/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.3398151]

What do you think happens once you die?

[Anonymous No.3398155]

You die.

[Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ No.3398164]

>What do you think happens once you die?
I think once you die, morticians let necrophiliacs into the mortuary to fuck your dead body for an extortionately high price.

[Anonymous No.3398167]

>>3398155
sheeeeeeeit

[Anonymous No.3398169]

>>3398151
Your essence returns into the source, the One.

[Anonymous No.3398173]

>>3398164
>extortionately high price
>£50
cheaper than a halfway decent prostitute

[Anonymous No.3398174]

When I took a basica communication course in college, the teacher had us write questions we thought would be good ice-breakers, This was one of them.

My partner said "Well, I think most people go to hell". Hell of an opener.

[Anonymous No.3398175]

nothing happens, since nothing really exists

[Anonymous No.3398177]

>>3398151
You wake up inside of the shaft where you were witnessing your digital life.

[Anonymous No.3398181]

>>3398175
>nothing really exists
Ah, I don't think so.
How did you come to this conclusion?

[Anonymous No.3398193]

>>3398181
>Ah, I don't think so.

Ah, I suggest you start reading.

Parmenides is a good start.

[Anonymous No.3398194]

>>3398175
Nothing is?

Or nothing is not?

[Anonymous No.3398204]

>>3398193
>Implying your opinion is correct
I have come to the idea that nothing exists, of course, but I changed my mind.

[Anonymous No.3398205]

>>3398175
Then what am I perceiving?

[Anonymous No.3398236]

>>3398173
You must see some darn good prostitutes, anon.

[Anonymous No.3398237]

>>3398175
Do people actually think this? Is this a thing now? The amount of edge is off the charts.

[Anonymous No.3398247]

>>3398204
>>3398205
>>3398237
baby-philosophers detected

[Anonymous No.3398249]

>>3398174
Well yeah, if she's one of the few Christians who take the Bible literally this is legitimately what she thinks. Because according to the Bible, of the 18 billion homo-sapiens who have lived and died since time began, only 144,000 are actually going to make it into Heaven.

So yeah, there's a pretty high chance that you're going to hell.

lol christianity

[Anonymous No.3398254]

>>3398249
"symbolism with numbers" my friend

in the same way that it didn't rain for forty days and forty nights, that's a symbolic number

[Anonymous No.3398259]

>>3398254
I appreciate that it's a symbolic number, but we're talking about those who take it literally. Those who take it literally, by virtue of taking it literally, generally don't care to any real extent about symbolism.

[Anonymous No.3398261]

>>3398247
self-referential poster detected

Seriously, what the fuck are you on about m8? If you were trying to argue nothing has meaning, your degree of conviction and condescension would be at least mildly more reasonable. But who the fuck believes that nothing exists?? That's pure foolishness

[Anonymous No.3398262]

>>3398259
oh yeah sure, i guess

but then you shouldn't say "lolchristianity" when you're talking specifically and solely about the beliefs of that subclass of christians who also happen to be total idiots, because no intelligent christian would take it entirely literally

[Anonymous No.3398263]

>>3398254
The world wasn't created in 7 days either.

It's a symbolic number. At least that's what I've heard muslims explain it to mean. Any idea what it means though?

[Anonymous No.3398269]

>>3398261
I think parmenides thought nothing exists?

[Anonymous No.3398274]

>>3398263
Then why is a week 7 days? The farmers had it already figured out based on their seasonal farming habits, a week was 7 days already by that point in history.

[Anonymous No.3398276]

>>3398247
Says the guy who thinks nothing really exists. If nothing really exists then how am I asking this question? Ha! Got you there, shitbag!

[Anonymous No.3398278]

>>3398262
I just find contemporary Christianity in general pretty funny, given that none of them can really seem to work out what they believe.

I think that's why I said 'lolchristanity'. I have the utmost respect for The Bible, and Christian mythology and ideals, but Christianity at the moment is a complete cluster-fuck.

[Anonymous No.3398279]

Meh, I have no idea. I'm 99% confident it won't be any Western conception of the afterlife (Heaven, Hell, Elysian Fields or any such nonsense). Reincarnation makes slightly more sense to me, but I'm still highly skeptical. Ultimately, I think it's probably nothing, but no one fucking knows so it isn't really worth much speculation.

[Anonymous No.3398280]

>>3398261
facepalm.jpeg

[Anonymous No.3398286]

>>3398269
Who is Parmenides? By your/his logic, he does not exist, nor do his ideas.

[Anonymous No.3398296]

>>3398278
>american detected

Check out the greek orthodox. They're basically the culmination point neo-platonic philosophy reached, turned into a religion. They even have plotinus' ideas about merging with the One, they call it hesychasm.

[Anonymous No.3398301]

>>3398286
I'm not the guy you're replying to.

But I think parmenides thought only Being exists, the phenomenal world being not real.

[Anonymous No.3398312]

>>3398296
I'm English actually, but thanks for mistaking me for a fucking colonial.

Sarcasm aside, I'll look into the Greek Orthodox. Cheers.

[Anonymous No.3398354]

its like when before you were born. back to the abyss mafuckas knowm sayin

[Anonymous No.3398369]

>>3398354
I feel you, I can can dig it, falling back into the void, yano?

[Anonymous No.3398411]

Everyone starts crying and somehow sublime their grief with some fetish they unconsciously associate with me in order to avoid the fact that I'm no longer there.

[Anonymous No.3398416]

>>3398354
>>3398369
>YA DIG
I agree with these eloquent gents.

[Anonymous No.3398422]

EVERYONE DIES ALONE, EVERYONE DIES THE SAME. NONE OF US ARE SPECIAL, AND WE SHALL ALL RETURN TO STARDUST BEFORE THIS WORLD IS ENDED.

ALL THIS WILL COME TO PASS, AS IT HAS COME BEFORE.

THESE THINGS I KNOW.

[Anonymous No.3398427]

>>3398280
>>3398247
>>3398175

Idiots like this are to philosophy what anarchists are to politics. They're annoying at best and just waste everyone's time.

[Anonymous No.3398434]

>>3398427
Well given that Anarachists are just people who don't understand politics, I think that's a rather accurate comparison.

Good on you.

[Anonymous No.3398446]

What if i died and they took my brain and made it part of a tree

[Anonymous No.3398450]

>>3398446
deep.

[Anonymous No.3398470]

become the one
become the all
become the big
become the small
become complete
become destroyed
become nothing
be the void

[Anonymous No.3398479]

>>3398427
>>3398434

You guys seriously believe in the state?

[Anonymous No.3398488]

If you are enlightened, you rejoin with Waheguru. If not, you're reincarnated, probably in another species, and eventually your turn comes around again.

[Anonymous No.3398491]

>>3398427
>>3398427
splendour, bulletproof arguments on your part, matey; seems like your pseudo-intellectualism serves you well.

don't worry, you're not the only degenerate that /lit/ has produced with the impotance of abstract thought over the years, to entertain me.

kill yourselves, teens.

[Anonymous No.3398495]

The matter we refer to as "you" stops the chemical processes that it's doing now (which are referred to as life) and starts doing a different series of chemical processes (decomposition).

The "self" is an illusion.

Everything is one.

[Anonymous No.3398497]

>>3398488

What do we have as evidence of reincarnation?

[Anonymous No.3398499]

[Anonymous No.3398517]

>>3398497
OP didn't say to convince him/her. Just asked what I think. I answered.

I'm not here for a debate.

[Anonymous No.3398521]

>>3398495
>chemical processes

ahahahha

gloriouos. please go on, while i grab some popcorn.

[Anonymous No.3398524]

>>3398517
What's the point of posting then, if you don't want a debate?

You fucking idiot, what's the fucking point of even having a discussion board if you're just going to go 'oh no I don't want to discuss my beliefs'?

Fucking explain why you believe what you believe, or just fucking kill yourself.

[Anonymous No.3398527]

>>3398521
I don't understand. Are you saying that your body isn't chemical processes?

There could be debate about whether or not a soul exists, but you can't say there are NO chemical processes going on there.

[Anonymous No.3398532]

>>3398524
I'm not going to do either. OP asked a question. I felt like answering, so I did.

I will say that as far as I know there's no empirical evidence whatsoever for reincarnation.

[Anonymous No.3398533]

It happends to your mind the same that happends to your body: it dissolves itself into the whole wibbly wobbly goo of life and death.

