's and Camus's is the circumstance that, whereas Sartre and Camus WROTE endlessly about courage and life-and-death struggle and so on, it was people like Canghuilhem - whose works don't mention such things - who actually SHOWED it, by an involvement with the Resistance that went far, far deeper than the much-publicized slight flirtations with it that were all that Sartre and co could lay claim to.

>>5949443
Why not? What are your criteria for determining what was good and what was bad about Greek civ?

>>5949404

I find it comical that, for you, ancient Athens and Rome were homogeneous historical entites, not highly stratified societies which changed radically over time. Open a history book sometime.

>>5949500
>imma gonna rape a little boy
Sure is good greek civ here.

>>5949474
Well, you mistake my point there. I do, of course, know Rohmer very well and the point I made about Ferrara and David O. Russell was certainly NOT intended to apply to a film-maker who, like Rohmer, worked in Paris for fifty years. Obviously, you're not going to find people like Rohmer or Godard or Truffaut making the sort of stupid anachronistic blunder that Ferrara or Russell make. They KNEW which philosophers were being talked about around them every day, and which weren't. Not that Pascal is really either here nor there in this regard. Rohmer was anachronistic in another and much nobler direction. He was a Jansenist, so yes, his movies about 1960s, 1970s, 1980s France are really, in their essence, movies about the 17th Century.

And as to Derrida, yes, I can imagine that his star is no longer so much in the ascendant as it was in the 80s or 90s. But he is still well on the 'right' side - and by the 'right' side I mean only that side in keeping with our general contemporary 'post-modern' sensibilities - of all such central philosophical questions as 'is there a subject?'. 'is there a fixed objective reality?' that Sartre, with his endless screeds on the 'choosing self' etc. is entirely on the 'wrong side' of.

>>5949098
This might be shocking to the collectivists of /lit/ but maybe people just read the philosophy they are interested in, not for the social capital, but because they do what they want?

>>5949098
>>5949485
>>5949528
these kinds of posts are why i come to /lit/, hopefully i can become cultured enough to someday engage with it!

ideas don't have an expiration date. There is a reason all philosophy is considered a footnote to Plato.

>>5949547
As I said above, that implies a complete failure or refusal to take philosophy seriously as a discipline and - yes - a collective endeavour.

Someone who just went on painting like David or Delacroix after Picasso would have found themselves pushed into the position of an irrelevant hobbyist or a crank.

There's nothing wrong with reading Sartre - or Pascal - for his inherent historical interest. But to pose philosophical questions to people in 2015 in his terms is to treat philosophy just as junior high school dress-up.

>>5949576
>>5949485
>>5949098
You, my friend, are far too knowledgeable to browse /lit/. Yes, people on 4chan are stuck on outdated stuff. People on /sci/ think they're hot shit because they understand 19th century physics, racists on /pol/ think their beliefs are facts because they subscribe to 19th century anthropology, people on /g/ think they're hot shit because they installed Arch and implemented Fizzbuzz in C, and so on. Most of the discussions on /lit/ have been had by your average art student anywhere in Europe. And it never goes beyond that. There's no real education showing here, it's all a pretence to appear superior to others. Educated people tend to get bored and leave after a while.

>>5949553
Please do not aspire to be a namedropper who talks in circles

>Of course I know about that guy, but people who are really serious about somethingism knew way back in the [insert decade] that this other guy and this guy agreed with another guy that that guy was [insert cliche], so to speak, not to mention that guy was a closet somethingist and, as we all know, the other guy and this guy were unabashed nothingists way back in [insert decade] so the idea that that guy or that other guy--and don't even mention that OTHER other guy--owed anything to another more important guy in terms of somethingelseism is just wrongheaded in the extreme, [insert cliche], so to speak.

you don't want to do this

>>5949576
I can't tell if you are serious or trying to make a point about fashion. You do realize you are arguing that Georges should have dropped what he was doing and become more like Sartre? You do realize there is a modern movement in painting today, though relatively small, that attempts to completely ignore Picasso and instead paint like Rembrandt? It's like you are at once ironic and sincere about philisophocal fashion being the measure of merit.

what you need is V A P O R W A V E

>>5949616
He isn't name dropping and doesn't talk in circles. Maybe if you weren't illiterate you'd follow what he'd mean without having to concentrate on each foreign name

>>5949404
Sexual promiscuity is bad if I can't take part in it.
t. /pol/tard

>>5949249
I just want you to know that I genuinely empathize with you here.

