/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.19071439]

>When I was twelve years old I thought up an odd trinity: namely, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Devil. My inference was that God, in contemplating himself, created the second person of the godhead; but that, in order to be able to contemplate himself, he had to contemplate, and thus to create, his opposite.—With this I began to do philosophy.

>Everything good is the transmutation of something evil: every God has a Devil for a father.

>The Devil has the broadest perspectives for God; therefore, he keeps so far away from God—the Devil being the most ancient friend of wisdom.

>We have to be careful that in throwing out the Devil, we don't throw out the best part of ourselves.

How was Nietzsche so based? What are some books other than his that go deeper into this notion and form of praise of the Devil?

[Anonymous No.19072765]

>My inference was that God, in contemplating himself, created the second person of the godhead; but that, in order to be able to contemplate himself, he had to contemplate, and thus to create, his opposite.
>Everything good is the transmutation of something evil: every God has a Devil for a father.

Every God has a Devil for a father except for the notable example of God the Father because OP describes him as being the father of God the Devil, and OP does not describe God the Father as having any father himself.
Everything good is the transmutation of something evil except for the notable example of God the Father whom is not described in OP as having any father himself.

>When I was twelve years old I thought up an odd trinity—With this I began to do philosophy.

What is Nietzsche talking about here?

[Anonymous No.19072877]

Nietzsche was a wizard. Little people know this, but he was. If you only knew...

[Anonymous No.19072919]

>>19071439
> don't throw out the devil...
Why lol? He exists to be thrown out, that's his whole purpose as the absence of the good. Darkness is but the absence of light, evil but the absence of good.

[Anonymous No.19072923]

>>19072919
>left is the absence of right

[Anonymous No.19072932]

>>19071439
He was wrong. How exactly does differentiation necessitate opposition?

[Anonymous No.19072945]

>>19072923
It is.

[Anonymous No.19073038]

>>19071439
>When I was twelve years old I came up with if God real why bad thing happen?
Wow Nietzsche never grew out of his edgy atheist phase huh?

[Anonymous No.19073078]

>>19071439
>>When I was twelve years old I thought up an odd trinity: namely, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Devil. My inference was that God, in contemplating himself, created the second person of the godhead; but that, in order to be able to contemplate himself, he had to contemplate, and thus to create, his opposite.
Jung has a similar conclusion in his analysis of the Book of Job.

[Anonymous No.19073086]

>>19072923
>up is the absence of left

[Anonymous No.19073194]

>>19071439
>>19072765
I pity people like you that try to comprehend a disturbed person. A lot of free time huh?

[Anonymous No.19073917]

>>19073194
Why are you on /lit/ if you don't like reading books?

[Anonymous No.19073974]

>>19071439
>>Everything good is the transmutation of something evil: every God has a Devil for a father.
Refuted by Augustine a millennia beforehand.

[Anonymous No.19073999]

>>19073974
It's just a rephrasing of Heraclitus' "war is the father of all things," at least as I understood it, since the original Hebrew for Satan means adversary, to oppose.

[Anonymous No.19074011]

>>19073917
I read shit that makes sense, not some STD's ridden german loner schizo ramblings
>inb4 FILTERED
pic related

[Anonymous No.19074046]

>>19074011
>I read shit that makes sense
So do I, which is why I stopped reading your posts :^)

[Anonymous No.19074051]

Christcucks are in eternal damage control

[Anonymous No.19074054]

>>19071439
why do atheists always come up with their "philosophy" when they're fucking preteens and never change their beliefs?
>when i was 8 i read two chapters f the bible and realized it was just like santa claus. from that moment on, i was euphoric

[Anonymous No.19074090]

>>19074054
Why should they change them when they're right?

[Anonymous No.19074103]

>>19071439
God didn't create the second person of the Godhead (implying you're speaking of Christ)

Christ is openly admitted to have been there before the beginning of time. Nietzsche is a fraud.

[Anonymous No.19074105]

>>19072923
left is a path you choose to take and you can't go both left and right at the same time.

[Anonymous No.19074108]

>>19074103
>Christ is openly admitted to have been there before the beginning of time.
And that means God the Son wasn't created by God the Father? Fathers create sons, do they not?