But I also think all ideas of what happends after you die are partially true. Heaven and hell, reincarnation, rebirth, back to tao, back to nothingness, you turn to stone, you turn into grass, you elevate yourself, you get down to earth, you dissappear, you become, you become a star etc. I think they are analogue to each other and people merely read one through the lenses of the other. I don't think eternity is a time frame or that places are physical places, so if one say you'll suffer in hell for all eternity all I hear is that, as long as you keep yourself in that track, you're pointing yourself into that direction. So as long as you resist change, no transition will ever be easy. Eternity is, in that sense, a recurrence, a meta-thing, anxiety over anxiety, guilty over guilty, death over life and life over death.

[Anonymous No.3398541]

>>3398524
What's the point of trying to understand him if you are going to demand an explanation like a fucking child? He doesn't have to convince you of anything. Deal with it. Try to understand whatever that he gave to you, accept it or not, deny it or not, but deal with it.

I just hate that fucking attitude. People are not posting for you.

[Anonymous No.3398544]

Your body is a biological robot, and once it runs out of fuel it decays and dies. This isn't hard to understand unless you're a postmodern babby who religiously clings to abstractions.

[Anonymous No.3398547]

I have a funeral.

[Anonymous No.3398553]

>>3398544
No one said anything about that so far.

[Anonymous No.3398559]

>>3398544
>I know because one time I died

[Anonymous No.3398562]

>>3398559
>I hate science because it's more fun to just make things up and pretend it's real
>postmodernism
>not a religion

[Anonymous No.3398570]

>>3398544
This.

Anything other than this is "Isn't it pretty to think so?" tier.

[Anonymous No.3398571]

>>3398562
I don't think that anon was defending postmodernism. Just saying that you can't know if an afterlife or anything else exists without having died.

[Anonymous No.3398574]

>>3398562
>>3398570
>We know, because one time we died.

[Anonymous No.3398577]

>>3398544
>mfw every major philosopher was a postmodern baby.

you sure showed them. is this what high-school graduates, having read nothing else than Camus, actually think? reason sure has gone downhill these days.

8/10 for making me respond.

[Anonymous No.3398581]

>>3398571
Yes, this is true. I also can't know if I will or will not turn into a pelican when I hit my 30th birthday, and be transported to Morocco by a group of transdimensional beings who resemble 4D hypercubes.

But do you know why I don't think that's going to happen? Because it's got absolutely no fucking basis in fact or reason or logic, and hey, maybe that will happen, who's to say? But I'm prepared to take that fucking risk.

[Anonymous No.3398585]

>>3398577
Hey, I like Camus and I think that person is a jackass.
>>3398581
The problem isn't that you don't believe in an afterlife. It's that you're being a dick about it.

[Anonymous No.3398582]

>>3398574
>Planets rotates the sun
>LOL HAVE U EVER BEEN 2 DA SUN? DIDN'T THINK SO?

>>3398577
>major philosopher
>camus

[Anonymous No.3398586]

>>3398585
What does 'being a dick' even mean?

[Anonymous No.3398587]

>>3398585
>Facts hurt my feelings, can you stop being so mean? It's comforting to believe in things that makes no sense :(((((

[Anonymous No.3398588]

>>3398582
>I know, because one time I died.

[Anonymous No.3398591]

>>3398582
how's your reading comprehension?

[Anonymous No.3398597]

15. Leftists tend to hate anything that has an image of being strong,
good and successful. They hate America, they hate Western
civilization, they hate white males, they hate rationality. The
reasons that leftists give for hating the West, etc. clearly do not
correspond with their real motives. They SAY they hate the West
because it is warlike, imperialistic, sexist, ethnocentric and so
forth, but where these same faults appear in socialist countries or in
primitive cultures, the leftist finds excuses for them, or at best he
GRUDGINGLY admits that they exist; whereas he ENTHUSIASTICALLY points
out (and often greatly exaggerates) these faults where they appear in
Western civilization. Thus it is clear that these faults are not the
leftist's real motive for hating America and the West. He hates
America and the West because they are strong and successful.

17. Art forms that appeal to modern leftist intellectuals tend to
focus on sordidness, defeat and despair, or else they take an
orgiastic tone, throwing off rational control as if there were no hope
of accomplishing anything through rational calculation and all that
was left was to immerse oneself in the sensations of the moment.

[Anonymous No.3398598]

>>3398587
>>>/r/atheism

[Anonymous No.3398600]

>>3398597
...What does that have to do with OP's question?

[Anonymous No.3398601]

>>3398598
>people who believe in facts belong on reddit

[Anonymous No.3398606]

>>3398601
People who get really angry when someone believes something they don't, belong somewhere else.

[Anonymous No.3398604]

18. Modern leftist philosophers tend to dismiss reason, science,
objective reality and to insist that everything is culturally
relative. It is true that one can ask serious questions about the
foundations of scientific knowledge and about how, if at all, the
concept of objective reality can be defined. But it is obvious that
modern leftist philosophers are not simply cool-headed logicians
systematically analyzing the foundations of knowledge. They are deeply
involved emotionally in their attack on truth and reality. They attack
these concepts because of their own psychological needs. For one
thing, their attack is an outlet for hostility, and, to the extent
that it is successful, it satisfies the drive for power. More
importantly, the leftist hates science and rationality because they
classify certain beliefs as true (i.e., successful, superior) and
other beliefs as false (i.e. failed, inferior). The leftist's feelings
of inferiority run so deep that he cannot tolerate any classification
of some things as successful or superior and other things as failed or
inferior. This also underlies the rejection by many leftists of the
concept of mental illness and of the utility of IQ tests. Leftists are
antagonistic to genetic explanations of human abilities or behavior
because such explanations tend to make some persons appear superior or
inferior to others. Leftists prefer to give society the credit or
blame for an individual's ability or lack of it. Thus if a person is
"inferior" it is not his fault, but society's, because he has not been
brought up properly.

[Anonymous No.3398605]

Life will go on, like it did after the death of the billions of people who died before me.

[Anonymous No.3398610]

20. Notice the masochistic tendency of leftist tactics. Leftists
protest by lying down in front of vehicles, they intentionally provoke
police or racists to abuse them, etc. These tactics may often be
effective, but many leftists use them not as a means to an end but
because they PREFER masochistic tactics. Self-hatred is a leftist
trait.

21. Leftists may claim that their activism is motivated by compassion
or by moral principle, and moral principle does play a role for the
leftist of the oversocialized type. But compassion and moral principle
cannot be the main motives for leftist activism. Hostility is too
prominent a component of leftist behavior; so is the drive for power.
Moreover, much leftist behavior is not rationally calculated to be of
benefit to the people whom the leftists claim to be trying to help.
For example, if one believes that affirmative action is good for black
people, does it make sense to demand affirmative action in hostile or
dogmatic terms? Obviously it would be more productive to take a
diplomatic and conciliatory approach that would make at least verbal
and symbolic concessions to white people who think that affirmative
action discriminates against them. But leftist activists do not take
such an approach because it would not satisfy their emotional needs.
Helping black people is not their real goal. Instead, race problems
serve as an excuse for them to express their own hostility and
frustrated need for power. In doing so they actually harm black
people, because the activists' hostile attitude toward the white
majority tends to intensify race hatred.

22. If our society had no social problems at all, the leftists would
have to INVENT problems in order to provide themselves with an excuse
for making a fuss.

[Anonymous No.3398611]

>>3398606
You're the one that's angry that your delusions don't make any sense.

[Anonymous No.3398616]

>>3398604
>Modern leftist philosophers tend to dismiss reason, science,
>objective reality and to insist that everything is culturally
>relative

/lit/ in a nutshell.

[Anonymous No.3398617]

>>3398597
>>3398604
>>3398610
>so what I thought I'd do is, I'd mix one part fact with two parts opinion and act like the opinion follows from the facts even though it doesn't

[Anonymous No.3398618]

11. When someone interprets as derogatory almost anything that is said
about him (or about groups with whom he identifies) we conclude that
he has inferiority feelings or low self-esteem. This tendency is
pronounced among minority rights advocates, whether or not they belong
to the minority groups whose rights they defend. They are
hypersensitive about the words used to designate minorities. The terms
"negro," "oriental," "handicapped" or "chick" for an African, an
Asian, a disabled person or a woman originally had no derogatory
connotation. "Broad" and "chick" were merely the feminine equivalents
of "guy," "dude" or "fellow." The negative connotations have been
attached to these terms by the activists themselves. Some animal
rights advocates have gone so far as to reject the word "pet" and
insist on its replacement by "animal companion." Leftist
anthropologists go to great lengths to avoid saying anything about
primitive peoples that could conceivably be interpreted as negative.
They want to replace the word "primitive" by "nonliterate." They seem
almost paranoid about anything that might suggest that any primitive
culture is inferior to our own. (We do not mean to imply that
primitive cultures ARE inferior to ours. We merely point out the
hypersensitivity of leftish anthropologists.)