>>5949655
No, it's actually bad, because most people lets it influence their other aspects of their being. Maybe your high-school rebutal should stay there.

>>5949655
>Advocating promiscuity for the sake of promiscuity
Someone's ruled by his appetites ;)

>>5949619
I'm afraid that - as big a laugh as it will surely get - the word 'dialectical' applies here. Fashion - in the sense of 'the latest thing' in thought or art - does indeed have its subjective moment and can therefore safely be dismissed or ignored. But it also has its 'objective' moment - its moment of participation in the historically progressing World-Spirit - and can therefore only be dismissed or ignored only at one's extremest peril.

Probably the best single modern philosophical work on aesthetics is Adorno's "Aesthetic Theory" and I have to admit to having been as puzzled about his intentions as you are about mine when I first read his remarks in this book on "-isms" and on artistic trends and schools.

It's hard to imagine a mind more vigorous, original and independent than Adorno's and yet he accords enormous importance and validity in this book to 'cutting-edge' ways of thinking and doing which he insists one is one wasting one's time trying to 'ignore' or 'get back behind'. In his 'Philosophy of Modern Music' he roundly condemned even so titanic a figure as Stravinsky for trying to 'wind back the clock' and write like an 18th Century composer in the 20th.

Rembrandt can be 'gotten back to', perhaps. And definitely should be if the alternative is Damien Hirst or Jeff Koons. But the right way of 'getting back' to him won't and can't look anything like a Rembrandt.

>>5949710
>advocating is the same thing as permissing

>>5949710
>Someone's ruled by his appetites ;)
Everyone is you dumb fucking cunt, why do you think humans aren't hormones-powered animals, are you stuck in the 1600's or something?

>>5949651
No concentration necessary. The cascade of names announces itself loud and clear. And that's the point of throwing around a bunch of names and accompanying biographical tidbits.

The poster's assumption is that philosophy progresses just like the arts and "serious practitioners" have a responsibility to stay current even though by his own admission he would choose Sartre's outdated approach over the current trend. Hence the circularity.

>>5949707
Unless you are castrated (and even so, there are still remnants) literally all your aspects of your "being" will be influenced by sex.

>>5949721
What's the substantial difference?
>>5949722
That isn't a good reason to fuck everything in sight.

>>5949734
>The poster's assumption is that philosophy progresses just like the arts and "serious practitioners" have a responsibility to stay current
Yes. Philosophy isn't a hobby like macrame or something.

>>5949744
What do you mean by "reason"? Why do you hate it when people freely have casual sex with each other?

>>5949744
Permissing means you can do your own ascetic thing in your corner of the room and no one in the orgy will mind.

>>5949744
Permissing means you can. Advocating means you should.

>>5949758
By 'reason' I mean an adequate ethical justification. Promiscuity is justified only if you think sex is something solely done for pleasure. If you believe that sex is something more than just a nice way to have an orgasm, I.e., if you think sex is a spiritual or particularly special activity, it makes sense to disapprove of promiscuity.

>>5949758
Probably had mommy issues as a kid. Resents women now. But has a strange idealization of the 'pure women' he longs to meet. Very fascinating really.

>>5949779
>if you think sex is a spiritual or particularly special activity
seeing as yeast also do it in their free time i would tend to disagree

>>5949768
>>5949773
I've never encountered someone whose permissive attitude toward promiscuity wasn't accompanied by an affirmative attitude toward it. I also haven't encountered someone whose restrictive attitude wasn't accompanied by a negative attitude toward it. It makes sense to conflate the positions in this case.

>>5949790
>>5949779

>thinking in totalities
>conflating neutral with affirmative
>thinking everyone must hold the same ideas you do about sex

>>5949787
So because every organism is sexual on some level, there's nothing special about sex? You've never felt a spiritual connection with someone you've had sex with? I assure you, yeast has no conception of the spiritual side of sex, while humans definitely do.

