[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 219 KB, 1080x1440, capture_7.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
21715764 No.21715764 [Reply] [Original]

Schopenbros...our response?

>> No.21715770

>>21715764
Need to know author's name to ad hominem him correctly.

>> No.21715779

>>21715770
Alistair Sinclair

>> No.21715789

>>21715779
Never heard of him.

Done.

>> No.21715794

>All our philosophy starts from a false base; it begins always by considering man as an individual, and not as he should be considered—that is, as a being belonging to a collectivity; most of the philosophical (and mistaken) views stemming from this false premise either are led to the conception of a happiness m the clouds, or to a pessimism like that of Schopenhauer and Hartmann.
—M. Bakunin

>> No.21715832 [DELETED] 
File: 552 KB, 1089x3832, Scho incel.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
21715832

>>21715789
Based. Schopenhauer was a resentful incel with mommy issues and generally disliked by peers, kek.

>> No.21715885
File: 943 KB, 1088x2880, Scho incel.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
21715885

>>21715764
Based, kek. Schopenhauer was a resentful incel with mommy issues and generally disliked by peers. He was highly prone to jealousy as well as neurotic and paranoid.

>> No.21715940

>>21715764
Schpensisters been hella quiet since this dropped.

>> No.21715962

>>21715764
He’s right about the cope desu. Mainlander is the true sincere pessimist king.

>> No.21715999

>>21715764
There doesn't need to be a response because this is 60IQ tier writing. The author clearly doesn't understand what the will-to-life really means, and if he did, he would realize that comparing its denial to mass suicide is the most hairbrained shit. You know what else tranquilizes the will to life, other than asceticism? As said in the Third Book of Volume One, it's art (or the mental concentration needed to create it, but Schopenhauer applies that to "the genius"). It would be one thing if Mr. Retard quoted something from Parerga and Paralipomena, but he chose World as Will and Representation instead, the very work that refutes him. Try harder next time, OP.

>> No.21716041

>>21715885
>journal of happiness studies
what the fuck is this?

>> No.21716076

>>21715764
Hitler bad hahha i said it

>> No.21716078

>>21715999
>absolutely seething
>>21716041
A journal specifically related to studying the subject matter of this thread. Cope.

>> No.21716101
File: 2.22 MB, 3840x2160, 2331AC47-ABBA-417E-830D-E1D9A9D9F709.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
21716101

Even though Schopenhauer says that suicide is our right and that to deny it is criminal, he does not advocate for suicide, and in fact makes it clear in his essay that his main work proves suicide to be fruitless. Denying our will either means create art or be good to others (put crudely by me). Schopenhauer holds the highest respect for someone like Madame Guyon, for example. Then again he says just because we are born into privilege, for the lack of a better word, denying the will does not necessarily mean going full ascetic. Think of Schopenhauer as a martyr. Think of Nietzsche’s response: just because I provide you the key to release you from your cell doesn’t mean it’s the key to release mine. And in Paregra and Parepilomena (sorry phone) he critiques these types of attacks that look at a philosopher’s life instead of what he does.

Schopenhauer bolts into a room of people and screams, “RUN RUN, THE BUILDING IS ON FIRE,” and Bertrand Russel squints and says, “Aren’t you the guy who pushed that woman down the stairs?”

>> No.21716109

>>21716078
I figure you're b8ing me, but on the very rare off-chance that you're being serious, I'm going to entertain this. Genuine question: if art in Schopenhauer's view causes the denial of the will-to-life, what do you think that implies about its denial? Since the artistic genius requires contemplation of his object to create the art (leading to the tranquilizing of the will-to-life), that does imply the artist survives, no?
I have to ask you this now, anon: when you just read everything above, can you tell me how this relates at all to "mass suicide"? Just wondering.

>> No.21716175
File: 116 KB, 800x533, cuck.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
21716175

>>21716109
>sperg

>> No.21716188

This person writes like a blogger.

>> No.21716200

>>21715999
trips of truth
/thread

>> No.21716228

>>21716200
>samefag

>> No.21716370

>>21715885
>Rozemarijn Schalkx
>Ad Bergsma
These can't be real names

>> No.21716459

>>21715764
>In short, schopenhauer's is a sad loser's philosophy
kek

>> No.21716694
File: 1.61 MB, 1379x910, incel.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
21716694

>>21716175

>> No.21716708

>>21716694
That image needs the trad mommy wojak

>> No.21716790

>>21715764
>uh like Schopenhauer's a heckin idiot because uh Hitler liked him
Of course this brainlet completely disregard's Schopenhauer's influence on physicists such as Max Planck, Einstein, Wolfgang Pauli and Erwin Schrodinger; with Einstein's emphasis on spatiotemporal separability being influenced by Schopenhauer.
>>21716175
>>21716694
His mother was upset that Goethe called her son a genius, and Schopenhauer refuted Hegel in the first half of the fourfold root, by proving that causality is a priori, the necessary immediacy of perception is shown from the fact that the stimuli of light on the retina is immediately processed by the brain into an objective intuition.

>> No.21716803

>>21716101
yea. In is essay on suicide he says that suicide is actually one of the most will-affirming actions you can carry out.

>> No.21716910

reads like something from r/philosophy

>> No.21716927

>>21715764
Starts good then goes full on retard. Modern "academics" should hang in minecraft on cubic trees.

>> No.21717028

>>21716694
What did his mom write?
>articles on paintings
>biography of a friend
>travelogues
Literally trash tier. Nobody even remembers her so who gives a shit.

>> No.21717107

>>21716790
>>21717028
>NOOOOO! WHO CARES ABOUT HIS MOMMY ISSUES AND THE FACT HE ADMITTED TO BEING AN INCEL! HIS MOM WAS ONLY MORE POPULAR BECAUSE SHE WROTE FLUFF! AND I SWEAR HE TOTALLY BTFO HEGEL!
Kek.

