/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.3998560]

Who is the best moral philosopher?

Someone who offers good practical advice.

I'm so sick of this Jesus beta bullshit. I want to be winning at life.

[Anonymous No.3998570]

>>3998560
Sounds like you're just looking for someone to give you permission to be a dickhead so you can cite their name when someone calls you out

[Anonymous No.3998571]

Just stop right now. And breathe.

[Anonymous No.3998579]

>pic related, friends

[Anonymous No.3998582]

ralph waldo emerson or nietzsche or both

[Anonymous No.3998584]

If you're a shallow asshole, just embrace it. No need to pretend there is a philosophy involved, just quote Barney Stintson.

[Anonymous No.3998585]

[Anonymous No.3998592]

>>3998560

[Anonymous No.3998604]

Nietzsche

OR

Aristotle

if unsure, read MacIntyre

[Anonymous No.3998605]

>>3998579
What practical advice does he offer?

[Anonymous No.3998609]

Is being moral/doing the right thing important to you guys? How do you decide what's the right thing to do?

[Anonymous No.3998615]

>>3998605
To become Ubermensch, duh. Nietzsche's whole framework revolves around Life-Affirmation by overcoming Life-Negating or Nihilistic (his conception) moral value judgments, such as "Evil". That's pretty fucking practical.

Go read On The Genealogy of Morals

[Anonymous No.3998627]

[sage No.3998632]

>>3998627
Sage goes in all fields.

[Anonymous No.3998638]

Aristotle, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Kant.

You wont agree with all of them but they all give something concrete that you can try immediately, and all of their arguments are compelling.

[Anonymous No.3998641]

>>3998627
This.

The Moral Landscape is the only worthwhile book on morality.

[Anonymous No.3998649]

Who are your moral role models?

[Anonymous No.3998679]

Maybe philosophers are too theoretical? Maybe it's not them that I should be reading if I'm looking for advice.

[Anonymous No.3998689]

>>3998641

[Anonymous No.3998696]

>>3998584
It's Jesus who's an asshole with his fantasy land expectations. Turn thy other cheek my ass!

[Anonymous No.3998705]

Confucius. Epictetus. Jesus. Muhammad.

[Anonymous No.3998707]

Nobody has suggested Marcus Aurelius?

Ok then! OP, I suggest you read Meditations by Marcus Aurelius.
It will provide you what you seek. The other philosophers mentioned ITT won't give you what you're after because it sounds like you want something practical, and that book essentially gives you a set of guidelines on how to live your life in an everyday context.

[Anonymous No.3998709]

Ayn Rand

>My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.

[Anonymous No.3998719]

>>3998560
>I want to be winning at life.

You already lost.

[Anonymous No.3998720]

>>3998696
If you think like that, you don't need a moral philosopher, you need Stirner, the anti-moral anti-philosopher

[Anonymous No.3998721]

>>3998720
What's his take on Jesus? Does he have any respect for him?

[Anonymous No.3998724]

The first and most obvious suggestion is, obviously, Nietzsche, as others have suggested: >>3998579
>>3998582
>>3998604

Also strongly seconding Marcus Aurelius: >>3998707 and
Aristotle:
>>3998638 >>3998604

You might want to throw in a few stoics and some traditionalists... Start off with Seneca, Epictetus and Evola (I highly recommend his "Ride the Tiger").

Oh, and for fucks sake, don't touch any part of The Bible, Ayn Rand, Kant, Kirkegaard, Heidegger, Hegel, Sartre etc for any purpose related to guidance. Read them, but do so with some serious reservations.

[Anonymous No.3998749]

>>3998696

you're young so i can forgive your frustration. however, as you become more experienced and inevitably make more mistakes you'll learn to appreciate 'turning the other cheek'

>luke 6:31

good luck anon

[Anonymous No.3998766]

>>3998560
>>3998585
>>3998720
not sure what any of this means, but I think this might be a starting place on the guy
Stirner
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individualist_anarchism

[Anonymous No.3998768]

>>3998749
Obama claims he's a christian, yet orders people to murder other people. Which philosopher do you think he's smoking?

[Anonymous No.3998770]

The point of philosophy is to understand the world, you don't "choose" a moral philosopher on "practical advice", you study moral philosophy in an attempt to know what's true, not what you like.