12. Those who are most sensitive about "politically incorrect"
terminology are not the average black ghetto-dweller, Asian immigrant,
abused woman or disabled person, but a minority of activists, many of
whom do not even belong to any "oppressed" group but come from
privileged strata of society. Political correctness has its stronghold
among university professors, who have secure employment with
comfortable salaries, and the majority of whom are heterosexual, white
males from middle-class families.

[Anonymous No.3398626]

>>3398616
It's from The Unabomber Manifesto, look it up, it's a great read.

11. When someone interprets as derogatory almost anything that is said
about him (or about groups with whom he identifies) we conclude that
he has inferiority feelings or low self-esteem. This tendency is
pronounced among minority rights advocates, whether or not they belong
to the minority groups whose rights they defend. They are
hypersensitive about the words used to designate minorities. The terms
"negro," "oriental," "handicapped" or "chick" for an African, an
Asian, a disabled person or a woman originally had no derogatory
connotation. "Broad" and "chick" were merely the feminine equivalents
of "guy," "dude" or "fellow." The negative connotations have been
attached to these terms by the activists themselves. Some animal
rights advocates have gone so far as to reject the word "pet" and
insist on its replacement by "animal companion." Leftist
anthropologists go to great lengths to avoid saying anything about
primitive peoples that could conceivably be interpreted as negative.
They want to replace the word "primitive" by "nonliterate." They seem
almost paranoid about anything that might suggest that any primitive
culture is inferior to our own. (We do not mean to imply that
primitive cultures ARE inferior to ours. We merely point out the
hypersensitivity of leftish anthropologists.)

12. Those who are most sensitive about "politically incorrect"
terminology are not the average black ghetto-dweller, Asian immigrant,
abused woman or disabled person, but a minority of activists, many of
whom do not even belong to any "oppressed" group but come from
privileged strata of society. Political correctness has its stronghold
among university professors, who have secure employment with
comfortable salaries, and the majority of whom are heterosexual, white
males from middle-class families.

[Anonymous No.3398629]

16. Words like "self-confidence," "self-reliance," "initiative",
"enterprise," "optimism," etc. play little role in the liberal and
leftist vocabulary. The leftist is anti-individualistic,
pro-collectivist. He wants society to solve everyone's needs for them,
take care of them. He is not the sort of person who has an inner sense
of confidence in his own ability to solve his own problems and satisfy
his own needs. The leftist is antagonistic to the concept of
competition because, deep inside, he feels like a loser.

[Anonymous No.3398631]

13. Many leftists have an intense identification with the problems of
groups that have an image of being weak (women), defeated (American
Indians), repellent (homosexuals), or otherwise inferior. The leftists
themselves feel that these groups are inferior. They would never admit
it to themselves that they have such feelings, but it is precisely
because they do see these groups as inferior that they identify with
their problems. (We do not suggest that women, Indians, etc., ARE
inferior; we are only making a point about leftist psychology).

14. Feminists are desperately anxious to prove that women are as
strong as capable as men. Clearly they are nagged by a fear that women
may NOT be as strong and as capable as men.

[Anonymous No.3398633]

>>3398626
What does it have to do with OP's question?

[Anonymous No.3398635]

>>3398631
>>3398629
>>3398626
A warning to anyone who is reading this and thinking "Woah, this guy makes sense.":

The Unabomber was crazy. He was clever, and his ideas were interesting, but he was crazy.

He was also a Luddite, which is really the worst crime of all.

[Anonymous No.3398636]

>>3398151
Concious stops as the matter that comprises me decomposes into different forms that are no longer referred to as me.

[Anonymous No.3398639]

>>3398635
"Crazy" is a fucking useless term.

[Anonymous No.3398642]

What does /lit/ think of this book? I am enjoying it so far. Also, what are some other good McCarthy reads?

[Anonymous No.3398644]

>>3398635
How does that preclude him from making sense? He was one of the most brilliant mathematicians in the country, so the CIA picked him out whenever they were dosing people with LSD without telling them back in the day (Mk-whatever its called). It fucked him up good and proper, but a lot of the things he says have merit.

[Anonymous No.3398647]

>>3398642
>Changing around this conversation

[Anonymous No.3398649]

>>3398635
>The Unabomber was crazy.

can be said about a dozen of philosophers. his ideas are what's worth, not his psychological condition and stability.

[Anonymous No.3398652]

>>3398611
lol, You're such a tool. Just read your first Hitchens, I take it?

[Anonymous No.3398658]

>>3398544

This. The purpose of this robot is for genes to replicate themselves, they are the original self-replicating organisms produced when life originally formed on Earth and we only are their hideously complicated, grossly gigantic survival mecha. Despite not having awareness, they are the drive behind all life. They even compete with each other, but only through the inevitable outcomes of mathematics. Evolution is not something that is occurring, it is something that cannot be stopped from occurring. Replicators themselves are the closest thing to an elemental force that is real - still in a sense a counter-reaction to the physical forces that created them, even if it's a very peculiar one.

This is mystical enough on it's own.

[Anonymous No.3398661]

>>3398652
>someone is saying that I can't just makes things up and present them as equally valid to science
>MUST JUST BE SOME STUPID /R/ATHEISM REDDITOR, GO READ SOME HITCHENS!!! NO IM NOT MAD, YOU ARE THOUGH.

[Anonymous No.3398662]

>>3398644
I never said it preluded his making sense. Of course he was clever (I pointed this out), and a lot of his ideas were interesting (something I also pointed out) but he was insane (and the government's role in this doesn't in any way prelude this fact) and thus some of his ideas should be taken with a pinch of salt.

[Anonymous No.3398666]

>>3398642
I'm reading it right now. It's pretty great.

[Anonymous No.3398669]

>>3398649
Yet he was the only philosopher who claimed the technology was going to ruin civilization, and murdered a bunch of people in an attempt to justify this.

[Anonymous No.3398677]

>>3398658

[Anonymous No.3398678]

>>3398669
>my feelings :(

[Anonymous No.3398681]

So r/atheism is full of fucking retards, nobody is denying that. But why does anyone who shows the remotest inclination towards atheism on this board get criticised to all fuck. I'm honestly pretty curious.

[Fandroid !p6ktXMpsfc No.3398682]

>>3398434
>not knowing anarchism really is.

statist faggot.

[Anonymous No.3398684]

>>3398678
What? Who mentioned feelings here? What are you talking about?

[Anonymous No.3398689]

>>3398681
see >>3398604

[Anonymous No.3398692]

>>3398682
What do you do every day to combat statism, or are you just another lifestylist faggot who wears the circled A as just another accessory?

[Anonymous No.3398695]

>>3398662
> and thus some of his ideas should be taken with a pinch of salt.

Why? How does it impact the validity of his observations at all? If a child tells me that my house is on fire, should I take it with a pinch of salt, just because he's a child?

[Anonymous No.3398697]

>>3398682

[Anonymous No.3398699]

>>3398695
God damn right I'd take it with a pinch of salt. Kids make up shit all the time. I'd check if my house was on fire, but I'd probably say "I'm sure it is, honey. Now go the fuck back to bed." first.

[Anonymous No.3398701]

>>3398669
>technology was going to ruin civilization

he has a point; not ruined yet, perhaps not in the way you think, but the embryonic state of cultural capitalism can be observed nearly everywhere by now

[Anonymous No.3398702]

>>3398597
>>3398604
in my day people knew brevity was the soul of a good ad hom

[Anonymous No.3398704]

>>3398701
>cultural capitalism

Stop forcing this meme.

[Anonymous No.3398705]

>>3398699
Oh, you're an idiot, nevermind. Carry on.

[Anonymous No.3398708]

>>3398705
Niice.

[Anonymous No.3398709]

>>3398702
>not knowing what words mean
>using them anyway

[Fandroid !p6ktXMpsfc No.3398710]

>>3398692
I didn't say I was an anarchist (I haven't converted 100%).

Saying "statist faggot" was being cheeky.

There's a big difference between the Hot Topic punk rock teenage Sex Pistols anarchists and people who actually know and wrote about the ideology and its ideas and contributors.

http://www.seesharppress.com/anarchismwhatis.html

[Anonymous No.3398712]

I'd like to believe in some higher transcendence of consciousness, but in all likelihood it's just a byproduct of organic beings that will decay away.