>>5949615
I know. It's an awful situation and I am kind of ashamed to be here.
At the risk of making the word even more ridiculous, I'll say that my being here is also a sad case of 'dialectics'.
The spirit of anti-institutionalism that is sometimes displayed here certainly has its laudable and positive aspect.
I'm pretty anti-institutional myself and I always cared too much about these ideas and questions to put them through the sort of mangler that is the indispensable preliminary to gaining the right to talk about them in a structured academic setting (and even to be paid for it). I'll be damned if I'll talk about Pascal and Adorno with the kind of domesticated, mentally castrated moron who taks about them for a living in universities.
It seems, though, that, if I don't. I'll be damned just the same - damned to talk sporadically and fruitlessly about these matters with a bunch of high-school kids on 4Chan whose sole real concern, as you rightly point out, is 'owning' - or being perceived by their equally ignorant peers to have 'owned' - whatever anon they share a thread with.
Ah well, as Saint Paul said, for some of us it's better to marry than to burn...even if that means marrying 4Chan.

>>5949779
>if you think sex is a spiritual or particularly special activity, it makes sense to disapprove of promiscuity
No it doesn't. Something can be special or spiritual without being scarce.

>>5949801
>Not thinking in totalities
>Not realizing that there is no neutral party in this debate
>Not realizing that you also want everyone to have the same ideas you do
>>5949814
Sex isn't always a spiritual experience, though, and a large part of the spiritual aspect of sex is the relationship between two people. I've slept with girls and felt nothing for them during or afterward, and slept with others and felt completely enthused by the experience.

>>5949803
>You've never felt a spiritual connection with someone you've had sex with? I assure you, yeast has no conception of the spiritual side of sex, while humans definitely do.
It's called oxytocin, it's released in the post-coital phase and it's the hormone that makes you want to cuddle your partner.

>>5949824
>I've slept with girls and felt nothing for them during or afterward, and slept with others and felt completely enthused by the experience
So basically you agree?

>>5949830
So what? There's no contradiction between believing in the chemical nature of emotions and believing that there's more to life than chemicals. If you only see a walking chemical reaction when you see a person, I don't think you're as mature as you think you are.
>>5949852
No. That there can be a spiritual connection is proof that sex has a spiritual side.

>>5949864
>No. That there can be a spiritual connection is proof that sex has a spiritual side.
So if you've slept with different girls and felt a spiritual connection to more than one of them, what's to stop anyone else from sleeping with many and feeling a spiritual connection to many of them?

>>5949864
>So what? There's no contradiction between believing in the chemical nature of emotions and believing that there's more to life than chemicals.
I'm not an edgy kid that thinks "durr love don't real" but you have to be deluded to think it exists outside the chemical. Doesn't make it any less real, though.

>>5949517
>The Greeks raped little boys.
[Citation needed]

>>5949890
Moderation is a virtue. Sleeping with many people is immoderate. Therefore, sleeping with many people is not virtuous.
There's nothing to stop you, I suppose, but you can't expect that you'll spiritually connect with everyone you sleep with. If you expect that, you'll either be disappointed or prove me wrong. But a single failure to connect would prove me right.
However, as the above syllogism shows, this would be immoderate and therefore unvirtuous behavior.

>>5949925
>Moderation is a virtue.
what do you mean by "virtue" and why
>Sleeping with many people is immoderate.
what do you mean by "many" and why

>>5949916
I assume you're an atheist, then?

>>5949925
>Moderation
mby 4u baby

>many
wat dat? vague quantifier? oh bby pls.

>>5949942
:^)

>>5949942
I'm more of an agnosticist but the existence of God has little to do with love existing beyond the chemical.

>>5949936
>Implying you don't know what I mean
>Implying you aren't an idiot if you don't
By virtue I mean a morally praiseworthy personal quality which is reflected in a person's actions. Virtues are necessarily good by definition, and are opposed to vices, which are morally reprehensible personal qualities.
By many I mean any number of sexual partners greater than one.
>>5949944
Are you implying that people shouldn't be moderate in their dealings with others?
>>5949949
Lel

>>5949950
Yes it does, actually. God is love. If love is not beyond the chemical, this means that God is not beyond the chemical. But God is beyond the chemical, so love must also be beyond the chemical.