>> No.21717114

>>21716694
>t. salon hostess art hoe and author of trash romances; BPD ass drove husband to suicide

>> No.21717116

>>21715764
I read a book with a soliloquizing parrot and the narrator kept referring to it as a "feathered Schopenhauer", that's pretty much all I know about him

>> No.21717121

>>21717107
The original source of those book quotes, like your comments, has no real substance. It's amazing what garbage can be published. Reads like a blog. The kind with twin martini glasses, an apple, and a bouquet of flowers as the header.

>> No.21717145

>>21717114
>>21717121
Today I learned that Schopenhauer is king of the incels and they will take it personally if you point out his shitty life lead to shitty cope.

>> No.21717158

>>21717145
We're both wasting time on /lit/. The only difference is you're wrong. Cheers.

>> No.21717164
File: 1.73 MB, 640x706, img.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
21717164

>>21717158
>YOU'RE WRONG! CHEERS!
Kek. Have sex.

>> No.21717170

>>21717164
Only if you bend over

>> No.21717202

>>21717170
Learn charm from someone other than Schopenhauer. For now: touch grass.

>> No.21717229

>>21716910
r/philosophy?

>> No.21717266

>>21717164
Not him but Just did about an hour ago and I think you’re a fucking retard troll. I do have to ask though, what do you get out of this? Just entertainment? There’s other ways to amuse yourself you know

>> No.21717389

>>21717266
>what do you get out of this?
(You)s from newfags who belong on reddit apparently. Congratulations on the sex but make sure your uncle doesn't lurk next time you post about playing poopy-dick with your cousin.

>> No.21717432

>>21717107
Yea man, idc all that much about his personal issues. You are treating philosophy like it's a high school popularity contest.

>> No.21717472

>>21717432
>OP posts page shtting on Schopenhauer
>anons seethe
>study points out Schopenhauer was pretty pathetic as a person and gave shitty advice
>anons seethe
>make meme to laugh about Schopenhauer cucking himself (i.e. Hegel)
>anons seethe
>make meme to laugh about Schopenhauer having petty mommy issues and admitting to being an incel
>anons seethe
Philosophy is serious business, alright?!

>> No.21717512

>>21717389
Why do you care so much about (you)s from newfags?

>> No.21717591

>>21715764
I'm not even one the Schopie admirers but this is just pretty pathetic writing, Schopenhauer already btfo'd this whole class in his screed against writers of compendia and popular histories. That and many other writings of his are at least amusing to read and therefore good /lit/erature. The talentless hack that wrote OPs pic should be stacking shelves or tilling soil somewhere

>> No.21717807

>>21717472
History has proven Schopenhauer right. Seethe and dilate, troon.

>> No.21717844

>>21717807
>make greentext to show them they need to chill
>anons seethe

>> No.21717850

>>21717512
I don't. Stop asking so many questions, faggot.

>> No.21717873

1. this reads like something self-published
2. pessimism of outlook is not the same as active fatalism. e.g. conviction that abstractions, states and laws will always be imperfect is not the same as thinking concepts or states shouldn't exist and all laws are wrong.
3.
>from the half dozen histories of philosophy that now appear every year we merely receive what entered the head of a philosophy professor, and in the form in which it there appears at that. It goes without saying that the thoughts of a great mind are bound to shrink considerably in order to fit into the three-pound-brain of such a parasite of philosophy, out of which they are then to emerge again, clothed in the respective jargon of the day, accompanied by his precocious judgement.
t. schopenhauer

>> No.21717880

>>21715764
Wittgenstein was not Shoppis disciple, he didn't care what anyone else thought before him. Everything else is on spot though.

>> No.21717897

>>21717850
Then what is it? Why are you getting so self conscious all of a sudden?

>> No.21717907

>>21715764
This whole text reeks of midwit concern trolling to me honestly. Just another poorly disguised agenda.
Oh won't anyone think of those late 19th century suicides (which I'm sure were well researched and not just a baseless assumption at all) and what about Hitlerino. Don't forget to casually disregard all Eastern philosophy because it doesn't fit neatly into my preestablished framework.
A leftist definitely wrote this that's for sure.

>> No.21717917

>>21717897
>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
Go back, retard.

>> No.21718389

>>21715764
>Schopenhauer's philosophy is for sad losers
I wonder what the author's philosophy is?

>> No.21718938

>>21716228
No and this exact thread has taken place before. Your argument boils down to "le inkwell!!1!". Then again you can't really expect much more from "people" who chop their own genitals off.

>> No.21718945

>>21715764
I don’t think he read him honestly

>> No.21719091 [DELETED] 
File: 822 KB, 652x898, eunchae blue.webm [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
21719091

>>21715764

did some retarded christian write this shit? they tend to strawman anything that is non-christian

>> No.21719123

>>21715885

which makes him one of most interesting philosophers to ever exist

i would rather read a biography about schoepenhauer than about hagel's boring ass

>> No.21719136

>>21715764
cheap watch

>> No.21719271

>>21715764
>logically, mass suicide is what Schopenhauer...
why do people constantly make this up about Schopenhauer advocating for suicide? He literally has an entire chapter explaining why suicide is wrong, and how you can't just "cheat" the process of denying the Will.
The Will has to be denied through small acts of selflessness. Helping the poor, charity, that sorta stuff. Not by cheating and just shooting yourself.

>> No.21719467

>>21715885
>muh contemporary studies
>muh quantitative happiness
>muh vague number bullshit based on some vague subjective model and terrible sample size
fuck humanities and fuck women

>> No.21719506

>>21715885
>he dreaded going to a hairdresser's, fearing that his throat would be cut

Holy shit I thought I was the only one. He's literally me fr fr.

>> No.21719624

>>21715764
Response to what?