[Anonymous No.19074110]

>>19074108
Again, scripture attests to this, it is not interpretation. Jesus Christ was there before time itself, is one with God and openly claims I AM.

[Anonymous No.19074113]

>>19074110
What scripture? Why is it Father and Son if the former didn't create the latter?

[Anonymous No.19074123]

>>19074113
>What scripture
For what claim? We are all sons of the most High if we accept Him and follow Him. He was just the first one, a forerunner of many to come. Though being one with God, He was seated at the same height as God.

[Anonymous No.19074124]

>>19074123
>For what claim?
That God the Father did not create God the Son. That they both existed before time does not mean this is not the case.

[Anonymous No.19074131]

>>19074124
John 1:1-5

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome[a] it.

[Anonymous No.19074134]

>>19074108
>Fathers create sons, do they not?
no. to create means to make something out of nothing in the theological sense. men don't create sons, they procreate. the Father begets the Son. there was never a time when the Son was not begotten.

[Anonymous No.19074136]

>>19074124
John 1:9-13
9 The true light that gives light to everyone was coming into the world. 10 He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. 11 He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. 12 Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— 13 children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.

[Anonymous No.19074154]

>>19074131
This doesn't justify your claim. Word being God doesn't mean God did not create Word. As the OP claims about the trinity, God the Father created God the Son in contemplation of himself; this does not mean one came before the other or is separate from one another (unless you mean to argue the existence of the trinity entirely).

>>19074134
This sounds like a semantic argument now.

[Anonymous No.19074165]

>>19074154
>This doesn't justify your claim. Word being God doesn't mean God did not create Word
Yes, it does. Pay close attention.

>2 He was with God in the beginning
Not the beginning of creation, because right after that we see that the discussion of the beginning of creation is spoken of
>3 Through him all things were made, without him nothing was made that has been made
It is straight up claiming that Jesus was with God in the beginning, as in the realization of God by God.

[Anonymous No.19074171]

>>19074154
It doesn't say
>He was created by God in the beginning
It is straight up saying
>He was WITH God in the beginning
There's a huge difference there that you refuse to acknowledge.

[Anonymous No.19074174]

>>19074165
Word can be with God in the beginning and still be created by God. Creation here means something unlike the creation we are familiar with because we are talking about the trinity.

[Anonymous No.19074176]

>>19071439
This is just a rehashed version of the plot of Paradise Lost. Many pseud souls ITT

[Anonymous No.19074177]

>>19074174
The Word is God realizing Himself
>and the word was God

[Anonymous No.19074180]

>>19074177
"Realizing" is precisely the meaning of creation in the OP quote.

[Anonymous No.19074181]

>>19073086
Up is something besides the absence of left. Is evil now something besides the absemce of good?

[Anonymous No.19074182]

>>19074180
No, you're choosing to ignore the fact that the word is God! Not a byproduct of God, but God Himself!

[Anonymous No.19074186]

>>19074182
You don't understand the trinity.

[Anonymous No.19074191]

>>19074186
The Father, the Son and the holy Spirit. What is there not to understand? Jesus Christ literally claims I AM. Do you understand the implications of that?

[Anonymous No.19074200]

>>19074186
No-one understands the trinity. Christcucks even take pride in the fact that the trinity is nonsensical, because it proves the fallibility of the human intellect or whatever. It is the greatest psy-op in history.

[Anonymous No.19074201]

>>19074191
>What is there not to understand?
What we're discussing about it. Creation in the OP means realization and you misunderstood this part.

[Anonymous No.19074211]

>>19074191
you're arguing with a disingenuous teenager. stop wasting your time.

[Anonymous No.19074217]

>>19074201
Well I also did claim Nietzche was a fraud, and for good reason. God realized Himself. Jesus Christ was with God in the beginning, Jesus Christ is one with God. He is I AM.

>>19074211
>stop wasting your time
I have literally nothing but time. I can't waste it.

[Anonymous No.19074237]

>>19074217
>God realized Himself.
Which also means realizing / creating the trinity, which is still God.

[Anonymous No.19074240]

>>19074237
No is and always was. He was never created. He just was and always will be.