>>5949951
You're not saying anything here, only that having more than one partner is morally reprehensible without justification

>>5949958
>God is love.
That's what you believe. I don't believe we could even begin to conceive God's attributes, let alone give them very human ones such as love

>>5949714
>deny the historically progressing world-spirit it´s extremest peril.
why?

>>5949951
[Subjectivity intensifies]

>>5949958
>God is love.
If you are talking about the biblical god, God is hate and jealousy.

>>5949992
>in b4 edgy angsty fedora kid

>>5949960
My justification is that God disapproves of people having multiple partners. Thus we have the holy institution of marriage, which is between a man and a woman. Having one partner is virtuous because it is in accordance with God's will.
Unions between homosexuals aren't marriages. A marriage before God and a union before the State aren't the same thing.
>>5949970
Enjoy your attribute-free God.

>>5949992
Confirmed for not understanding Christianity. Enjoy being an edgy angsty fedora kid.

>>5950001
>My justification is that God disapproves of people having multiple partners.
Why? Are you going to quote the Bible?
I'm not a Christian.

>Thus we have the holy institution of marriage, which is between a man and a woman.
>man and a woman
Hopefully Pope Francis will put an end to that dogma ;^)

>Enjoy your attribute-free God.
ok?

>>5950009
So you understand the God of the OT? Enlighten me please.

>>5950023
Christians say the new testament washes up anything bad the god of the old testament did

>>5950028
And what did he do?

>>5950015
>Why? Are you going to quote the Bible?
This is the official position of most churches, including the Catholic Church. As a Catholic, I can abide by it.
>Hopefully Pope Francis will put an end to that dogma
If that happens, cool. I doubt it will, though, and two men in a civil union fucking is more virtuous than a man who makes a point of fucking a different man every night.
>>5950023
Christ's death on the Cross (God's suicide, essentially) for the sake of the redption of man's sins is proof of God's infinite love of His creation and His mercy toward man. Those who go against God get what they deserve, since God is the ultimate source of all that is good in the universe. God's love is infinite, and so is His wrath.
You clearly don't understand the New Testament.
>>5950038
Died for our sins, that's what.

>>5950049
That's nice but it's pretty retarded and didn't happen.

>>5950049
>Christ was God.
loollololololol

>>5950059
That's your opinion. You asked for an explanation and I gave you the one you wanted. There is no way we will overcome this disagreement here, so I suggest you stop responding.

>>5950071
What's your point? Are you implying Arianism or atheism?

>>5950049
Okay, so you're a Catholic. I don't know much about your religion but where does the Bible say that sex with multiple partners is bad?

>>5949098
Only users 18 years of age or older are allowed to post on this board, kiddo

>>5950087
Well, one of the Ten Commandments is 'Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife,' which is typically interpreted as advocating monogamy. The Church teaches that premarital sex is a sin, and its teaching is binding. So we see in one of the Commandments an affirmation of monogamy, and in the Church's teachings a negation of sex before marriage. Put this together and you get 'Only sleep with your one wife.'

>>5950104
>Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife,' which is typically interpreted as advocating monogamy
How do you know it has to be interpreted this way?
>The Church teaches that premarital sex is a sin, and its teaching is binding
Why do you choose to listen to the Church?

>>5950124
>How do you know it has to be interpreted this way?
It doesn't have to, necessarily, but this is the traditional interpretation of the Church and it makes sense to me.
>Why do you choose to listen to the Church?
Because Luther was as bad as Hitler.

>>5950146
>Because Luther was as bad as Hitler.
wot

>>5950158
Problem?

>>5950167
What I mean is you do not want to interpret it yourself because Luther was as bas as Hitler? That is non sequitur.

>>5950167
His problem seems to be that he doesn't understand what you base your statement on.

>>5950167
If you replace the "u" in "Luther" with an "i", you end up with an anagram of HITLER
COINCIDENCE?

>>5950187
Christians 1 Atheists 0

>>5950176
Luther was a heretic who advocated interpreting scripture without the aid of the clergy. His heresy caused numerous wars. I agree with the Church because I'm Catholic and being Catholic involves agreeing with the Church.