>> No.21720470

>>21715764
Mass suicide, assuming a total mass suicide were even possible, would only stop the interfacing of individuated units of consciousness with THIS particular experiencial data stream in THIS particular reality frame/universe. So it would put an end to the set of all discrete experience packets rendered to the set of all observers which interface with ONE of the set of all existent universes/realities which a consciousness can be assigned to/interface with. This will not solve anything. This is a completely futile strategy on schops part which shows a complete misunderstanding of what both the physical reality is and also what consciousness is. BIG FAIL. There's not going to be an end to our iterations of discrete experience packets until the individuated units of consciousness finally achieve the teloses that teh god has which he expects of us. This could take a trillion raised to a trillion life times for each consciousness, or more. Or it could take just one more each before we are done with time constraints and cycles.

>> No.21720573

>>21717472
>make meme to laugh about Schopenhauer having petty mommy issues and admitting to being an incel
None of this is about the substance of his ideas, that's what people are taking issue with.
Even if his life was pathetic, at least make an attempt to seriously tackle with the substance of some his ideas.
That's why I said you and others are approaching this like a high school popularity contest or like Schopenheur is some Youtube E-Celeb: "Schopenheur did WHAT?"
I don't care make an actual substantive point.

>> No.21720632

>>21720573
>more seething
>spergs about popularity contests and e-celebs
The memes can only hurt you if you let them, anon. Calm down, people can still discuss Schopenhauer even after broaching the subject of his self-admitted inceldom and how it relates to his worldview/advice on happiness.

>> No.21720818

>>21720632
What because I'm tired of people only thinking in memes. "Heh this thinker is a loser incel .. Trashed"
I'm not denying that someone's life, or lack thereof, is relevant to evaluating the truth of their writing, but that is all anyone does here is this surface lvl meming. Gets boring.

>> No.21720838

>>21720818
>I'm tired of people only thinking in memes.
From a guy who has been seething over a couple of memes that's a lot of projection. It also raised an issue that escaped you which lead to you outing youself as both reactive and filtered. The memes worked. Simple as. Cope.

>> No.21721216

>>21717202
>>21717164
This is the behavior of someone on SSRIs. I can tell. The smug tone is very similar to those on antidepressants.

>> No.21721249

>>21720470
>This could take a trillion raised to a trillion life times for each consciousness, or more.
This is incorrect. There is only one life given to each soul. It is up to each soul to have faith in Christ so he is saved. The idea of reincarnation is a demonic deception.

>> No.21721382

>>21721216
I'm no fan of Big Pharma but maybe if Schopenhauer had access to SSRIs he wouldn't have been a depressed NEET incel for most of his life. We'll never know.

>> No.21721592

>>21721249
How do you know?

>> No.21721624

>>21721592
I just know, bro. god gave me, like, an episode.

>> No.21721917

>>21721624
>>21721592
If you experienced a message from an angel you would not be able to doubt its veracity. There is a numinous quality that accompanies a true miracle or the experience of the Divine. Such experiences are so filled with the spirit of Truth that it is not possible to doubt. It is the very same sensation you receive when you discover a truth through reasoning, or through contemplating nature.

>> No.21722628

>>21715885
Holy mental illness batman. The ancients were right: ill people cannot think well.

>> No.21722631

>>21721917
Is this a falsifiable claim?

>> No.21722632

>>21719123
It makes him a fuck up.

>> No.21722665

>>21717917
A half assed canned quip is all you could muster, you’re crumbling

>> No.21722783

>>21722665
Judging by the conversation it was all you were worth.

>> No.21722827

>>21722631
A miracle could be dismissed as a hallucination. Such a thing could be dismissed by a skeptic. But a miracle in which you are given information that turns out to be true that you could not have known in advance is an example of a miracle that cannot be so quickly dismissed by skeptics. My mother was given a message by an angel for another person. She could not have known the details of the message beforehand so it could not have been a hallucination. She told the woman meant to receive the message and her life was saved. The message my mother received from the angel involved this woman’s illness and what she needed to cure it.

Of course, this can be simply dismissed as a lie by those who did not experience it. But it is true. There are other ways of knowing the truth than through reasoning.

>> No.21722930

>>21722631
Also, it is absurd to suggest that I am committing a logical fallacy when the knowledge I am describing cannot be gained empirically or through reasoning. I recognize the fallacy of unfalsifiability. Therefore, any argument using logic would be insufficient to prove something that is gained through either first-hand miraculous experience or faith (which I recognize is irrational). Irrational faith can lead to gaining knowledge that cannot be gained empirically or rationally. It is an absurdity and a paradox to the logical mind. But, through faith, you may be given intuitions and messages that are true from spiritual sources. This way of knowing the truth is only available through faithful receptiveness and it is unavailable to those who are limited to rationalism or empiricism.

>> No.21723099

>>21722827
>>21722930
So basically, you are admitting that your claim is unfalsifiable, and so it does not merit further consideration?

>> No.21723111

>>21723099
Essentially without faith, we reach an impasse.

>> No.21723166

>>21723099
>To be incommunicable by Scientific language is, so far as I can judge, the normal state of experience….The very essence of our life as conscious beings, all day and every day, consists of something which cannot be communicated except by hints, similes, metaphors, and the use of those emotions…which are pointers to it.
C.S. Lewis

>> No.21723177

>>21723166
C S Lewis is a known cope artist.

>> No.21723178

>>21723177
No.

>> No.21723181

>>21723178
Yes.

>> No.21723193

>>21723177
Human life is irrational. Much of life entails coping with sorrow and pain. Faith allows you to keep your eyes on the eternal and transcendent which is necessary for a healthy, flourishing existence.

Kant:
"If one cannot prove that a thing is, he may try to prove that it is not. If he fails to do either (as often occurs), he may still ask whether it is in his interest to accept one or the other of the alternatives hypothetically, from the theoretical or the practical point of view."