[Anonymous No.19074250]

>>19074240
>God realized Himself.
>He was never created.
These two statements are contradictions and you'd understand this if you understood the meaning of the word "creation" within the context of the thread.

[Anonymous No.19074253]

>>19074250
He was never created as in nothing came before Him.

[Anonymous No.19074262]

>>19074253
So you dispute the existence of the trinity?

[Anonymous No.19074271]

>>19074262
Ok you really are a troll. Good day.

[Anonymous No.19074287]

>>19074271
I'll take that as a yes. You want to claim the existence of the trinity while simultaneously claiming that they have no relationship with one another. You have no idea what you're even arguing for or what the OP quote is talking about. All that is meant there is that God the Father leads to God the Son, these being parts of the trinity and in total being God Himself. Nietzsche explained this in The Antichrist:

>The concept of "the Son of God" does not connote a concrete person in history, an isolated and definite individual, but an "eternal" fact, a psychological symbol set free from the concept of time. The same thing is true, and in the highest sense, of the God of this typical symbolist, of the "kingdom of God," and of the "sonship of God." Nothing could be more un-Christian than the crude ecclesiastical notions of God as a person, of a "kingdom of God" that is to come, of a "kingdom of heaven" beyond, and of a "son of God" as the second person of the Trinity.

So all that was meant in the OP was a symbolic relationship between God the Father and God the Son.

[Anonymous No.19074314]

>>19074287
Further from that passage in The Antichrist:

>But it is nevertheless obvious enough what is meant by the symbols "Father" and "Son"—not, of course, to every one—: the word "Son" expresses entrance into the feeling that there is a general transformation of all things (beatitude) and "Father" expresses that feeling itself—the sensation of eternity and of perfection.

I'd like you to explain just how Nietzsche got this wrong. You have to take into account that he was recounting a thought he had when he was 12 in the OP quote. It doesn't necessarily establish his full understanding of the trinity. His point there is that his starting point in philosophy was the idea that for God to contemplate Himself he had to posit an opposite, God the Devil.

[Anonymous No.19074442]

>>19071439
>"God the Devil"

[Anonymous No.19074480]

>>19074314
>opposite
God by nature is beyond all opposition and dialectic. It does not even make logical sense to say that there exists a subsistence "opposite" to God, all antinomies are transcended by God inherently.
The Son is not a creation, as he thinks and not a relation on the Father, but rather a person from all eternity who is begotten of the Father.
Nietzsche in his pride is being fooled by a demon to think that dialectics is an inherent property of reality and not a mere (consequence on created reality) induced by the fall of Adam. He even foolishly reads this supposed eternal existence of dialectics in creation back into the uncreated, as if creation is somehow a physical part of God and its visible properties today are one-to-one a correspondence with something "in" God.

[Anonymous No.19074536]

>>19074480
>I can't further my semantic argument any more, so I'll latch on to another word and do the same thing, I guess
You're endlessly boring. Guess that's why you're a goody two shoes Christian.

[Anonymous No.19074778]

>>19074536
>Guess that's why you're a goody two shoes Christian.
Yes.

[Anonymous No.19074871]

>>19074778
>Yes, I am boring

[Anonymous No.19074918]

>>19074287
Neet didn't understand the trinity. This isn't surprising for a 12 yr old. An elaboration of his misunderstanding isn't necessary.
Neet within his little bubble may be elegant but it has only a superficial relation to Christian theology and it's wrong to imply neet is being consistent with it in his analysis here.

[Anonymous No.19074927]

>>19074918
>Neet didn't understand the trinity.
So, how didn't he?

[Anonymous No.19075033]

>>19074871
Fun is for the fallen bugmen.

[Anonymous No.19075044]

>>19075033
Damn, what a cope

[Anonymous No.19075055]

>>19074927
He thinks the Son is a relation, not a real person.
He thinks the Son is an eternal creation, which is absurd on two levels.
>>19075044
True joy is in heaven with Christ and the saints. Cheap drugs and degenerate pleasures are low-tier manufactured happiness and unworthy of humans.