[Anonymous No.3398716]

>>3398712
Why, are you afraid of non-existence? There's nothing to be scared for.

[Anonymous No.3398717]

>That feel when eating homemade spaghetti carbonara and sipping cherry coke while watching a film and watching /lit/ bicker among itself

[Anonymous No.3398718]

>>3398710
Anarcho-capitalism is the only true form of anarchism, all other types require the use of force.

[Anonymous No.3398725]

>>3398709
You'll note that those Unabomber quotes don't actually quote or name any "Leftists" or at any point engage any sort of argument.

[Anonymous No.3398733]

>>3398710
>There's a big difference between the Hot Topic punk rock teenage Sex Pistols anarchists and people who actually know and wrote about the ideology and its ideas and contributors.
Not much of neither of them takes any action besides writing papers and is just waiting for others to read their papers and take action. It's easy to be a theoretical radical.

[Fandroid !p6ktXMpsfc No.3398736]

>>3398718
>Anarcho-capitalism

...

[Anonymous No.3398738]

"Death is an undulation in consciousness. How would you know you’re alive unless you’ve once been dead?"

[Anonymous No.3398740]

>>3398717
>tfw drinking a beer and responding to tripfags in a manner that makes their narcissism go into overdrive and forces them to talk about themselves incessantly making the whole board lose it's shit and thereby indirectly sabotaging tripfaggotry

[Anonymous No.3398742]

>>3398738
I don't know I'm alive.

[Anonymous No.3398743]

>>3398740
Cheers!

[Anonymous No.3398744]

>>3398736
Anarcho-communism is just as shitty. Anarchism can't really have any flavour since that implies that it ceases to be anarchism.

[Anonymous No.3398749]

>>3398743
Back at you, friend.

[Fandroid !p6ktXMpsfc No.3398751]

>>3398733
Actually there have been times where action was taken, but I get what you're saying. There hasn't been a wholly progressive or definite uprising.


But to disprove your point, see Spain 1936, Free Territroy, Paris Commune, etc that had some form of anarchism one way or the other. And some anarchists (illegalists) would do crimes and shit in "propaganda of the deed".

[Anonymous No.3398753]

>>3398744
That's the difference between anarcho-capitalism and anarcho-communism. Ancaps don't mind if you start a commune and do whatever you want, because there is no universal law, it is determined by your respective community. While ancoms would suppress capitalism by force.

[Anonymous No.3398759]

>>3398704
>meme

for your own sake, i suggest crawling out of that cave (or basement) immediately. if you're unable to empirically deduct the current, postmodern, idiotic extremes, which are all so fucking apparent, you, by all means, are a blindfold victim yourself.

[Fandroid !p6ktXMpsfc No.3398760]

>>3398744
It's best just to be an anarchist without adjectives.

[Anonymous No.3398761]

>>3398753
So in theory anarcho-capitalism would force no one to be capitalist. So a anarcho-capitalist society in which everyone is communist is possible. Where is the capitalist part?

[Anonymous No.3398770]

>>3398766
>people believe in facts
>must be from /r/atheism

[Fandroid !p6ktXMpsfc No.3398771]

>>3398753
What I don't get is the "-capitalism" part. Do you mean able to have free markets?

[Anonymous No.3398766]

>>3398712
>but in all likelihood it's just a byproduct of organic beings that will decay away.

This is what I used to think when my reading list consisted of Dawkins and Hitchens.

[Anonymous No.3398769]

>>3398742
That sounds like a deeply personal problem, friend.

[Anonymous No.3398772]

God saves me and my spirit go to heaven.

God bless America.

[Anonymous No.3398773]

>>3398759
This.

"Cultural capitalism" and postmodernism is not a fucking meme. It's a cancer.

[Anonymous No.3398774]

>>3398771
>>3398761
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTYkdEU_B4o

[Anonymous No.3398777]

>What do you think happens once you die?
Well, I won't think.

[Anonymous No.3398781]

>>3398766
But now you drop acid every day, and sit, lotus position, while you do your throat chanting amid clouds of sandalwood incense?

[Anonymous No.3398785]

>>3398774
But I just wanted an answer, not a ~ ⅓ hour on your ideology of choice.

[Anonymous No.3398787]

>>3398499

I've read this sometime ago.. Can't recall wether it influenced me in having this idea of 'afterlife' or i had it before.
Either way it is a wonderfull idea.

[Anonymous No.3398788]

>that war

To speak of biology here has nothing to do with it, you don't even address the subject. The real position to say "there is nothing beyond that" is not scientific, it is something else. But anyway, what is more ridiculous is to provoke those who speak of biology as if they were actually addressing death or making bold statements. I seriously don't know what you guys think when someone who just says the most simple thing, that your body rots or something of that kind, offends you. And I don't know what you guys think if you believe that this has anything to do with the discussion on death or that it conflicts with any of the visions here. Both of the sides are giving to the discussion a shape of a solid abstract entity to be accepted or denied, but it doesn't have to be like that and if you stop thinking at that point for whatever reasons, you're just narrowing your vision, not being able to see the linguistic game that you're trapped in, confusing the speech for the thing, the ego for the person, the map for the territory and so on, not allowing yourself to entertain a thought because of a need to attach it to something that is external to the debate. Death is more than "what happends after you die".

Yes, chemicals, genes, food for worm, brain, yes, yes, that's right. But that's not the point. And even if you think the discussion on death is meaningless, and I agree to some extent, you are using it of philosophical stances that you don't even know that you have.

[Anonymous No.3398789]

>>3398781
Yes, that is the totality of human thought on the subject.

[Anonymous No.3398794]

>>3398785
"I'm not willing to digest too much information. I want to receive my new worldview in a tiny 2 or 3 sentence 4chan post."

[Anonymous No.3398807]

>>3398789
That is the daily routine of a non-organised religion philistine who believes that their consciousness will transcend something after death, yes.

[Anonymous No.3398810]

>>3398781
Once you start reading, you'll understand. Be patient. Nevertheless, I sincerely understand your genuine quandary that reading something more complex than Hitchens is immensely tough for your intellectual capacity and ego, but give it time. We all start from somewhere.

[Anonymous No.3398812]

>>3398810
>everyone who doesn't believe in made up things reads Hitchens and is from /r/atheism

[Anonymous No.3398813]

>>3398794
A response, yes. I didn't ask for sources. If I were talking in the pub with a guy and I asked him a question and he presented me with a dvd I would tell him to fuck of as well.

If you don't understand this tendency read The Epistemology of the Cyrenaic School by Voula Tsouna and report back to me.

[Anonymous No.3398816]

Oh, the /pol/ice is cruising about. I was wondering why /lit/ seemed so shitty tonight.
>>3398759
Blindfolded or not, aren't we all victims?

[Fandroid !p6ktXMpsfc No.3398822]

>>3398794
I don't want to watch a 20 minute video when you could easily just give me an answer. It seems Libertarianism and AnCaps have many in common other than the former advocating a small state. Capitalism is inherently hierarchical which anarchists sorta have to be against...

[Anonymous No.3398825]

>>3398807
Well, at least you're a Dawkins & Co philistine who admits neoatheism's a religion.

[Anonymous No.3398826]

>>3398816
>people who have different opinions are from /pol/
>let me attempt to pain him as an outsider and not part of my "in-group"

[Anonymous No.3398827]

>>3398826
it's true tho

[Anonymous No.3398829]

>>3398822
Quoting this

presenting arguments exclusively in the form of youtube videos is the most annoying habit of ancaps and libertarians on the internet

[Anonymous No.3398830]

>>3398822
>Capitalism is inherently hierarchical which anarchists sorta have to be against

So you desire voluntary interactions that you deem to be unsuited to your ideology be suppressed violently? How is that different from a state?

[Anonymous No.3398844]

>>3398825
What? I can't stand Dawkins and the new atheists, I just hate you new-age hippies who believe in some unfounded cosmic oneness and consciousness transcendence after death too.

[Anonymous No.3398854]

>>3398844
So you feel there are three positions: new atheism, new age hippies, and your own special snowflake position (which is of course superior).

Wow.

[Fandroid !p6ktXMpsfc No.3398858]

>>3398830
state is coercion and the initiation of force.

No you don't have to participate to those filthy AnCom communes.

[Fandroid !p6ktXMpsfc No.3398859]

>>3398858
*in those

[Anonymous No.3398862]

>>3398826
If I meet a man who is spewing shit, I assume it is because he comes from a place where shit is commonly eaten and regurgitated. Given the topic, that means /pol/. The alternative seems to be that he merely enjoys shit, and don't usually partake in recreational regurgitation, however, at this time he left his hood and got beaten over the head by some bigger niggers, and he promptly started to spew his partially digested bullshit as a defensive reflex. So where would he then be from, where they eat shit and get defensive over this subject? /pol/.