This thread is retarded, if you want to "win at life" you won't do it by asking such inane questions.

[Anonymous No.3998773]

>>3998766
Has Scoobert popped his head up at all since his goodbye video, or is he still in hiding?

[Anonymous No.3998774]

>>3998768

Le Hebrew Overlord

[Anonymous No.3998780]

>>3998749

Could you elaborate? Are you on the Ghandi line here, or is there something you just being coy about something else?

[Anonymous No.3998783]

>>3998770
If you think I ask inane questions, I think you have shallow interest in the subject.

[Anonymous No.3998786]

>>3998780

Fuck, I wasn't really reading my own sentence.

*or is there something else that you are just being coy about?

[Anonymous No.3998805]

>>3998641
Hahahahahahahaha

Summer brings out the kiddies

[Anonymous No.3998807]

Evola.

[Anonymous No.3998812]

>>3998805

This.

There's are so many kinds on /lit/ nowadays that it smells of diapers.

Pedobear would make a killing in this place.

[Anonymous No.3998813]

I'd stick with Jesus. He'll give you humility which will allow you to pursue things fully without tripping up over your ego, and will remove any fear of "success" that you have and so you will be drawn to what you are most passionate about, i.e. what you are likely to flourish in the most.

[Anonymous No.3998818]

>>3998807

Indeed. Almost everything he has written is readworthy.

[Anonymous No.3998829]

>>3998813

Humility? It is for weaklings and failures. An appealing concept for lower beings, perhaps, but it is both tragic and comical when such doctrines are applied to beings of greater eminence.

[Anonymous No.3998840]

friendly reminder that most of the successful people in the world weren't self-worshiping "individualists" or "egoists", but were people that believed in some cause higher than themselves, be it God, the country, the king, friendship, loyalty, virtue, or whatever.

All of the great heroes from the times when men were truly warlike were NOT cold, hard, cynical "ubermenschen", they were carried away by high emotions, e.g., David, Achilles, Hector, Pericles, Alexander, Scipio, Beowulf, Joan of Arc. They weren't what morons on the internet call "alphas" in the sense that they "don't give a fuck", they did give a whole lot of fuck, just not to petty things.

[Anonymous No.3998847]

>>3998829
all of the successful people in the world have some degree of humility.
all of the successful people in the world at some point had to admit that they did not know best, had something to learn from their betters, and had to dedicate themselves to succeed.
The people that are proud are the underachievers like us on 4chan, who think we are of "above average intelligence", but are too vain to give a fuck.

[Anonymous No.3998849]

>>3998840

You clearly have not read (or at least) understand anything at all of Nietzsche. Anyway, to complement N, Evola is a great choice.

[Anonymous No.3998852]

>>3998829
Hahaha, this is just a roleplaying thread.

I'm so glad nerds have discovered Evola. Nietszche and Rand were getting a little boring.

[Anonymous No.3998855]

>>3998849
I've read Nietzsche. He was a shy, sensitive, honest little man and when he was being sincere he told beautiful truths. Unfortunately, when he decided to be insincere he told beautiful lies. I think you've listened to too many of the lies, like "man is something that must be overcome".

[Anonymous No.3998856]

>>3998847

Lack of arrogance is a different thing than humility. The abasement of the self is a destructive thing: there is nothing wrong with legitimate pride (to be differentiated from vainglory).
I agree about your comment about 4chan though.

[Anonymous No.3998860]

>>3998852

Does thou mock our kind? Draw thine sword, weakling, and meet thine fate at the hands of a true superior!

[Anonymous No.3998865]

>>3998780

mistakes are inevitable and you will hurt people you care about. 'turning the other cheek' is wise because it encourages others to do the same.

>Forgive, and you will be forgiven

[Anonymous No.3998867]

>>3998860
it's funny that through writers like Nietzsche plebs have got it into their minds that patricians were always cruel to the weak. The reality is that the aristocrats prided themselves on being polite and gentle to the weak, and thought of the people who were cruel to the weak as sick tyrants.
That is why we have the word "gentleman" today, to indicate somebody who is polite and chivalrous. "Gentleman" used to mean "aristocrat", but people started applying the word "gentleman" that people that showed a gentleman's chivalry and politeness, and that's how it got its current meaning.