It is in our interest as human beings to believe in Christ since it properly directs our attention to the eternal which is necessary for human flourishing. Do you believe it is merely a coincidence that the West rose to a new height of civilization after its people adopted Christianity?

>> No.21723273

>>21723193
Except christianity was the trough of the West, and it first peaked with Pagan Rome and then once again with the Enlightenment.

>> No.21723321

>>21723273
However, when a sizeable portion of the population no longer believed in any God whatsoever we saw a precipitous decline. During the Enlightenment the majority still believed. Pagan Rome was a horrific place to live in for a large portion of time. Constantine made Christianity the religion of the Empire, but the damage from decadence had already occurred.

>> No.21723339

>>21723321
Nope, medieval europe was a backwater continent which paled in comparison to the past Pagan Rome, the contemporary Islamic Caliphates of their time and the secular west following the enlightenment which we live in today in every measurable metric.

>> No.21723354

>>21723339
I didn't mention Medieval Europe. But it is unlikely that without the sacrifice and self-discipline of Christianity that the scientific method would never have been developed. Before Northern Europeans converted to Christianity they were still living in a stagnant, undeveloped condition. After converting they were creating Cathedrals of great beauty and complexity after several centuries. This is the power of Christ.

>> No.21723356

>>21723339
>secular west following the enlightenment which we live in today in every measurable metric.
No, we have declined since the late nineteenth century. You are only using a material metric, which is insufficient.

>> No.21723381

>>21723354
It is always amusing when the pissing contests between nobles is brought up as examples of christlike behaviour.

>> No.21723397

>>21723354
>they were creating Cathedrals of great beauty and complexity after several centuries
Somewhere in WWR, Schope notes that cathedrals are still being worked on (and in the 19th they were) despite Europe having entered into an unbelieving age. Your defense of Christianity is amusingly atheistic. Also extremely ignorant of all the Roman feats of engineering, some of which lapsed during the Christian era and had to be reinvented, like indoor plumbing.

>> No.21723400

>>21723381
>It is always amusing when the pissing contests between nobles is brought up as examples of christlike behaviour.

This is slightly tangential, but I think Chivalry, is a great thing. It is a pragmatic union between Christianity and the warrior ethic of the Teutonic man. It ought to be revived.

>> No.21723405

>>21723397
Again, this was due to the sins of the empire. Christianity came to predominate after the collapse was inevitable. The morality of Rome was abhorrent and it was inevitable that such a sinful society would perish.

>> No.21723407

>>21723397
My main point was written here:>>21722930
The first sentence contains a contradiction which I would remove if I could revise it. Otherwise, it is an accurate statement of my beliefs.

>> No.21723412

>>21723405
Which part of Rome was abhorrent? The witch hunt or the children's crusade? Or maybe you are referring to the breaking wheel?

>> No.21723420

>>21723397
To clarify my position on why faith is legitimate:

I am speaking of the psychic intuition that comes from genuine faith. I am speaking of being visited by angels and being told information that you could not have known otherwise, which did happen to my mother. She was given a message by an angel which helped save the life of an ill acquaintance. This, again, is unfalsifiable. But the information given to her was true and the experience was genuine. Her faith allowed her to have this experience.

Experiences of this kind gained through faith would not contradict truths discovered empirically or rationally. Faith is another way of attaining the truth.

>> No.21723425

>>21723412
The behavior of Nero and Caligula. The murdering of Christian martyrs. The disgusting entertainment in the Colosseum.

Everything you described happened despite Christianity and is not supported by Christian doctrine. Every sin that happened in Rome was intrinsic to the nature of their Paganism.

>> No.21723449

>>21723425
Remember when the christian god mauled 42 children with 2 bears?

>> No.21723460

>>21723405
>muh ressentiment
yes we know the christers won the religious struggle over the Roman empire and the Romans lost because they were le hecking evil sinners and not because, they, like Americans, were too naive against their desert psychopath adversaries

>> No.21723467

>>21723407
>>21723420
Well my main point is that you can't understand gothic cathedrals or the actually still-ongoing work on them purely in terms of religious faith, not now, not in Schopenhauer's century, and not when they were built either. They have a much greater abundance of meaning which your twitter tradcath zoomer gawking barely captures.

>> No.21723469

>>21723460
>Romans lost because they were le hecking evil sinners and not because, they, like Americans, were too naive against their desert psychopath adversaries

Projection of your very own ressentiment. I have absolutely no resentment against Rome and Classical Greece. I, of course, admire much of what they contributed to the humanities. But the structure of Roman society led to much unnecessary suffering.

>> No.21723482

>>21723469
The structure of the world which was supposedly created by the christian god has led to much unnecessary suffering.

>> No.21723483

>>21723467
>Well my main point is that you can't understand gothic cathedrals or the actually still-ongoing work on them purely in terms of religious faith

I concede this. But the ideal that informed the design of the gothic cathedral was thoroughly Christian and spiritual in nature:

https://smarthistory.org/birth-of-the-gothic-abbot-suger-and-the-ambulatory-at-st-denis/

>> No.21723486

>>21723482
Yet, if we rebel against God as Lucifer did things become much, much worse for us. We can only assume that God allows evil to exist for reasons unknown to us.

>> No.21723489

>>21723482
God is Love. This is due to the fallen nature of the world. All of this unnecessary suffering comes from Satan.

>> No.21723491

>>21723486
We can assume that evil exists because the christian god is not omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent.

>> No.21723498

>>21723469
>the structure of Roman society led to much unnecessary suffering.
So did feudalism and imperialism under Christianity. If we are going to blame "paganism" for the Roman empire, Christianity is to blame for far more centuries of exploitation and abuse and has a bloodier ledger. But I doubt you are assessing things from some sort of humanistic perspective, only adopting one tactically, moralizingly so, to pick on a dead enemy. Kind of like commemorating a war with the Seleucids every year, like your religious cousins do over in Brooklyn

>> No.21723517

>>21723498
>Christianity is to blame for far more centuries of exploitation and abuse and has a bloodier ledger.
Does it? I am not so sure. I am not being tactical. Moralizing is not a problem as I view the world through a moral lens. I am not even certain how one couldn't look at life through a moral lens without becoming detached from their nature.