[Anonymous No.19075071]

>>19074927
>realizing = creation (according to you)
yet every christian knows we say "begotten, not made". also
> Nothing could be more un-Christian than the crude ecclesiastical notions of God as a person, of a "kingdom of God" that is to come, of a "kingdom of heaven" beyond, and of a "son of God" as the second person of the Trinity.
>and of a "son of God" as the second person of the Trinity.
Like, honestly, if you don't see how neet doesn't understand the trinity maybe you just don't know christian theology - like neet. If you want a philosophical treatise on the trinity you'd need to go read a christian theologian, not an atheist philosopher.

[Anonymous No.19075077]

>>19075055
>He thinks the Son is a relation, not a real person.
Are you someone else? Because this is inconsistent with the argument being made before. And how is God the Son a "real person"?

>True joy is in heaven with Christ and the saints.
Heaven is a condition of the heart.

[Anonymous No.19075085]

>>19075077
>Heaven is a condition of the heart

[Anonymous No.19075087]

>>19075071
In this context creating = realizing. There's no point in continuing this semantic bullshit because it's not getting you anywhere.

[Anonymous No.19075091]

>>19075085
The kingdom of heaven is WITHIN you...

[Anonymous No.19075098]

>>19071439
>in order to be able to contemplate himself, he had to contemplate, and thus to create, his opposite.—
I dont see how that follows

[Anonymous No.19075101]

>>19075087
i'm not even the original anon and i agree you are wrong. if you can't provide the accuracy of terms you shouldn't go about discussing the trinity - it's far more complex than neets language is capable of. neet is a showman - he isn't going to be able to provide anything approaching a meaningful discussion on the trinity. he can't capture it properly. you thinking its all "semantic bullshit" is because you dont have the precision of thought to do so either.

>>19075085
That's a legitimate statement and should not be mocked.

[Anonymous No.19075106]

>>19072923
Left and right exist only relative the perceiver. They have no ontological grounding. Discussing left and right as gradients of being therefore is incoherent. It isn't a valid comparison.

[Anonymous No.19075140]

>>19075098
Then you lack a philosophical eye.

>>19075101
>if you can't provide the accuracy of terms you shouldn't go about discussing the trinity - it's far more complex than neets language is capable of.
Yet you're not showing me how it's "more complex," just telling me I'm wrong. How is God the Son a "second person" and how is this a "more complex" understanding?

>you dont have the precision of thought to do so either.
It's you and the other guy who want to remove the context within which the word "create" is being used in the OP quote, not me. That's what a lack of precision of thought looks like.

[Anonymous No.19075170]

>>19075140
Yeah nah man it's a leap not justified in the quote. He just assumes self contemplation creates an opposite. I do not accept this as given.

[Anonymous No.19075172]

>>19075140
How is God the Son a "real person"

[Anonymous No.19075181]

>>19075140
>How is God the Son a "real person"
is what I meant.

>>19075170
Read Heraclitus

[Anonymous No.19075210]

>>19071439
>>19072765
Read the first chapter of BGE and the third of GM
Will to untruth creates Will to truth
Untruth creates truth
Evil creates good

[Anonymous No.19075292]

>>19075140
>How is God the Son a "second person"
No one is going to rehash ~300 years of theological work in explaining the trinity to you here. who wants to recreate the nicene creed. read a theologian if you want to understand the trinity. St. Augustine has a massive tome on it you could try.

[Anonymous No.19075346]

>>19075292
If you / he won't explain what was meant, then the argument has been forfeited.

[Anonymous No.19075455]

>>19071439
>If you hear anyone praised these days for living “wisely” or “like a philosopher” it basically just means he is “clever and keeps out of the way.” To the rabble, wisdom seems like a kind of escape, a device or trick for pulling yourself out of the game when things get rough. But the real philosopher (and isn’t this how it seems to us, my friends?) lives “unphilosophically,” “unwisely,” in a manner which is above all not clever, and feels the weight and duty of a hundred experiments and temptations of life: – he constantly puts himself at risk, he plays the rough game...

[Anonymous No.19075924]

Why is good not an absence of evil?

[Anonymous No.19076360]

>>19075924
Because convoluted nietzschean ontology that nobody, including Nietzsche, wants to explain

[Anonymous No.19076382]

>>19071439
>plagiarizing Boehme and Hegel is based

[Anonymous No.19076405]

>>19076360
But it's Christians who would have to explain that one

[Anonymous No.19077306]

>>19075106
>good and evil exist only relative the perceiver. They have no ontological grounding. Discussing good and evil as gradients of being therefore is incoherent. It isn't a valid comparison

[Anonymous No.19077326]

I hate Christian metaphors.