>>5950211
>His heresy caused numerous wars.
[Citation needed]

>>5950249
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_wars_of_religion

>>5950268
tl;dr lol

>>5949722
How are you gonna archive communism then, you marxist idiot. With these animals called humans, as you call them.

>inb4 I am not a marxist
Then you are even more of a piece of shit.

>>5950301
Nice argument.

>>5949758
Why are you putting importance on casual sex in the first place? Live's too hard for you? Man up then.

>>5950316
what does that have to do with communism or marxism you retard
why do you think i'm a marxist
why are you retarded

>>5949925
>Moderation is a virtue
Moderation is also subjective. If a person can have a spiritual sexual encounter with ten people, why should he limit himself to one? Is "one" the only moderate alternative? What if he could sleep with a hundred girls and chooses to do it only with the ten he can have a spiritual experience with? Isn't one out of ten pretty moderate?

>>5950331
I assume all trash like you are either a marxists or some libertarian capitalist moron, basically a disgusting materialist. How are you gonna achieve your communism or liberarian utopia when apparently you are living among hormon-driven animals, as you call then.

>>5950352
>How are you gonna achieve your communism or liberarian utopia when apparently you are living among hormon-driven animals
Did the word "animal" trigger you? Why are you making such giant leaps across the holes of your logic?

>>5950340
What about the other man that would kill youif you didn't stick to moderation. If we assume that this is a post-christian society, thus no slave morality, there is nothing stopping other man doing violence on you because of your promiscuity.

>>5950383
>we assume that this is a post-christian society, thus no slave morality, there is nothing stopping other man doing violence on you
so many implications

>>5950383
There is nothing stopping him now either, I thought you Christians believed in God-given free will?

>>5950388
Well the whole thing started because of this retard >>5949404
going on about his gay greeks and his warped world-view on their sex live.

>>5950400
Well Elliot Rogers was a thing.

>>5950340
Moderation isn't subjective to God.

>>5950421
Do you believe in the Holy Trinity?

>>5950421
to your Catholic God, maybe

>>5949981
The man is obviously a very hardcore Hegelian. This debate was over before it began.

>>5950436
Yes.

>>5950516
>believing in the highest proposed number of deities among all Abrahamic religions
>moderation

>>5950521
but duuuuuuude, the three are just like one, y'know? it's all a Mystery

>>5950525
But the Christians are they who join gods with god.

Source: Muhammad, voice of Allah

>>5950521
>Implying the Trinity isn't one God
Confirmed for pleb

>>5949098
This is retarded. People still read guys like Kierkegaard and Nietzsche because they're two well read men who are also extremely influential. They write about subjects that everyone can relate to and seeks answers about, and their works have enough of a subjective element that everyone can take away a slightly different perspective.

Wittgenstein said that Kierkegaard was too deep for him, to give you an example of the kind of power these mens' work has; even the strongest minds might benefit from readin their books.

>>5950550
Why's it called a trinity if it's only one God? Isn't it more moderate to call it just one God and skip the trinity?

>>5949014

Political ideology is my preferred meaning but the "opium of the masses" camp of politics are almost exclusively lefty faggots. I can't accept anything else on that flow chart but Fascism seems to be the closest fit.

Isn't Fascism essentially collectivist absurdism?

>>5950566
There are three persons that constitute the one God. The Father is the root of being; the Son, Jesus, is the creative principle and the Savior of humanity; and the Holy Spirit is their presence on Earth, proceding from them.
It's a mystery.

>>5950755
Why are "they" divided, doe? And in either case, isn't it the least moderate approach to Abrahamic religion, when most others don't need this division into three? Their constant "One" seems a lot more moderate.

>>5949098
This is a logical fallacy
>if its new it must be better!
Eventough the opposite is also a fallacy
>if its old it must be better

Kind of related to OP's image, but what is a good approach for a complete beginner in philosophy? Should I just start with the greeks and move on?

Isn't atheism the opiate of the masses? It's denying humanity's yearning for spiritual meaning through pleasure and ignorance.