>> No.21723519

>>21723486
>>21723489
Isn't it incredible how obviously informed Christianity is by an authoritarian/despotic/monarchial culture? I can see why it is finally making progress in China after years of difficulty.

>> No.21723527

>>21723519
>how obviously informed Christianity is by an authoritarian/despotic/monarchial culture?
Please elaborate on this.

>> No.21723534

>>21723489
Who created satan?

>> No.21723538

>>21723534
God gave the angels free will also.

>> No.21723547

>>21723517
>Does it? I am not so sure.
I'm not going to give you a history lesson, but something like a third of Germany died during the 17th century's religious wars. And that's getting into the tail end of what you could call the Christian period or an extended middle ages. There's plenty of stuff before that, and if we are going to be as generous as you are with blaming "paganism" for everything the Romans did which appears "evil" to Christians or humanists, we should do similar for the "evil" committed by the Spanish, Portguese, Dutch, English, French, Swedish, Italian, Russian, and American empires, all of which were formally Christian and attached missionary efforts to their imperial and colonial enterprises. If however, these moral excesses were not due to Christianity, (or can be ignored because they were done to advance Christianity) you are just engaging in sectarian posturing and should come with a warning label for having a high risk of interpolating even the most basic historical events.

>> No.21723550

>>21723527
Goes back to Akenaten, gets restored by Constantine, now picked up by various surplus males as a dream ideology

>> No.21723555

>>21723547
Ah I left out Germany and Belgium! Well you get the idea

>> No.21723570

>>21723538
Cool. Who created satan?

>> No.21723572

>>21723547
>If however, these moral excesses were not due to Christianity, (or can be ignored because they were done to advance Christianity) you are just engaging in sectarian posturing and should come with a warning label for having a high risk of interpolating even the most basic historical events.

I do not think that they can be ignored because they were done despite Christianity. I maintain that these events happened in spite of Christian belief. Those who would murder in the name of Christ did not know him.

The problem with much of debauchery of Rome is that there was no religious doctrine to check the behavior. Their paganism did not preclude this kind of behavior. Christ's teachings absolutely, unequivocally do.

>> No.21723581

>>21723570
God created Lucifer, yes. He gave him free will. Relationships cannot exist without free will. Without free will we would be the same as automata and no relationship could be had with God. Lucifer used his free will to rebel.

>> No.21723586

>>21723581
How do you distinguish between a being with free will and an automaton?

>> No.21723590

>>21723572
>I do not think that they can be ignored because they were done despite Christianity.
>>21723547
Typo. I do not think they can be ignored because they were done to advance Christianity.

>> No.21723604

>>21723572
>real Christianity has never been tried
oh thank god I was worried the two thousand years of it meant something, but since we've reduced it to yet another competing -ism floating around in the pomo stew of every ideology which has ever existed getting mentioned or advocated for at least once a day by somebody somewhere we can safely discard "true Christianity" as a curiousity on par with having expertise in ancient Druidry, or in the particulars of Romanian fascism, or in the courtly ideology of Heian period Japan

>> No.21723606

>>21723586
An automaton cannot choose, it simply acts in a mechanical, predictable fashion. This is why I do not agree with predestination. It implies man lacks free will. I view free will as having choice to do what we will bounded by the limitations of our nature. God's plan is a larger scale thing. It is akin to prescripted events in a game where you have the choice to act as you will.

>> No.21723612

>>21723604
>pomo stew of every ideology
Ideology is an impoverished replacement for religion. You are comparing a materialistic thing with something that provides spiritual nourishment and emotional health.

>> No.21723649

>>21723606
How do you distinguish between an automaton acting in a mechanical, predictable fashion and a being with free will having a choice to do what they will bounded by the limitations of their nature? Give examples of both.

>> No.21723654

>>21723612
>something that provides spiritual nourishment and emotional health.
A moralizing legal code which has apparently never been followed by anyone claiming to follow it? If it has no bearing and no real adherents nor custodians then it is in the public domain for larping purposes like everything else. One could easily find testimonial of people denouncing it as the very opposite of spiritual nourishment and emotional health. It is subject to this same circulation of ideas and debate as any other impoverished replacement for religion, your Christianity which excludes historic Christianity as its origin and instead begins from html.

>> No.21723758

>>21723654
I think by and large people who become Christians generally become better people than they would have been otherwise. The only One who could be a perfect Christian was Christ. The simple idea the God is love, the commandment to love our neighbor as ourself, is everything. Let’s do a thought experiment in line with Kants categorical imperative:
Imagine that all people had faith in Christ and tried their best to live out his teachings in their day to day lives. Wouldn’t this be the closest thing to peace on earth?

>> No.21723769

>>21723649
An automaton basically is completely instinctual. There is no choice involved. Man can consciously choose whether to reject an impulse or not. He chooses. The other animals live in a state of instinctual grace, similar to automata.

>> No.21723788

>>21723769
Automatons do make choices though, the exact same way humans make choices. Algorithmically, if A then B and so on, or will you argue that humans choose randomly?

>> No.21723815

>>21723788
The soul makes these free choices. Free will arises from the interaction between the spirit and matter. It isn’t algorithmic since there are multiple choices to make in each moment. Free will lies in one’s choice which is unpredictable and often irrational. People are even free to act based on a random whim.

>> No.21723829

>>21723788
Besides, from a practical point of view we act as if we have free will regardless. Our subjective experience doesn’t change either way.