[Anonymous No.19077397]

>>19077306
>existence is relative to the perceiver
Start with the greeks

[Anonymous No.19077467]

>>19073038
He was the original edgy manchild

[Anonymous No.19077488]

>>19076382
>muh plagiarism
Everyone worth a damn plagiarizes the good parts from others and re-contextualizes them into a more brilliant whole.

[Anonymous No.19077534]

>>19077306
>good and evil exist only relative the perceiver.
That's wrong though. The fact that good is so consistently grounded in the same thing should allow anyone with half a brain to realize it is ontologically grounded in root, and especially the fact that it's impossible for anyone to say what bad is without referring to what is supposed (what is "good") to be done. The dichotomy between left and right is more similar to the dichotomy between man and woman than good and bad. If morality is made a dichotomy like masculine and feminine, then good and bad are totally relative and morality ceases to exist, so it actually contradicts itself. Morality cannot be a proper duality without simultaneously ceasing to be morality (and before you say it, there is nothing inherently wrong with being either a man or a woman, so these do not qualify as "moral" principles, just as there is no inherent moral difference between left and right). Moralistic dualism is essentially the foundation of all moral relativism, because both poles of the duality are equally co-dependent, meaning that good and evil can be swapped around at will, there is no precedence of one principle over the other by nature like there is with a one-dimensional ontology which is defined by and rooted in pure magnitude. Morality ceases to be morality in dualism, so it must be found somewhere else (in ontology, which grounds all dualisms).

[Anonymous No.19077545]

>>19077534
>o inherent moral difference between left and right
Forgot to mention that there is no primary ontological difference between left and right. Both left and right can have equally opposite magnitudes or degrees of extremity, meaning there is only a derived difference between the two, not an unconditioned difference. They are both only related to each other through the unconditioned principle at their root (being/"magnitude").

[Anonymous No.19077557]

>>19077534
pretty ok post.

[Anonymous No.19077571]

>>19077534
As repeated time and again,
commonness =/= objectiveness

[Anonymous No.19077660]

>>19077571
Objectiveness = commonness

[Anonymous No.19077670]

>>19077660
>when the pleb tries to think

[Anonymous No.19077673]

>>19071439
>no mommy god
ngmi

https://rumble.com/ve75nt-invocation-of-kali.html

[Anonymous No.19077683]

>>19077670
I don't give thoughtful responses to people who don't give me the same in return. You gave me a two word reply so I gave you the same.

[Anonymous No.19077689]

>>19077683
I don't spoonfeed plebs

[Anonymous No.19077696]

>>19077689
Neither do I.

[Anonymous No.19077701]

>>19077689
>no you
the otherguy made an actual blogpost, so I dont know if you are the one to talk.

[Anonymous No.19077709]

>>19077696
Who's asking you to? The length of the post doesn't indicate its quality. You wrote a paragraph of nonsense because you erroneously conflated commonness with objectiveness. Common associations for what is good and what is evil does not mean they are not relative. Now buzz off, pleb.

[Anonymous No.19077753]

>>19077709
>erroneously conflated commonness with objectivenes
Objectiveness IS commonality in its essence, brainlet, that is how objectivity is fundamentally defined. The essence of objectivity is that it is purely common to all. The fact that a particular (negation of objectivity) action occurs commonly (predicate) DOES NOT mean that it is properly objective, and I never stated otherwise.
>Common associations for what is good and what is evil does not mean they are not relative
This is why you should've read the rest of my post. The fact first of all that there is a hierarchical distinction between good and bad means they cannot be relative (ie, proper dualisms). Dualisms do not possess hierarchy, as I said, the two poles of a duality are co-dependent, and therefore it is impossible to base any sort of morality (even a "relative" morality) on it, because it is self-defeating and no longer any sort of morality at all. Therefore all morality, no matter how contingently it is given in reality, is based on a hierarchical ontological principle (Being and non-Being), and not duality, and is therefore not relative, because one principle is absolutely unconditioned, whereas the other is conditioned by the first. If morality were made relative, it would no longer be morality, it would be something else like the distinction between male and female, as I already stated in clearer terms in the previous post. And there is no means of objectively distinguishing superiority between male and female, they only have relative values (to the unconditioned principle), whereas with good and bad, they are by their nature (without referring back to any higher or prior principle) hierarchically distinguished.