>>5950767
>Why are "they" divided, doe?
It's a mystery.
>And in either case, isn't it the least moderate approach to Abrahamic religion, when most others don't need this division into three?
Some make this argument but I've never found it all that convincing. The Israelites worshipped many gods, the Father just didn't like it when they did and made it known. So Christianity moves a step forward there by eliminating those other gods from the picture and saying that only one God is true. I don't know much about Judaism qua Judaism, and the more I find out the more I realize that goyim aren't supposed to know what they make of their God. That being said, Jews can be atheists and still be truly Jews, while someone cannot simultaneously be an atheist and a true Christian. To me, this makes the Christian God's unity more appealing than the Jewish God's unmanifested and deniable being.
Allah's absolute unity is undeniable, but Allah has no human Son.

>>5949014
It is time.

>>5950869
It's denying one direction of spirituality, not spirituality itself.

dubs

>>5950104
didn't Solomon have like 700 wives and 300 concubines?

>>5949098

I don't understand your point, seriously I do not. Someone in this thread said "ideas do not have expiration rate" and I basically agree, adding that problems of human condition, experiance are timeless therefore ideas related to them, answering them cannot be in essence outdated. They can be right or wrong, possibly argued well and argued illogically. What's wrong with prefering engagement of one philosopher over another to certain issue?

>>5952707
>"ideas do not have expiration rate" and I basically agree,
...as long as you recast them in their historical context...

>>5952445
The Israelites rarely obeyed God. Most of the Old Testament is them fucking up and proving themselves worthy of wrathful treatment.

>>5949250
>The same thing happens when I meet /lit/ oriented people in real life and they begin to talk about philosophical perspectives on infinity, being impressed by Cantor despite the ideas they think are so revolutionary being more than 100 years out of vogue.
what ?? Can you elaborate more on their claims ?

>>5952897
You don't have enough knowledge and by the time you have enough knowledge you might as well be a philosophy student full time. Most if not all people who have something else that primarily occupies their life other than philosophy cannot reach that level of knowledge, so while they might be interested in a subject (in this case philosophy) they never reach the level needed to have a big picture view of the field. They usually end up being stuck in whatever niche they fancy without having the ability to put it into proper context or pass a "value" judgement as to how that niche relates to the field as a whole. You can see this in any field, where some people are involved full time and some people simply take it up as a hobby, the hobbyist will be amazed by a certain thing but will not have the proper context to understand it, the difference is the field of vision, the full-timer sees the whole landscape with the houses, while the hobbyist only sees some houses and some hills and a bit of grass. A hobbyist might be amazed by a particular house, while a full-timer will see the 90 other houses that are just like it, and some houses that are influenced by it and improved upon it. A hobbyist will find x house amazing and will also be amazed by the fact that there doesn't seem to be enough room for a garage, a full timer will see that house just the same, but will also see house y which is house x with the garage. The hobbyist lacks perspective. Like I said you can see this in any field, where hobbyists are amazed by a certain thing or become really staunch supporters of something that seems childish to you as a full timer because you see their lack of perspective. And this isn't about being "right" or "wrong", it's about putting things into context and perspective and proper understanding.

>>5949404
>the fuck is this? you mean sexual promiscuity? how is that degenerate? the greeks and romans, who basically everyone in europe had, and still has, massive proverbial boners for and who are regarded as the founders of western civilization were sexually promiscuous as literal fuck.
this is exaggerated by our own fantasies though

>not becoming the embodiment of absolute spirit in the world

>>5949439

>become religious
>for no reason whatsoever

>>5952965
muh afroamerikkan

>>5949014
read illuminatus by raw and shea
take lsd
feel the power

>>5952984

>>5949485

>follows philosophy as if it were a fashion

>>5949249
have you ever consider that it is how you believe it is? that reality is a self fulfilling prophecy?
>>5949249
believe what ever gives you the best feeling and helps you the most to be the person you want to be.

>>5952921

>And this isn't about being "right" or "wrong", it's about putting things into context and perspective and proper understanding.

postmodernism objetivism detachment pls go

>ought

>>5949480
>>I also find it ironic that you mention Badiou because he himself is obsessed with no-longer-relevant (mathematical) theories just like the people that you hold such contempt for.
do you know a few works in metaphysics in the vein of bADIOU with contemporary maths ?