>> No.21723905
File: 66 KB, 780x750, w4gz0wzz1i821.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
21723905

>>21723815
It is impossible for people to choose randomly. For, example, think of a random number between 1 and 10. When 8500 people were asked to do just that, 28% chose the number 7. There is a 1/4 chance that you yourself picked the number 7 just now, as opposed to the 1/10 if humans could truly choose randomly. Also, the unpredictability of human actions is not indicative of free will, inasmuch as the unpredictability of the weather is proof that the weather is conscious and has free will. This is besides the point that human behavior can be predicted, as we can see, among other things, positive correlations between factors like poverty and iq and actions like crime, for example. The two points above are strong indicators that human actions is deterministic, whereas free will is supported only by religious sentimentalism.

>> No.21723927

>>21723758
Yes and imagine if everyone were a Druid, or maybe a Romanian partisan, or a Heian courtier—truly harmonious. This exactly what I am getting at. You've picked Christianity out of a Sears mail-order catalog. You don't care about any of its particulars but want it as a furniture for your apartment. (It looks nicer than being an atheist!) And it took you only a few posts to reduce it to authoritarian compulsion (Kantian morality) too. And to make this goal a reality would recreate what all those supposedly false imperialist Christians were doing, would you, if you were able to?—the vision of everyone leveled before God, or at least his local officers, is too great of a dream to allow to vanish.

>> No.21723961

>>21723927
You are making plenty of assumptions. You assume that this could be achieved by force and that I would be in favor of force. I am emphatically opposed to both. I was merely illustrating the beauty of living in love and harmony with each other. This is something that Christs teachings offer to those who follow them.

>> No.21723980

>>21723905
I’m not well equipped to argue this point, but as far as I can tell it doesn’t make a difference from a practical (non-religious) perspective as our subjective experience remains the same and we act as if we have free will.

Besides, it’s possible that people choose seven because it’s considered a lucky number.

>> No.21723986

>>21715764
>What is Philosophy?: An Introduction
>goodreads rating: 3.43
>7 ratings
lol
lmao even

>> No.21724014

>>21723980
>it doesn’t make a difference from a practical (non-religious) perspective as our subjective experience remains the same and we act as if we have free will.
Wrong. All the soft sciences, political, economical, criminal, psychology and so on, conduct themselves under the pretense that determinism is true. This is where euphemisms like the rational consumer/voter come into play. Likewise, in a person's day to day life, even if that person would defend the idea of free will in a conversation, still acts under notions which would make no sense under a free will framework, like the idea that giving someone a present or compliment will make it more likely that they will grant favors to you, or that punishing children or criminals will make them behave.

>> No.21724027

>>21723905
>human behavior can be predicted, as we can see, among other things, positive correlations between factors like poverty and iq and actions like crime, for example. The two points above are strong indicators that human actions is deterministic, whereas free will is supported only by religious sentimentalism.

This is why I said we have free will within the limitation of our nature. People who are less intelligent are more instinctive, have lower effortful control, and therefore are more constricted in their freedom to choose and will. I have an IQ of 142 and certainly feel as if I have free will whenever I overcome my instincts and act rationally (or poetically). I don’t think you would put too much stock in MBTI typing, but I am an INFP and am much more governed by emotion than you (probably an INTJ or INTP). This would explain our very different worldviews.

>> No.21724029

>>21723961
>something that Christs teachings offer to those who follow them.
As already discussed, they aren't followed so this is just some arbitrary framework you've picked out of the catalog of other historically detached ideologies which are all now public domain. And if nobody is following this and you think it would be better if they all did, there aren't terribly many options to get people to do it. I'll admit my assumptions are a few steps ahead of your shopping cart, but your idiosyncratic "true Christianity" apparently has so little bearing on extant Christianity it could mean anything you say it does

>> No.21724047

>>21724027
Give an example of free will which absolutely cannot be explained away deterministically.

>> No.21724060

>>21724014
>euphemisms like the rational consumer/voter come into play.

People are anything but rational. As I said, people each have their own God given nature and this creates a limit for their free will. It’s strange, if I imagine that all my behaviors are due to an algorithm I become bitter and cynical. If I decide to not believe in God my heart grows cold. It leads to a spiritual death.

>> No.21724072

>>21724047
I don’t think I can do that as I don’t have any on hand.

>> No.21724076

>>21724060
For each and every human action, there is a rationale behind that action. Ask yourself, when have you ever performed an irrational action?

>> No.21724092

>>21724076
Id like to know what you mean by rationale. Is this some conscious strategy or and instinct/drive/impulse or both?

>> No.21724097

>>21724076
I often eat food that I am allergic to because it tastes good, but this is not rational because it is self destructive.

>> No.21724106

>>21724029
I challenge you to find a morality superior to that of Jesus.

>> No.21724112

>>21724072
A person is choosing which cereal to purchase for later consumption. He is taking into account various factors, such as taste, nutrition, brand loyalty and so on, and calculating which cereal is the best aggregate of these before purchasing that cereal. Where exactly does free will come into play?

>> No.21724114

>>21724060
>>21724076
Rationality or the rational actor is a virtual person created from a composite of assumptions about how he would behave. This is then mapped on to real people, as a model overtaking what it is meant to model. See bald retard, deleuze, etc. /lit/'s getting dumber with every post about Christianity. And having a rationale for something is not the same is "being rational," which assumes the model is being followed. Your rationale for doing something could be anything. A rapist could have been horny when he committed his act, now he is getting all the sex he wants, only behind bars and in his behind. Was that rational of him?

>> No.21724116

>>21724076
Not him but people get angry and furious and do all sorts of stupid shit when they are in that state.
My personal example, I smashed my phone when I was angry at something else. I was clearly doing something that wasn't in my best interest which is irrational. I also didn't have to do it but I did. Saying "I was just blowing off steam which was my more immediate need than having a functional phone" is just a cope because rationality doesn't just stop.