[Anonymous No.3398863]

>>3398858
So if I started a business and hired employees, you wouldn't initiate force on me?

[Anonymous No.3398865]

>>3398854
If you can't discuss without fallacious reasoning, there is no point continuing this.

[Anonymous No.3398872]

>>3398863
How would you "start a business"?

[Anonymous No.3398873]

EVERYONE SHUT UP.

ANARCHY OBVIOUSLY DOESN'T WORK. FUCK. ANARCHY CAN ONLY LAST SO LONG, BECAUSE SOCIETY NATURALLY TRENDS TOWARDS COOPERATION AND THUS CIVILISATION.

[Anonymous No.3398879]

>>3398873
Edgy teen reasoning.

Imagine everyone agrees with you and stop worrying about if people appear to continue to talk about it.

[Anonymous No.3398881]

>>3398844
>Plato, Plotinus, Descartes, Leibniz, Berkeley, Kant, Fichte, Schelling, Hegel, McTaggart, Bradley and a bunch of others
>new-age hippies

at least you finally came out of the closet, not as a troll, but something far worse than that, an ignorant, cancerous faggot that i thought you were from the very beginning.

[Fandroid !p6ktXMpsfc No.3398885]

>>3398863
Would it be a voluntary, grassroots, workers' democracy? or a top-down, run of the mill, hierarchical and centralized business?

[Anonymous No.3398884]

>>3398863
I feel physically ill whenever I hear "voluntary" or "initiation of force" from an internet libertarian.

[Anonymous No.3398888]

>>3398881
0/10

[Anonymous No.3398891]

I think that only the dead can know peace from this awful thread

[Fandroid !p6ktXMpsfc No.3398892]

>>3398873
this is literally what anti-anarchists always say all the time. It's really cliche at this point. You think the motherfuckers who wrote about this shit didn't think people were going to come up with this argument?

[Anonymous No.3398899]

>>3398884
the reason you feel sick is because its the dirty collectivism and statism leaving your body. It's a cleansing process. It's like going through withdrawal to get off heroin.

[Anonymous No.3398902]

Is anyone else ITT really depressed by all this?

[Anonymous No.3398905]

>>3398888
Congrats on getting told. Next time, know your history of philosophy, before spouting nonsensical shit like that.

[Anonymous No.3398908]

>>3398892
What's your counterargument then?

[Anonymous No.3398920]

>>3398902
Hide thread, anon. Learn to hide thread.

There will always be things like this. We have to learn to stay away.

[Anonymous No.3398926]

>>3398905
oh dear. -3/10.

[Anonymous No.3398930]

What a shitfest.
This could've been an interesting discussion about something unknown.
Wether it is just 'nothing' the state before birth.
Or reincarnation, Valhalla, Nirvana, whatever.
Discussion, exchanging IDEAS.

Given an eternal life, access to all knowledge achieved ever, the possibility to experience everything excluding death itself..
That's probably what so many people wanted when they were hunting for key to eternal life.
Yet one experience would be left. Death.
For me it is an experience. The End of this journey called life. Whatever happens, shall happen.
In case it is just one second of knowing a possible meaning behind conciousness, it was worth it.

Demanding proof for anything after death is such a ridiculous thing to do, trolls aside.

Yet all of you, calling yourself intelectual..
Most of this thread is consistent of monkeys throwing their feces around.

imad. insult me. call me out on my babysteps in growing a self aware conciousness, my first attempts at philosophy, you aren't better.


Dear children, today we learned.. nothing.
No, wait. We did learn humans are monkeys in buisiness suits.

[Anonymous No.3398936]

>>3398930
>calling yourself intelectual..
Was that done for irony?

[Anonymous No.3398939]

>>3398885
>>3398884
>>3398872
So in other words the state is evil because it uses force on people, but in an anarchic society you would use force on people who do things you don't like(capitalism)?

[Fandroid !p6ktXMpsfc No.3398941]

>>3398908
Well first, anarchism (the ideology and not the literal definition) is far from anti-cooperation. It's in fact pro-cooperation, voluntary, mutual (you get the gist), etc. It's anti-state, but that's not to say there wouldn't be rules or some shit. It's not anti-society nor pro-chaos.

Also I'm getting sort of sick arguing anarchism on a thread originally about death on /lit/. Fuck, why did I reply to that stupid post.

[Fandroid !p6ktXMpsfc No.3398952]

>>3398939
Well it would be force against force, since capitalism inherently runs on force. Yes anarchists are exemplifying "force" when they say that the state is undesirable but it's about removing that force.

This is where it starts getting semantical and paradoxical and all that shit.

[Anonymous No.3398957]

>>3398151
things move on without you. you rot.

[Anonymous No.3398961]

>>3398952
>I have a lemonade stand, would you like to work for me, and start up another stand a couple blocks down? I will pay you this agreed upon amount, does that sound good?
>Yes, thank you for this opportunity!

>enter hairy, unwashed anarchists

>STOP THIS TYRANNY, SOMEONE GO AND PIPEBOMB HIS LEMONADE STAND!

Sure sounds like freedom.

[Anonymous No.3398963]

>>3398952
Don't you mean it gets stupid because anyone trying to argue for anarcho-syndicalism is clearly just too uneducated to be a communist instead?

[Anonymous No.3398976]

>>3398939
>>3398961
I was asking you an actual question buddy. How would you "start a business"? Now how would you "have a lemonade stand" without having a state there to enforce the concept of ownership? Remember, property is theft.

[Anonymous No.3398979]

>>3398644
wait what

the unabomber was a subject in mk ultra?

[Anonymous No.3398991]

>>3398961
Your representation of anarchism is diametrically opposite to the truth.

[Anonymous No.3399009]

>>3398738
mynigga.jpg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VN8jwM4HbI

[Anonymous No.3399010]

>>3398991
You advocate using force on people who voluntarily do things you don't like.

[Anonymous No.3399014]

>>3399010
You assume you'd be able to continue using the same kind of force as in capitalism in an anarchist society without any problems.

[Anonymous No.3399017]

>>3399010
That kind of behaviour is exactly what anarchism opposes, and you are a moron.

[Anonymous No.3399021]

Christ. I hadn't realized that /lit/ was populated by so many delusional new age mongoloids. Time to go back to /sci/.

[Anonymous No.3399037]

>>3399017
>>3399014
So Anarchists don't want to violently suppress people voluntarily engaging in capitalism?

[Anonymous No.3399056]

>>3398635
He's no less crazy than Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, or any other philosopher deemed 'brilliant' by the establishment. In fact reading what he wrote he sounds entirely sane, just that he is branded as insane by leftists, which I might add is a typical leftist tactic.

[Anonymous No.3399064]

>>3399037
That would be statism.

[Anonymous No.3399070]

>>3398669
No he wasn't you fool

Heidegger did the same thing. As did a of the other traditionalists like Guenon, Evola etc.

[Anonymous No.3399072]

>>3399064
I'm free to start a business and hire employees then? Cool.

[Anonymous No.3399073]

>>3399056
Except he sent bombs to people.

[Anonymous No.3399077]

>>3399056
Nietzsche and Kierkegaard never killed anybody, though.

Kierkegaard was seen as a village idiot by the citizens of Copenhagen during his lifetime, by the way.

[Anonymous No.3399082]

>>3398689
Atheism has nothing to do with reason, science or objective reality.

[Anonymous No.3399084]

>>3399077
>Nietzsche never killed anyone
>directly inspired Hitler and by extension the Holocaust

[Anonymous No.3399088]

>>3399070
If you go further back, Matthew Arnold makes a very strong argument that technology is directly opposed to culture, which is where that strain of anti-technology or mistrust of technology comes from on the political left.

[Anonymous No.3399090]

>>3399084
Only if you're talking about Nietzsche's sister maybe.

[Anonymous No.3399091]

>>3399084
stop posting

[Anonymous No.3399101]

>>3399084
>inspired Hitler

Only if you show us where he explicitly mentions Nietzsche, in his Mein Kampf.

[Anonymous No.3399102]

>>3399077
>>3399084
“I know my fate. One day my name will be associated with the memory of something tremendous — a crisis without equal on earth, the most profound collision of conscience, a decision that was conjured up against everything that had been believed, demanded, hallowed so far. I am no man, I am dynamite.”

