/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.10368967]

>most people in a prominently and historically judeo-christian society think that religious morals are good
>therefore it is bad to not be religious
>therefore God exists!

Holy shit what is wrong with Anglicans

[Anonymous No.10368973]

>>10368967
Dunno, logic checks out to me

[Anonymous No.10369020]

>>10368973
No it doesn't. I'm Catholic and I at least acknowledge that what is judged good by a society is relative. Just because England or Europe has a Christian moral system doesn't mean it's the right one in and of itself. It's not a good argument.

[Anonymous No.10369024]

>>10369020
Nah its locktight, you're wrong

[Anonymous No.10369047]

>>10368967
there is no such "judeo-christian" society.

[Anonymous No.10369058]

>if you believe morality is defined relatively, then you have no means by which to condemn nazism
>by jove! this would not be a jolly good outcome!
>but wait, don't worry, I'm not purely advocating Christian universal morality for functional reasons...
>moral feeling exists independent of our choices...... i hav ea moral prferennce... i can will to do wrong but i will still feel i am doing wronng..... terfor,.. ur.. mor,..l. . god../vov naglio-can -p leas.. dont let... ms ancsomb.. near me.gfdmk
>whatever lol, lions

[Anonymous No.10369135]

>>10369058
Care to rephrase that

[Anonymous No.10369165]

>>10369135
no

[Anonymous No.10369170]

>>10369058
Of course you do. That's the whole point of relativism. Nazism is bad RELATIVE TO most currently existing human cultures.

[Anonymous No.10369183]

>>10369170
>Of course you do. That's the whole point of relativism. Nazism is bad RELATIVE TO most currently existing human cultures.
To be more clear: Lewis is disagreeing with the notion that what is 'bad' for us can really be 'good for the Nazis - if cultural context is the means of moral evaluation, if moral quality of a thing is dependent on its nearness to a certain society's goals or values etc.

[Anonymous No.10369205]

>>10369183
>Lewis is disagreeing
Ok but why? I am too fucking lazy to read his retarded opinions so please spoon-feed me. Also why should I take seriously an """""""""atheist""""" who is basically the Jordan Peterson of Christian evangelism?

[Anonymous No.10369221]

>>10369205
I dunno. I tried to replicate how I remembered his argument going in the greentext, but I'd be being dishonest to present it any more seriously because I can't remember. He's a moral realist because he's a Christian, or maybe he's a Christian because he's a moral realist. What do you mean "atheist"

[Anonymous No.10369226]

>>10369205
>an """""""""atheist""""" who is basically the Jordan Peterson of Christian evangelism?

lel

[Anonymous No.10369290]

>>10368967
Mere Christianity is the book that finally made me commit to a anti-theist agnosticism, just because the leaps in logic were so painfully obvious. Lewises teleological baggage ruined his capacity to think critically. It really brought home to me that once you've swallowed the neo-platonism-disguised-as-christianity-pill, your terror of eternal damnation basically hard-wires you into dogmatism on a subconscious level.

I still believe that if Lewis read Hegel he'd have understood that his god was really just a distorted low-level mythological representation of a much more real philosophical concept. He even got the 'heaven is the perfect relation of all parts to each other and hell is empty self-worship turning you into a mere shadow'-idea right, if only allegorically.

[Anonymous No.10369368]

>>10369290
To be fair, Lewis is better remembered as a Christian writer for his uncommon insight than his philosophy or argumentation. An apologist for the intuition and imagination, rather than reason. I don't disagree with your perspective but Lewis is an easy target, and I wouldn't harden one's heart against theism because of him.

[Anonymous No.10369376]

>>10368967
>what is wrong with Anglicans
Everything.

[Anonymous No.10369605]

>>10369020
he actually takes some space to refute that moral relativism. I believe he said at some point that anyone in the world would protest against unfair treatment. And they do

[Anonymous No.10369926]