>> No.21724129

>>21724106
Buddhism articulated the "golden rule" well in advance of Jesus and did not have to square it with existing legalese regarding dogmatic claims about a divine regulator of life on earth spying on everyone's souls, who, for whatever reason, prefers one desert tribe to another until the Romans thoroughly destroy their statehood.

>> No.21724134

>>21724112
>Where exactly does free will come into play?
When you deliberately buy the brand that is the worst aggregate.

>> No.21724135

>>21715885
What retarded kind of study is this? Holy fuck! Not even trying to defend Schopenhauer, but what kind of "research" is this supposed to be?

>> No.21724136

>>21724114
I see. By that definition I agree that people do act with a rationale unless they are in a drunken stupor or sleep walking. I don’t see how this precludes one from having free will since ones rationale for each action could easily by chosen freely.

>> No.21724154

>>21724134
Does an action motivated by a desire to prove you have free will really prove that you have free will?

>> No.21724155

>>21724129
Buddhism is utterly life denying and sees all of creation as an evil. Christs teachings have us overcome that evil rather than deny it via asceticism.

>> No.21724164

>>21724154
Do any of your arguments prove determinism?

>> No.21724176

>>21724116
Right, but does you breaking your phone in a fit of rage prove that free will exists? It seems to me that it proves the opposite, no?

>> No.21724185

>>21724155
>creation as an evil
Why do you desire to have an eternally resurrected body in heaven under the judgment of God if the real life among those created by him on earth isn't in some way evil or a privation of good? Your moralizing labels, not mine of course.

>> No.21724186

>>21724164
The only way you could contradict determinism is by disputing the concept of causality entirely. The idea that cause and effect exists but also that human actions are separate from that chain of causality is pure magical thinking.

>> No.21724196

>>21724112
He seems to be choosing to be rational rather than giving in to an impulse, say, to buy something sugary or unhealthy because it tastes good. How does this prove determinism?

>> No.21724199

>>21724154
>action motivated by a desire to prove you have free will
Except that's not the reason why I would buy the worst brand, just your projected strawman. Like masochism, for example. That's not rational.
>>21724176
I wasn't talking about free will, but irrational actions which you claim do not exist. How do you reconcile "all actions are rational" with fit of rage existing?

>> No.21724208

>>21724186
If miracles exist, which I know they do from personal experience, then determinism is not guaranteed in every case.

>> No.21724214

>>21724208
>miracles
As i said, magical thinking.

>> No.21724227

>>21724185
The evil is due to demonic influence. I desire to live, resurrected in heaven because, first, it is what God wishes I would aim for, and second, that to exist in that divine love is the end of all existence.
From all the NDEs I have looked many people describe this divine love that eclipses earthly love.

>> No.21724234

>>21724214
As I said, undeniable personal experience where information was received that could not have been known otherwise.

>> No.21724239

>>21724186
>idea that cause and effect exists
Wow, what an easily provable concept. You sure you didn't make an epistemological leap there, bud?

>> No.21724241

>>21724199
Did I claim that all actions are rational? I only said that all actions are rationale, and, as much of a cope you think it is, you did indeed have a rationale for breaking your phone. The reason why you do not accept it as an adequate rationale is because you a reflecting on a past event, reaching conclusions using knowledge that wasn't privy to you during that past event. If you knew back then what you know now, you wouldn't have broken that phone.

>> No.21724244

>>21724214
I have my proof. I was once an atheist like you. I wasn’t convinced by argument. It took a religious experience. I won’t convince you, either.

>> No.21724247

>>21724227
Why would god create a holding pen where demons assail you and then send a shepherd to keep watch? It sounds too much like archaic political propaganda grafted on to religious or mystical sensibilities.

>> No.21724253

>>21724244
>religious experience
I'm sorry for your psychotic episode.

>> No.21724269

>>21724241
>you did indeed have a rationale for breaking your phone
Wrong.
>because you a reflecting on a past event, reaching conclusions using knowledge that wasn't privy to you during that past event.
>If you knew back then what you know now, you wouldn't have broken that phone.
Pure cope. I did know. You think I didn't know that smashing my phone will break it at the time? In essence, you are preaching Socrates' bullshit and only intellectual children fall for that claptrap.

>> No.21724270

>>21724253
How do you explain the legitimacy of remote viewing? If I receive psychic information, and this information is verified by a third party, and I had no knowledge this information beforehand, how is this not a legitimate spiritual experience.

>> No.21724281

>>21724154
>>21724176
>one action = free will does/doesn't exist
black and white fallacy

>> No.21724290

>>21724269
Yes, I think you greatly overestimated the durability of your phone, as people tend to do in a fit of rage.

>> No.21724294

>>21724253
It began by talking to a very spiritually developed person who, using his intuition, knew things about me that he could not have. I also have a psychic relative who receives messages from her spirit guides that are very accurate. My mother was visited by Saint Anthony and was given a message that concerned another person; information that she could not have known otherwise. These things have been proven to me.

>> No.21724299

>>21724270
If.

>> No.21724302

>>21724294
How do you know these weren't demons?

>> No.21724306

>>21724299
I have received information via my intuition and it has been verified multiple times.

>> No.21724311

>>21724290
Spoiler: I didn't smash it only once. I kept smashing it against the table.
>I think
You are projecting what you think about what I thought.

>> No.21724314

>>21724281
That's not the black and white fallacy.

>> No.21724318

>>21724290
>as people tend to do in a fit of rage
False. People don't care whether thing breaks or not in fit of rage.

>> No.21724325

>>21724302
Good question. It’s possible the first two are contacting disguised entities. My mothers experience sounds much more like a legitimate contact with an angel of light. She wanted to know who visited her in her dream. Some days later she heard a voice in her head say “Saint Anthony.” It turns out that day was his feast day. My mother didn’t even know there was a Saint Anthony nor is she a Catholic.

>> No.21724336

>>21724314
I accept your concession.

>> No.21724339

>>21724311
Your point?