[Anonymous No.3399104]

>>3399088

Matthew Arnold a significant influence on the left.

Muh sides!

I guess the whole universal pedagogy thing is copacetic, but phuuuuulease!

[Anonymous No.3399105]

>>3399072
no you're not. you gotta fill out the government forms. get permits from the government. pay the government money for licenses. run everything by the government. pay a portion of everything you make to the government.

[Anonymous No.3399107]

>>3398812
Atheism is made up.

Check mate atheist.

[Anonymous No.3399111]

>>3399107
Erm..

[Anonymous No.3399115]

>>3399105
I'm talking about in an Anarchist society.

[Anonymous No.3399117]

>>3399102
>"I am no man, I am dynamite."

Why is Nietzsche so awesome?

[Anonymous No.3399118]

>>3399104
You're either thinking of another writer, or you're wilfully displaying ignorance. Either way, you're on the internet, you can use google.

[Anonymous No.3399121]

>>3399101
The Italian and German fascist regimes were eager to lay claim to Nietzsche's ideas, and to position themselves as inspired by them. In 1932, Elisabeth Forster-Nietzsche received a bouquet of roses from Adolf Hitler during a German premiere of Benito Mussolini's 100 Days, and in 1934 Hitler personally presented her with a wreath for Nietzsche's grave carrying the words "To A Great Fighter". Also in 1934, Elisabeth gave to Hitler Nietzsche's favorite walking stick, and Hitler was photographed gazing into the eyes of a white marble bust of Nietzsche.[26] Heinrich Hoffmann's popular biography Hitler as Nobody Knows Him (which sold nearly a half-million copies by 1938) featured this photo with the caption reading: "The Führer before the bust of the German philosopher whose ideas have fertilized two great popular movements: the National Socialist of Germany and the Fascist of Italy."

[Anonymous No.3399123]

>>3399073
Heidegger was a Nazi.

But that doesn't make his philosophy invalid.

It makes it more valid

[Anonymous No.3399134]

>>3399115
You might be able to "start a business", depending on what you mean by that. You won't be able to hold any property for example, so it won't be a business in the capitalist sense, where someone owns a factory and employs workers to work within. It'd be more likely be to do with running a communally owned place of work doing something sanctioned by the community, and having workers based on how many are needed to meet the community's needs.

[Anonymous No.3399135]

>>3399101
>>3399101
Read some Miguel Serrano and Savitri Devi. Hitler was the Ubermensch that Nietzsche prophecised. It is no coincidence that Hilter was an artist, for only an artist could be the ubermensch.

[Anonymous No.3399138]

>>3399121
So Nietzsche is responsible for a bunch of retards completely misinterpreting him?

[Anonymous No.3399139]

>>3399111
Made up by atheists.

[Anonymous No.3399145]

>>3399138
>moving the goalposts
>implying Nietzsche has a "correct" way of being interpreted
>missing the point of Nietzsche

[Anonymous No.3399151]

>>3399121
But you know about Nietzsche's sister, don't you? What have you read from Nietzsche anyway and where do you see that in his ideas?

You just went full wikipedia retarded there, bro. Everyone knows Nietzsche was deliberately used, not that it was where he was pointing to.

[Anonymous No.3399153]

>>3399151
I know Nietzsche wasn't an anti-semite, and I know his sister edited his works to make him seem that way. But Nazism was closer to Nietzsche's philosophy than any kind of western liberal democracy. Much.

[Anonymous No.3399154]

>>3399138
They didn't misinterpret him. That's how he was understood back then, before the holocaust and all that leftist guilt tripping, people were quite enthusiastic about eugenics, neo-paganism and those aspects Nietzschean philosophy. If you read "Who is to be master of this earth" by anthony ludovici, you'll see people were quite enthusiastic about Nietzsche in 'that way'. There's also a book called Homeric Gods, which shows quite nicely what the nazis were trying to do, create a modern pagan empire with modern technology as Nietzsche wanted.

This is before the french postmodernists rehabilitated him into some kind of enlightened liberal satirist who never 'really' believed anything he actually said.

[Anonymous No.3399155]

>>3399145
It's not about there being a "correct" interpretation, they're talking about an "incorrect" one, a misinterpretation. Which is a perfectly fine claim whatever view you take.

[Anonymous No.3399157]

>>3399145
Well, the fact that Nietzsche ended the last letter he ever wrote with a variety on "I want to kill all antisemitists" might have been a clue to Hitler that he was doing it wrong.

[Anonymous No.3399159]

>>3399138
>implying Nietzsche's "philosophy" is prone to misinterpretation

Nietzsche's bullshit is about as cut and dry as a philosophy can get.

[Anonymous No.3399160]

>>3399154
I meant "who is to be master of the world"

[Anonymous No.3399169]

>>3399157
>>3399155
So the only argument you have is "Nietzsche wasn't anti-semitic, but Hitler killed Jews"?

[Anonymous No.3399171]

Nazism and Nietzsche differed in some part, but there's no argument that Nazism is much closer to a Nietzchean political system than democracy or communism.

[Anonymous No.3399176]

>>3399154
>That's how he was understood back then, before the holocaust and all that leftist guilt tripping, people were quite enthusiastic about eugenics, neo-paganism and those aspects Nietzschean philosophy.
That's how some people understood him, thanks in large part to his sister's editing of certain key works, but things like eugenics don't make any sense to Nietzschean philosophy as written by Freddy.

[Anonymous No.3399179]

>>3399169
Give me one instance in Nietzsche's work of "ubermensch" being used with a racial connotation.

[Anonymous No.3399183]

>>3399169
Nietzsche clearly wasn't anti-semitic or anti-slavic, and Hitler did play a big part in the killing of Jewish and Slavic peoples, and the two aren't really related beyond Nietzsche's sister being a Nazi dick.

[Anonymous No.3399196]

>>3399183
>>3399179
You're desperately grasping at straws. Did Nietzsche advocate the death of Jews? But Nietzsche did directly attribute the rise of slave morality to the "Jewish priestly class"(Jesus was a Jew), so it could be argued that Hitler's battle against "Jewish" influences was really a battle of master morality against slave morality. Nietzsche would have no problem with the death of slaves, nor the death of anyone for that matter.

Stop being moralfaggots and go read some Nietzsche.

[Anonymous No.3399201]

>>3399196
>Did Nietzsche advocate the death of Jews? No.*

[Anonymous No.3399203]

>>3399176
>things like eugenics don't make any sense to Nietzschean philosophy

Leftist delusions are so cute.

[Anonymous No.3399209]

>>3399196
The problem with your argument is that "slave morality" in Nietzsche is the putting down of the powerful and the talented by the bland masses, which is exactly what Nazism did to the Jews.

[Anonymous No.3399214]

>>3399176
Eugenics makes sense. It's a way to bring about superior men. It's quite a simple connection. And I refuse to buy that post modernist interpretation of N that treats everything objectionable to the leftist academic as just satire or irony. Nietzsche was clearly a reactionary who wanted to bring back the glory of Homeric Greece; with all its glory, cruelty, violence and spirituality.

He wasn't just some liberal nihilist, believing in nothing in particular, who got his jolly's from playing word games like those french post-structuralist faggots.

[Anonymous No.3399216]

>>3399209
It's obvious you've never actually read any Nietzsche.

[Anonymous No.3399218]

>>3399201
The nazis weren't solely about killing jews you simpleton.

[Anonymous No.3399220]

>>3399203
It doesn't make sense to his philosophy at all, pal. Not even him. Eugenics would be frowned upon, it doesn't make you any stronger in the head, bro. On the contrary: it's something you rely on.

[Anonymous No.3399221]

>>3399196
Nietzsche doesn't value master morality over slave morality.
Nietzsche both explicitly praises Jesus and most criticisms of Judeo-Christian faith are explicitly limited to Jesus and his teachings

Shitty wikischolar, even /pol/tards are better at arguing this shit than you.

[Anonymous No.3399228]

>>3399221
>Nietzsche doesn't value master morality over slave morality.

[Anonymous No.3399229]

>>3399216
I have, though.

[Anonymous No.3399234]

>>3399228
It's the truth.

[Anonymous No.3399235]

>>3399221
He admires Jesus and the Jews for the daunting task they have accomplished, the enslavement of humanity to petty slave morals.

[Anonymous No.3399236]

>>3399183
Nietzsche was anti-human. Hitler didn't just fucking kill Jews. He killed anyone he deemed weak, and that jives perfectly with Nietzsche's philosophy

[Anonymous No.3399243]

>>3399235
>nowthatswhaticalledgy.png

[Anonymous No.3399245]

No it's not, outside of marxists re-interpretations. I know you're a leftist and by extension a slave, but try not to project.