FYI, Schopenhauer was filtered by both Fichte AND Hegel.

[Anonymous No.19077777]

>>19077753
>more nonsense
Objectiveness is a measure of how "external" something's existence is; how independent it is from a perspective. The commonness of a certain idea, impression, or whatever, does not at all prove or demonstrate the objectiveness of it. It may suggest that there is a common root from which these ideas, impressions, or whatever are forming, but it does not indicate anything regarding the nature of their existence; the common root is something distinct from them. Good and evil are always relative: all "good" people are also "evil" according to their opposites, vice versa.

[Anonymous No.19077805]

>>19071439
>Cesare Borgia as Pope: am I clear?
Someone has to play the heel, after all

[Anonymous No.19077825]

>>19077777
>The commonness of a certain idea
You're using opposite terms improperly, this is equivalent to stating: the commonness of something which isn't common ( which is "certain" or "particular"). I already addressed this in the post you just replied to.

Anyhow, objectivity is not a measure of externality (I have no idea where you got this idea from), it is commonality in its essence, or in other words the principle of reality as such. Not the "specific commonality" (which you don't seem to realize is self-contradictory: "non-common commonality"), but the essence of commonality. If objectivity were mere externality, then the colour red would be more objective than the fact that 1 + 1 = 2, because the former is more externally induced, whereas the latter, seemingly, is only internally induced. Yet, in general, we all have a more common (objective) understanding of the latter arithmetic truth than what red is.
>Good and evil are always relative:
You keep claiming this but you haven't actually refuted or engaged with any of my arguments. As I've already stated twice now, if good and bad are relative then they can no longer be referred to as good and bad because there is no longer a hierarchical distinction. You have to choose what you want to call them.
> all "good" people are also "evil" according to their opposites
The fact that individual humans have erroneous beliefs about reality does not mean reality does not exist; the fact that people who are wrong believe they are doing right only confirms my point more, because every single person acts according to what is seen as good (even if they are deceived or confused by what they are seeing). And again, the fact that people are capable of thinking of "good" and "bad" at all must mean that they exist as non-relative principles prior to any specific determinations of them, as I've already shown in the two previous posts.

[Anonymous No.19077917]

>>19077825
>You're using opposite terms improperly, this is equivalent to stating: the commonness of something which isn't common ( which is "certain" or "particular"). I already addressed this in the post you just replied to.
It was just a loose choice of wording. You're missing the point big time.

>Anyhow, objectivity is not a measure of externality (I have no idea where you got this idea from)
From philosophy. I'm 99% sure that Schopenhauer discusses this at one point. It's also defined this way in various dictionaries, so it's not like this is an abnormal take.

>If objectivity were mere externality, then the colour red would be more objective than the fact that 1 + 1 = 2, because the former is more externally induced, whereas the latter, seemingly, is only internally induced.
I'm not going to bother trying to decipher this, because it seems really trivial to the overall discussion.

>As I've already stated twice now, if good and bad are relative then they can no longer be referred to as good and bad because there is no longer a hierarchical distinction.
Good and bad are values, and values require an evaluator. If I call something good and something else bad, then the frame of reference from which a hierarchy can be formed is myself. They live and evolve and die with me and exist and have influence insofar as I do. It is nonsensical to dissociate values from all evaluators.

>every single person acts according to what is seen as good
To what they (if they are the authority) or the authority above them sees as good, sure.

>And again, the fact that people are capable of thinking of "good" and "bad" at all must mean that they exist as non-relative principles prior to any specific determinations of them
That definitely doesn't follow at all. Pleasure and pain principles come before them, which are built into our central nervous system, but as we experience and grow and mature, those principles are refined and become more complex. The more complex applications of good and bad that we make in our mature years doesn't exist prior to those years.

[Anonymous No.19079454]

>>19077534
This, fellow anons, is what sophistry looks like.