>> No.21724341

>>21724339
>no argument
Your point?

>> No.21724345

>>21724341
I accept your concession.

>> No.21724348

>>21724345
>no argument
I accept your concession.

>> No.21724351

>>21724336
>>21724345
>>21724348
Concessions accepted.

>> No.21724354

>>21724351
no u

>> No.21724359

>>21724325
You should read up on the trial of Joan of Arc. There are very meticulous investigations involved with this sort of claim. A vision of a >>21724325
saint has to have a genuine likeness—the church is always doing platonism. If you are a non-reader, the recent Verhoeven kino Benedetta covers the same theme more luridly.

>> No.21724438

>>21723519
>Isn't it incredible how obviously informed Christianity is by an authoritarian/despotic/monarchial culture? I can see why it is finally making progress in China after years of difficulty.
Easy on that fedora tipping.

>> No.21724468

>>21724438
It's the grandmother of atheism as we know it—no surprises there.

>> No.21724492

>>21715885
he was also jewish

>> No.21724526
File: 284 KB, 853x806, pseudcrates.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
21724526

>>21723534
>>21723570
>>21723586
>>21723649
>>21723788
>>21724076
>>21724112
>>21724114
Ladies and gentlemen: Pseudcrates.

>> No.21724565

>>21724526
No, he is a self-admitted NPC.

>> No.21724629

>>21724526
gemmy

>> No.21726008

>>21724526
I accept your concession.

>> No.21726246

>>21726008
I'll concede that that was my first message to you. Sorry if it was too mean.

>> No.21726284

>>21715764
based
I like Schopenhauer but his pessimism doesn't follow from his view on the Will
He lost all his analytical rigor regarding this subject in the third book of The World as Will and Representation

>> No.21726856
File: 48 KB, 850x400, proxy-image-187.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
21726856

free will btfo.

>> No.21726902

>>21726856
This is true. If one is filled with the Holy Spirit he will direct your wants toward what is Good.

>> No.21726906

>>21726902
The christian god casually negates your free will? Interesting.

>> No.21726990

>>21726906
No. The Holy Spirit causes you to want what he wants. Then you freely choose to act on this.

>> No.21727004

>>21726906
He basically transforms your inborn nature so that you are more driven to become like Christ. You can still choose to reject his promptings.

>> No.21727036

>>21726990
>>21727004
Sounds like determinism in denial.

>> No.21727044

>>21727036
We aren't going to see eye to eye.

>> No.21727052

>>21727044
You agree with schopenhauer's quote, and then assert that god forces your wants to be directed at what is good. That's determinism

>> No.21727058

>>21727052
A man can do what he wants but not want what he wants. He can also choose to negate what he wants and deny his wanting. He can choose to do something that he does not want to do.

>> No.21727065

>>21727058
>He can also choose to negate what he wants and deny his wanting
Only if he wants to.
>He can choose to do something that he does not want to do.
nope.

>> No.21727071

>>21727065
>>He can choose to do something that he does not want to do.
>nope.
Why not? We choose to do things all the time that we would rather not do.

>> No.21727084

>>21727071
Wrong. If there was something else you would rather do, then you would do that.

>> No.21727089

>>21727065
>>He can also choose to negate what he wants and deny his wanting
>Only if he wants to.
To negate wanting as such cannot involve another wanting. Wresting the intellect from the Will is an example. The Will is the same as wanting. We cannot wrest the intellect from the will if this involves willing.

>> No.21727096

>>21727084
No. Your line of thinking only is plausible in those who lack sufficient mirror neurons to develop theory of mind.

>> No.21727097

>>21727089
So anyways, why would a person choose to negate what he wants? Because he wants to. The end.

>> No.21727106

>>21727096
Your "theory of mind" is derived from semitic desert fables.

>> No.21727112

>>21727097
If this is true then you've found a flaw in Schop's philosophy.

>> No.21727122

>>21727112
No, because a man cannot want what he ultimately wants, which us what you're asserting.

>> No.21727135

>>21727106
Computer models show that the groups that dominate in the world are those that are high is positive and negative ethnocentrism. These traits are strongly correlated with religiousness; with traditionalism. Essentially, religiousness is evolutionarily adaptive while the spiteful mutants, who have deleterious genetic mutations, are not capable of discerning the Good, True and Beautiful because these areas of the brain are impaired. Your ideas are evolutionarily maladaptive. Religions (successful ones, anyway) take what is evolutionarily adaptive and turn it into the will of God. I, however, believe that this is just evidence of Gods will. He favors those who worship and behave traditionally and this is shown in the evolutionary fitness of those with religious beliefs.

>> No.21727141

>>21727135
Why do you think it's based to worship a jew raised by a cuck?

>> No.21727155

>>21727141
I've already laid out my argument above. I am not going to convince you because ultimately you have to take some first principles on faith in order to appreciate apologetics.

>> No.21727165

>>21727155
Your arguments are only one step above talking about miracles and NDEs.

>> No.21727168

>>21727165
Well, both of those exist.

>> No.21727178

>>21724359
Thanks anon, I will look into it. My mother saw him. She says his hair was shorn in a way that suggests it was not cut with scissors. He appeared to be from a completely different time period.

>> No.21727496

>>21727168
The absolute state of christcuck apologetics

>> No.21727503

>>21727135
This is the chud variant of pascal's wagerism.

>> No.21728351
File: 7 KB, 200x200, Alistair_Sinclair.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
21728351

>>21715779
>>21715764
what a chad

>> No.21728364

>>21727135
>groups that dominate in the world are those that are high is positive and negative ethnocentrism. These traits are strongly correlated with religiousness
my religion is ethnocentric though (Judaism)

>> No.21728463

>>21727084
define "you"

>> No.21728987

>>21728364
Hmmmm. Imagine that?

>> No.21730019

Based off this thread, I like Schopenhauer more now. He is literally me.