>>3399241
Jesus was a Jew, you're retarded. Christianity is effectively a branch off of Judaism.

[Anonymous No.3399241]

>>3399235
>Jesus and the Jews
You seem to be confusing Judaism and Christianity.

[Anonymous No.3399242]

>>3399216
Try and describe slave morality then, without repeating what that guy said in different words.

[Anonymous No.3399246]

>>3399236
>He deemed weak
He killed the Jews because he deemed them too powerful in German society. Your argument is invalid.

[Anonymous No.3399248]

>>3399236
stop posting

[Anonymous No.3399249]

>>3399236
>He killed anyone he deemed weak, and that jives perfectly with Nietzsche's philosophy
Really doesn't. Hitler also killed everyone he deemed a burden, which is the exact opposite to what Nietzsche advocates.

[Anonymous No.3399250]

>>3399236
Nietzsche was pro human. He wanted to advance the race. If you read 'The Greek State', he says that the Greek practice of dashing deformed infants on to rocks is necessary for the bringing about of a superior culture. It is only through the culling of the weak that the culture can thrive and become strong, powerful and beautiful.

[Anonymous No.3399251]

>>3399245
I know Jesus was a Jew. This doesn't make Judaism and Christianity the same thing.

I can't believe I actually have to explain this.

[Anonymous No.3399253]

>>3399246
He killed them because they were a detriment to the Aryan race.

[Anonymous No.3399255]

>>3399251
He explicitly includes Jesus in what he called the "Jewish priestly class", and their success and bringing about the revolution of slave morality against their master. Read a book, kiddo.

[Anonymous No.3399256]

>>3399253
Why kill them if you don't feel they're a threat?

[Anonymous No.3399257]

>>3399245
Christianity and Judaism as religions could not be any more different.

Please stop posting.

[Anonymous No.3399261]

>>3399255
How exactly does Jesus coming from the Jewish priestly class make Christianity the same thing as Judaism?

You're not making an awfully good point here, friend.

[Anonymous No.3399263]

The Red Book > Thus Spoke Zarathustra

Nietzsche's philosophy is a recipe for a miserable life, and I think that point is illustrated beautifully within this thread.

[Anonymous No.3399264]

>>3399246
Yes, slave morality is dominant in society so by definition it is powerful. Hitler looked to cleanse these Jewish influences which promoted weakness and degeneracy, these are two different concepts.

>>3399257
Jesus was an observant Jew who thought he was the messiah of the Old Testament. Christianity is a breakoff of Judaism that proclaims Jesus was the son of God and savior of humanity, while Judaism holds that he did not fulfill the messianic requirements.

Read a book.

[Anonymous No.3399273]

>>3399263
I agree. He romanticised the ancient greeks too much.

[Anonymous No.3399277]

>>3399273
Early on he did, but by Zarathustra he's moved away from that.

[Anonymous No.3399279]

>>3399264
As you're consistently failing to address any of the real points I'm trying to make, I'm going to give up. Good job obfuscating a potentially interesting discussion.

[Anonymous No.3399292]

>>3399264
>durr they both has jews same thing

eyeroll

[Anonymous No.3399296]

>>3399292
>>3399279
People who have actually read Nietzsche: 1

You: 0

[Anonymous No.3399300]

>>3399264
>read a book

As if that's suddenly going to make your point salient and valid. The differences between Christianity and Judaism go far beyond the belief that Jesus was the son of God. You'd know that if YOU read a book, kiddo.

Tell me, do Jews believe in Hell? Do they believe in Saints? Do they believe in original sin? Do they believe in sacraments? Do they believe in the use of statues? Do they have the same views on women?

[Anonymous No.3399312]

https://mega.co.nz/#!c4hV0ZLI!Cq-gD0B0j_BfY2Yox3TltU8oBnkXJOa8a0WIjdRtCuI

[Anonymous No.3399385]

>>3399312
>https://mega.co.nz/#!c4hV0ZLI!Cq-gD0B0j_BfY2Yox3TltU8oBnkXJOa8a0WIjdRtCuI
what is that

[Anonymous No.3399395]

>>3399312
Thanks for the virus, bub

[Anonymous No.3399466]

>that feel when you know deep inside that there's nothing after death but you can't say it on /lit/ because the edgiest Anti-Edgy brigadiers will swarm on you within minutes

[Anonymous No.3399520]

>>3398164
I don't mind. I think they should legalize necrophilia so long as the person signed a release allowing their corpse to be fucked.

[Anonymous No.3399525]

>>3399466
Nice paralipsis there, m8.

You're free to say it here. The issue was never the opinion itself, just that some anons, of all opinions, get angry that what they "know deep inside" is not what the other "knows deep inside" and thus a debate starts on who has the "most right deep inside knowledge" feeling about all this. That is a ridiculous debate.

[Anonymous No.3399538]

>>3399466
>know
there's your problem

[Anonymous No.3399552]

>>3399538
how do you know what I know and don't know?

[Anonymous No.3399558]

>>3399552
why do you assume he knows? maybe it's just his opinion that the problem is there

don't pay so much attention to the word "know"

not even him

[Anonymous No.3399565]

>>3399466
They're pretty much the equivalent of people on tumblr who tell you to check your privilege constantly.

[Anonymous No.3399626]

I don't get it, why would killing Jews be a solution to solving the master-slave morality problem? It sounds like more ressentiment: it is still blaming, hating and condemning, rather than imposing new affirmative values.

[Anonymous No.3399629]

>>3398261
I love to turn the statement into a positive. To turn the statement into "Nothing, the thing, exists." Which it does exist in the sense that we can discuss the idea of it concretely (language, aka the sounds we produce). So in that sense, nothing does exist. But that might be taking the philosophical question to the limits of English.

I think nothing exists, but something also exists. Since there is plenty of physical space for nothing to occupy, since it takes up no space, I see no reason for nothing not to exist.

Although this may be an ontological argument, to say there is no reason for it not to exist. However, in the case of nothing, there really is no reason for it not to exist since it takes no space in our physical existence. On the other hand, being able to talk about nothing gives it substance in the sound waves that are representational of the idea. So the word nothing is in reality like all words a poor representation of the actual idea. Nothing exists.

[Anonymous No.3399632]

>>3399626
Because Nietzsche said that the jews used their slave morality to get power. That was the whole point of genealogy of morals. They're doing the same thing in America, where they promote their cultural marxism/diversity/feminism, all slave-moralities. Therefore it is necessary to get rid of them.

[Anonymous No.3399640]

>>3399632
>Because Nietzsche said that the jews used their slave morality to get power
In your imagination, maybe. In reality, no.

[Anonymous No.3399646]

>>3399640
That was the exact point. Did you even read the book?

The jews invented slave morality, it spread through christianity, and so on.

[Anonymous No.3399647]

>>3399640
He clearly states the the "Jewish priestly class" is responsible for the widespread plague of slave morality among the common man.

[Anonymous No.3399675]

>>3399646
>>3399647
He attacks "moral masturbators", that's about it. They're the people who are "sick" in his particular, genealogical and German way of talking about it, and strive to have power over those trying to attain human excellence. Out of everything that is in it, the inheritance of Judeo-Christian values, the oppression of those deemed "insane" and so on, "Jews gettin muh power" is notably absent.

[Anonymous No.3399680]

>>3399632
But as far as I remember it, The Genealogy doesn't suggest that a holocaust is needed, but rather that we must overcome ressentiment, the heavy consciousness and the ascetic ideal with new affirmative values. The jewish priest might have been necessary to give shape to a religion of "instincts that turn against themselves" (or something along these lines), but I don't see how this implies mass murder could help us overcome these things.

>captcha: fulthve becomes

[Anonymous No.3399684]

>>3399680
*heavy conscience

[Anonymous No.3399686]

>>3399680
The holocaust is just the genalogy taken to its logical conclusion.

And I don't buy that stuff about him saying he wanted anti-semites shot. He had gone crazy by that point.

[Anonymous No.3399694]

>>3399675
Oh so you didn't read the book.

The whole thing about the jews being the inventors of slave morality, and its usurping of master morality, thereby taking power was the major theme of the book...

[Anonymous No.3399702]

>>3399686
>The holocaust is just the genalogy taken to its logical conclusion.
It's perhaps the most visible sign of sickness in Nietzsche's sense in European culture there has been.

A group of "holier than thou"'s putting all of Europe's woes onto a small group of people, deeming them unclean, which led to them oppressing and killing them, goes dead against what the Genealogy advocates.