>>5949830
lol at this completely materialistic and mechanistic world view. you are the cancer of the world.

>>5949916
and we all consist of atoms and quants that are rationally controlled by the 4 forces. hurry duur
and the bis bang just happened and consciousness is just there

>>5949925
excess for some is moderate for others
trying to express general rules on sexual behaviour
what the fuck is wrong with you fascist?

>>5953253
>>5953242

honestly all this false-rationalism based on science is pure cancer, it's truly what will bring stupidity to the herd

>>5950049
omg you do not really believe this?
nigga you just went full retard
as zizek would put it jesus death is the ultimate expression that god cannot, or will not help us at this point. there is no big other in the form that someone can assume responsibility for your action or redeem you. you have to tidy up this mess yourself and finally engage in a meaningful interaction with your surrounding which institutions, like the state or the catholic church prohibit.
according to nietzsche crucification was the ultimate insult by god to humanity, the ultimate betrayal of the will to power which is the will to life itself. god shows his resentment towards us but letting his son get killed and losing his earthly presence albeit his omnipotence.
reflect you beliefs you fool

>>5949803
>>So because every organism is sexual on some level, there's nothing special about sex? You've never felt a spiritual connection with someone you've had sex with?
It does not mean that this path is a necessity for all (once we agreed that the purpose is worthy) and that its yield is adequate.
Sex talks to a lot of people, for strong reasons, but it might remain pretty basic

>>5953262
yeah, people have to get that science is just another false flag operation to prohibit you from forming a positive meaningful picture of the world around you.
people do not have the courage as they consider themselves victims of their surrounding with the big daddies state, economy, technology and a materialistic world view as inhibitors of imagination, curiousness and creativity.
you need to realize that science is just a pseudo-rationalistic, empiricist method that is based on axioms and not even coherent. it is just as dogmatic as anything else, even more it simply has no meaning what so ever except for the creation of applications. science is a boring story as it can only be used to make your computer, car or whatever but doenst ever have any meaning concerning the fabric of life, consciousness, reality or whatever.
people just turn to it as they are cowards so they choose an ideology which they possibly can't understand as science mostly consists of mathematics and can only loosely be framed into words.

>>5952965
>>5952984
>>5953071
But the manifestation of world history doesn't know that he is the world history. It's an unconcious thing for him/her.

>>5949714
Some people on /lit/ just enjoy baseless discussion anon. I think it's a pretty unique situation.

>>5953287
>as zizek would put it jesus death is the ultimate expression that god cannot, or will not help us at this point.
How does that contradict what I said? Also, Zizek is a Communist, his theology is atheistic and thus not quite as reliable as theistic theology.
>you have to tidy up this mess yourself and finally engage in a meaningful interaction with your surrounding which institutions, like the state or the catholic church prohibit.
I didn't know the Church opposed loving your neighbor as yourself and trying to make the world a better place. I didn't know the State doesn't interfere in the world and try to tidy it up. This is all news to me.
>according to nietzsche crucification was the ultimate insult by god to humanity, the ultimate betrayal of the will to power which is the will to life itself.
I don't think the will to power and the will to life are synonymous. I think the will to power resembles the will to death more than the will to life.
god shows his resentment towards us but letting his son get killed and losing his earthly presence albeit his omnipotence.
Nietzsche was wrong. God's death was followed by His resurrection and our salvation. God doesn't resent humanity; if He did, He wouldn't have died for us.
These are juvenile objections.

>>5953317
>It does not mean that this path is a necessity for all
Morality is a zero sum game: what's right is right and what's wrong is wrong. If promiscuity is wrong for one person, it's wrong for everyone.
>Sex talks to a lot of people, for strong reasons, but it might remain pretty basic
What do you even mean by this?