>>10369290
>Lewises
Nice.
Also Lewis did read Hegel, he mentions the dialectic in the world's last night, though his understanding of it is not that deep.
In any case as this man >>10369368 says C.S Lewis is not a good at philosophical argument, mostly because he doesn't want to be.
btw, I'm a Catholic, I've read Hegel, and what you said in the last paragraph is not part of his philosophy. It can be taken to that point, but it can also be taken to the exact opposite one. Hegel himself is entirely devoid of such conclusions though. For example you could take Hegel to where Zizek took him, becoming an atheist by first assenting to the Christian conceptual framework and then taking it to its conclusion which for zizek is atheism.
Or you could take the view of G.K Chesterton. In fact, chesterton first said that Christ "became an atheist" in chapter 8 of orthodoxy, and this fact to me proves the utter superiority of his position compared to zizek's, since the very last paragraph to that book went:
>"There was something that He hid from all men when He went up a mountain to pray. There was something that He covered constantly by abrupt silence or impetuous isolation. There was some one thing that was too great for God to show us when He walked upon our earth; and I have sometimes fancied that it was His mirth."
Somehow Zizek missed this.
The dialectic can come out at any end, like a roundabout, you can drive past one exit and keep driving past it until maybe on the 3rd or 4th pass you take it, then maybe you say to yourself "I have not taken the 1st exit, I have taken the 1st exit after I passed it 3 or 4 times" but the fact remains that you did take an exit. The arrow was released. The wavefunction did collapse. If you keep going in circles, if the wavefunction never collapses, nothing happens. Zizek's atheism is this vacuum. I believe Chesterton, as a pragmatist, would have said about zizek that the incommensurate nature of the dialectic is its most fatal flaw. That the fact that it cannot reasonably fit into the human mind, cannot be worshipped and adored without always having to comprehend the double movement, lends it a falseness and illogicality. Isn't that what the universe has taught us? The dialectical nature of quantum mechanics is always there, but the wave function collapses and something is made. Every such instance is the exception that shatters the dialectic and brings things into partition and multiplicity. That to me is the crucifixion.

[Anonymous No.10369934]

>>10369926
Please don't post anime garbage.

[Anonymous No.10369958]

>>10369934
And if you do post it make sure it's cute boys not girls.

[Anonymous No.10370020]

>>10369934
Anime and philosophy go hand-in-hand in the modern world kid, if you ain't a weeb you're a normie and if you're a normie you don't worry much about philosophy besides your one sided studies in stoicism (lol) and all that COOL looking analytic philosophy, besides that you don't give a flying HOOT and u know it.
THIS is why once the supranational theocratic world-state rolls around the weebs will be welcome but you will by used as toilet paper by the distributist autistocrats.

[Anonymous No.10370297]

>>10369926
Good post anon. This is exactly how I feel, when lefty trash try to convince me Hegel wasn't a christian or something,

[Anonymous No.10370330]

>>10370020
Why is everyone dissing stoicism these days? As far as I can tell, renouncing all desires, attachments and emotions is the way to go

[Anonymous No.10370386]

>>10370330
>giving up on your waifu/tulpa/oneitis
you're not one of us

[Anonymous No.10370405]

>>10370330
Because it's a normie self help and /pol/ philosophy philosophy, which might seem like bling reactionism but I think it's warranted

[Anonymous No.10370415]

>>10369290
Fuck off, viKANG,

[Anonymous No.10370418]

>>10370330
>as far as i cal tell
stoicshits think this is an argument.

[Anonymous No.10370444]

I don't know why everyone always recommends Lewis to convince people of Christianity, or what he did to deserve such a position. He meanders around apologetic talk for way too long, and never cuts into the real heart of debate, honestly I feel him having this kind of position is damaging to Christianity if anything.
Sheed is the superior "into the Christianity" author.

[Anonymous No.10370937]

Say what you will, but Lewis predicted the Waifu.

[Anonymous No.10370941]

>>10370937
Nope. He copied that from MacDonald.

[Anonymous No.10370975]

>>10370330
Because that's fucking retarded. Have fun being a lifeless drone. Gotta convince yourself to push aside the feelings that your wagecuck lifestyle is harmful somehow.

[Anonymous No.10370997]

>>10370020
very nice, i can't wait for this future.

[Anonymous No.10371007]

>>10370020
>having a state at all
wew lad, hello cuck

[Anonymous No.10371048]

>>10370975
This
Stoicism is cuckcore

[Anonymous No.10371124]

>>10371048
I will be cucked either way. Cucked by my desires, or cucked by abandoning my desires. We can't all be the Ubermensch, can we?

[Anonymous No.10371142]

>>10370386
I haven't given up on my oneitis just yet, but I know I'm being foolish.

[Anonymous No.10371166]

>>10371124
Cuck.

[Anonymous No.10371243]

>>10368967
To be fair, his job is impossible. Read any of the apologists of his era, like Chesterton or Muggeridge. None of their smug bullshit can pass even the most cursory or forgiving logic, but they had fun loving God.

[Anonymous No.10371829]

>>10371166
Okay.

[Anonymous No.10372265]

>>10370997
i know yukino miyazawa is now a meme on /s4s/ as 'teethgirl', but you have patrician taste my friend

[Anonymous No.10372838]

>>10368967
You exaggerate, but have encountered contemporary Anglo quasi-moralists who've made exactly that argument.

[Anonymous No.10373574]

>>10370997
why is The Teeth Girl sleeping like that?