[Anonymous No.3399717]

>>3399702
He just didn't think it could be done. Then there appeared the Ubermensch, in the form of Adolf Hitler, who was beyond man and beyond all morality and did what even Nietzsche didn't imagine.

[Anonymous No.3399726]

>>3399694
He discusses something sort of like that in the first essay, when he's talking about the history (the genealogy if you will (get it?)) of pure vs impure, and so sickness vs health. That's him laying the groundwork for the rest of the book though, it's not the "theme". And it's not the Jews "taking power" either, it is (again) the moral masturbators, who are themselves sick while calling others sick.

[Anonymous No.3399733]

>>3399726
Morals don't exist

Therefore the holocaust wasn't immoral. It was a necessary cleansing.

[Anonymous No.3399736]

>>3399733
Why do you think "moral don't exist"? And why do you think "holocaust as cleansing" isn't saying the holocaust was a moral action?

[Anonymous No.3399744]

>>3399702
>he thinks Nietzsche is against genocide

[Anonymous No.3399748]

>>3399736
>why do you think "morals don't exist"?

Why the fuck are you telling other people what Nietzsche meant when you haven't even read him? Leftists are so fucking obnoxious.

[Anonymous No.3399751]

>>3398151

Your brain dies, and then you become non-existent since you are the result of your brain.

No brain, no you.


I think this heaven, hell and soul stuff is just mythology.

[Anonymous No.3399757]

So many moralfags in this thread. You really think Nietzsche would have gave a single fuck about people getting killed? He probably would have laughed and found it funny. Liberals need to stop projecting.

[Anonymous No.3399764]

>>3399748
Nietzsche very specifically advocates creating a new/your own morality, see the three metamorphoses of the soul. Maybe you can't see past your own JudeoChristian morality.

[Anonymous No.3399772]

>>3399764
Jesus you're retarded. Nietzsche advocates creating your own set of values, he doesn't claim that there is an objective right or wrong. Therefore the holocaust is not morally wrong because morals are subjective.

Also, read a book.

[Anonymous No.3399780]

>>3399717
Somehow I can't see Hitler as being the Ubermensch. The dionysian yes-saying and the things that it involves (dance, laughter, playfulness in the face of hazard, the artistic creation as life-affirming) and the affirming of the eternal return just don't seem to go well with mass murder.

[Anonymous No.3399791]

>>3399772
Did I say he "claims that there is an objective right or wrong"? No. Has it been said he rejects "morality"? Yes, and it's plainly wrong.

>Therefore the holocaust is not morally wrong because morals are subjective.
The issue is the claim of the Holocaust being an act of "cleansing" and being outside of morality. If you'd read the first essay in otGoM, you'd know this "cleansing" to clearly be a claim of its morality, couched in obviously Judeo-Christian terms.

Which brings us to Nietzsche's other bug bear again, the moral masturbators. The holocaust is the most obvious example of the Nazi's being moral masturbators.

[Anonymous No.3399794]

>>3399780
Why not? There's such a thing as innocent, joyful killing. It's artistic destruction to shape the world to your will. This is what Hitler did.

[Anonymous No.3399810]

>tfw I never got around to reading Nietzsche.

I only know some of his views from philosophy textbooks I had to read in college courses.

What book of nietzsche's should I read first?

[Anonymous No.3399821]

>>3399810
Start with the Greeks.

[Anonymous No.3399844]

>>3398930
anarchists ruined it. Everything on this dumb board degenerates into political shitfests, sadly

[Anonymous No.3399931]

>>3399794
While I see your point, at least as far as the holocaust is concerned I'm not so sure. It involves labeling the Jews as an evil that must be cleansed from society, which sounds like what a Judeo-Christian as those considered by Nietzsche, would say about the "noble man". I think The Genealogy also talked about respecting your enemy as being a means to strengthen yourself.

[Anonymous No.3399977]

>>3399931
Hitler's public policy and opinion probably deferred from his personal thoughts. A lot of what the Nazi's openly espoused was demagogy. Hitler probably saw jews and other deviants as opposed to his plans and therefore simply wanted to remove them. Calling them "evil" is just convincing the plebs in terms they can understand. There were plans to just kick the jews out by the way, but war got in the way and Hitler went with the ovens.

[Anonymous No.3399988]

>>3399977
In addition, Hitler had an artistic, creative vision for the Reich. That was his main drive. The rest was just practicalities and chopping away at the marble. He treated opposing forces more as obstacles to his will than anything else. Also, it doesn't hurt to have scapegoats, and jews made good scapegoats. Especially wealthy ones, since you could take their shit and use it towards the creation of your vision.

[Anonymous No.3400082]

>>3398175
Really is the key to anyone responding to this post.

He isn't saying NOTHING exists.

Actual nothing is impossible to exist but I guess he's saying Something doesn't exist, which is also impossible and it's EXTREMELY obvious something is existing right now, how else am I writing this? it doesn't matter if it's an illusion, it's still something existing.

[Anonymous No.3400103]

>>3399629
No anon. Nothing is an idea we can imagine but imagining the idea does not make it exist.

Nothing is the opposite of existence. There is no SPACE for nothing, nothing literally does not exist, it has no substance, NOTHING.

[Anonymous No.3400795]

godwin's law lel

[Anonymous No.3401415]

>>3399988
While I think you might be right about Hitler, now I'm not sure now if we can think the Ubermensch in terms of an individual rather than as an ideology that still needs to find followers.

By that I mean that Hitler needed to explain the Jews as the downfall of society (rather than blaming ressentiment or the religious attitude in general) because even if he was embodying the Ubermensch he was alone in doing so (or at least the masses were not ready for such an ideology).

[Anonymous No.3401809]

>>3398491
>hurr 5deep9u
Love how this yawn-inducing tripe could be said in response to literally ANYTHING. I don't need a bulletproof argument for you, kiddo, because you never made any valid claims in the first fucking place. You have nothing to say. Jerk off with your hand instead of trying to on /lit/. It's healthier.

[Anonymous No.3401933]

>>3401415
>While I think you might be right about Hitler, now I'm not sure now if we can think the Ubermensch in terms of an individual rather than as an ideology that still needs to find followers.
I wouldn't call him the Ubermensch myself, but I think he was one of those great people according to Nietzsche. He definitely fits in with other leaders Nietzsche thought to be great, such as Caesar, Borgia and Napoleon. I think Nietzsche's idea of the Ubermensch is meant to be a constant goal and aiming point, not some endpoint that can actually be achieved. I think he's to be seen more as a mythological archetype that embodies values that Nietzsche deems worth striving towards.

That said, I think Hitler was the closest thing ever to a true Nietzschean ruler and almost philosopher king, however he sold his goals to the people doesn't really matter. The masses were more of a wide base of support, while Hitler was working towards the excellence of an elite. He wasn't so much concerned with your average village baker, I think. He did wanted to take the German people at large towards greater excellence as well though. The Nazi's even tried to transform Christianity in a life affirming, almost Nietzschean religion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_Christianity

Other than that he tried to instill the Germans with a strong and vitalist warrior ethic, a sense of duty and a striving towards excellence, thereby combating cultural points of weakness. There were breeding programs and the deliberate elimination of points of weakness such as hereditary negative traits (mental illness, physical illness, proneness to addiction) and in addition to that going far to dissuade the use of alcohol and tobacco and unhealthy foods. He was actively sculpting his part of the world according to a vision that is almost undeniably Nietzschean.

[Anonymous No.3402110]

>>3401933
Thanks for the replies. I guess the only thing I could say now is that Nietzsche's philosophy doesn't necessarily involve Hitler's way of using it, but even so I can agree that the Nazis were a lot closer to Nietzsche's philosophy than most will admit, even without including racism and anti-semitism as falsifications of his writings.

[Anonymous No.3402156]

>>3402110
>I guess the only thing I could say now is that Nietzsche's philosophy doesn't necessarily involve Hitler's way of using it, but even so I can agree that the Nazis were a lot closer to Nietzsche's philosophy than most will admit
Hit the nail on the head there. While I dislike the "hurr Nietzsche was a nazi" perspective, the other side of the spectrum where people try to dismantle his dynamite and translate his thought within the accepted boundaries of contemporary society is even more disgusting. The problems is for a large part that so many people try to claim Nietzsche for their camp (both fascists and anarchists revering you is about as divided as your following can get I guess) and thereby try to rule out all other interpretations.

I think Nietzsche would have probably been greatly amused by all the bickering about his writings though and that in a lot of ways this turned out like he intended.