>>5953539
>>5953555
no

>>5953539
if he loves us, why doesn't he help us?
why is there famine, war, terror, violence etc?
what do you mean by salvation?
why does there have to be a church that interprets a book for you?
thanks for calling zizek and nietzsche juvenile tho

>>5953590
>if he loves us, why doesn't he help us?
Those who believe in the power of prayer would say that He does.
>why is there famine, war, terror, violence etc?
Free will, maybe Satan, maybe a combination of the two.
>what do you mean by salvation?
The ability to enter Heaven and to come into a personal relationship with Christ.
>why does there have to be a church that interprets a book for you?
Would you rather people interpret that book on their own and that the whole of Christendom looked like the Baptist part of the US?
>thanks for calling zizek and nietzsche juvenile tho
Your objections are juvenile. You misunderstood Zizek's point (which is that the Church is perceived as being God on Earth, removing the omnipotent l33t h4x0r from the earthly picture and making His presence in every human being impossible to ignore, not that Christ's resurrection was the end of God) and Nietzsche was simply wrong. God doesn't resent humanity and I see no reason to think that He might.

>>5953102

Welcome to /lit/, and 4chan in general

>>5953539
>and thus not quite as reliable as theistic theology
>theology
>reliable

>>5953637
More like postmodernism lol

>>5953652
I'd rather hear someone who believes in God talk about theology than someone who doesn't. Zizek is trying to criticize an ideology when he talks about God. This is very different from someone trying to discuss a God that they fervently believe in.

>>5949014
>Is it just time to an hero?

Do whatever you like, asshole, do you need others approval to wipe your fucking ass?

If you ever did any of what you claimed, rather than just jerking off over some book you read on the internet was cool in the hope of getting laid, you wouldn't be "back". As if you ever moved from your zeta loser hole in the first place. Cunt.

>>5953662

I'd rather not hear anyone talk about it, as it's muhfeelingsology from the ancient world

>>5953662

In the sense that he isn't someone who has deliberately thrown out his critical faculties, sure.

"Believing" is the first, tenuous stage of forming a hypothesis. Staying there through fear and mental laziness is infantile.

>>5953674
Then why are you involved in a theological argument? Shouldn't you just leave this thread?
>>5953682
>2015
>Equating religious belief with a lack of rationality
ISHYGDDT

>>5953693
>Then why are you involved in a theological argument?

This is suddenly a theological debate now?

>>5953696
It's been one for quite some time.

>>5953704

And who decided this?

>>5953707
Well, we're arguing about the nature of God and religion. Each side claims to be reasonable, and has put forth arguments relating to the subject at hand. This seems like a theological discussion to me. >>5953287 is pure theology.

>>5953717
>Well, we're arguing about the nature of God and religion.

Then why is the picture in the OP about meaning?

>>5953707
well i fell for it.
in the end you could consider the whole subject, reality as such as god. and god is everywhere and love and gravity. but its just not this fatherly figure. if something changes after prayer than it changed because you believed in it not because big daddy did it for you. in the end i am no atheist i just don't believe in institutionalized religion

>>5953722
This is a tangential argument within a thread about existentialism. You'll note that the OP's pic involves religious questions, and that religion can be a source of meaning. Religious arguments are existential arguments.
>>5953723
You like Nietzsche the aristocrat and Zizek the Communist, but not organized religion?

Read Disgrace, realize that there is beauty and hope in all things, become a better person, better the lives of those around you

>>5949714
>. Fashion has its 'objective' moment - its moment of participation in the historically progressing World-Spirit - and can therefore only be dismissed or ignored only at one's extremest peril.


So, tell me if I'm wrong.
The thing you are interested in is not philosophy as a means of finding out whether there exist unchanging truths in this world, and what they might be. What you are trying to understand are the people around you and their beliefs, the zeitgeist. If this is what you are saying, then I understand why you think that only studying philosophers of past times would be pointless

>>5950104
>'Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife,' which is typically interpreted as advocating monogamy.
> this is the traditional interpretation of the Church and it makes sense to me.

Well, it seems like a major overgeneralization to me.

Here's what I think: The commandment relates to the act of breaking someone elses 'bond' by sleeping with their partner.
In an ideal marriage, the two people it connects are in a relationship of mutual trust, based on the promise of 'being as close to eachother as two people can be'. It makes sense to me that that this is a bond that we can only form with one other person. So, because it is unique and precious, disrupting it should be considered immoral. If we interpret things this way, then sleeping with singles while you are a single isn't a problem either.