[Anonymous No.3998869]

Spinoza is the guy you are looking for: read his only work 'The Ethics'.
It is kind of hard to get into the 'framework' or whatevs but he is the best philosopher of all time. Goethe and Einstein agreed with me. no namedropping just trying to turn you on to the book.
Spinoza is basically a Nietzsche with more intelligence, imagination and courage but without the self-importance.

[Anonymous No.3998871]

>>3998865

Some mistakes are inevitable and should be forgiven, as was the case in Tradition. Fundamental faults, and willed weakness or evil are not forgiveable, however, and should be justly punished.

[Anonymous No.3998876]

>>3998867

>it's funny that through writers like Nietzsche plebs have got it into their minds that patricians were always cruel to the weak.

I don't understand where you got that from. If you disagree with our shitty roleplaying, than that's a different issue.
Of course we understand this. Justice, and conditioned mercy are obviously very different from humility and willed weakness, however. Honor in the Traditional meaning implied benevolence, and a very fair and just treatment of ones surroundings and oneself - which of course does not include humility.

[Anonymous No.3998878]

>>3998766
also found this
Break-out from the Crystal Palace - The Anarcho-psychological Critique: Stirner, Nietzsche and Dostoevsky (International library of sociology)

http://www.amazon.com/Break-out-Crystal-Palace-Anarcho-psychological-International/dp/0710077505/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1375637967&sr=8-1&keywords=break+out+from+the+crystal+palace

[Anonymous No.3998882]

>>3998876
if honor is fair and just treatment of ones surroundings and oneself, then humility is fair and just as soon as you bring God in to the surroundings and in to yourself, because with God in the picture you soon realize that all of your efforts can be brought to naught in an instant, and that any good that comes to you you ought to be infinitely grateful for.
The old pagans showed humility to their gods too.

[Anonymous No.3998883]

>>3998878

[Anonymous No.3998885]

>>3998579
Nietzche is the WORST moral philosopher. His moral philosophy is about as good as a blow to the brain.

[Anonymous No.3998887]

Machiavelli if you want to win at life.

[Anonymous No.3998893]

>>3998882

>then humility is fair and just

Now you're just trolling. I thought we went through inverse correlations and logical fallacies back in fifth grade.
The old pagans, at least where I come from, did not show humility to their gods. They thought of them as powerful friends. They gave them sacrifices, but they never begged or prayed. Sometimes they would "offer trades" for certain services, and they would thank the gods when good fortune befell them, but that has nothing to do with humility. Humility is willed weakness, which the germanic pagans rightly despised.

[Anonymous No.3998895]

>>3998893
If the pagans showed no humility to the gods then why were they so fond of making "oaths" to the gods? If they had no humility then we would have nothing to fear in breaking an oath, but it's precisely because they feared and bowed before the gods that they were fond of making oaths to them - because making an oath to something you kneel before means something.

[Anonymous No.3998898]

>>3998895

He's a nationalist, you mung, the only frame of reference he has for divinity is fascism. You won't convince him of anything.

[Anonymous No.3998901]

>>3998898
well, to be a nationalist you have to have humility, because you have to think that your country is better than yourself and is usually worth dying for.

[Anonymous No.3998908]

>>3998895

Respect and humility are also different concepts. Oaths, whether they be to allies, enemies, oneself or the gods, where for the pagans sacred and it would be a great dishonour to break one. Read my lips here - what I am criticizing is not loyalty, honour, respect or benevolence - what I am criticizing is willed weakness, and the abasement of the self; negative ascesis in all its different forms and variations.

[Anonymous No.3998910]

>>3998615
>That's pretty fucking practical.

Not really. Nietzsche doesn't give any actual practical advice, he doesn't even defines what übermensch is (and it's not like anybody can become an übermensch by the way). I don't see how you came to the idea that Nietzsche's later views on morals are practical in the sense that rules of conduct can be derived from them. The Hellenestic schools of philosophy are much more useful in that respect, since they offer an actual method that can be applied.

>The old pagans, at least where I come from, did not show humility to their gods. They thought of them as powerful friends.

Where do you come from ? Northern Europe maybe ? This sounds at odds with any conception of divinity that you could find around the Meditterranean Sea, at least.

So try either the Stoïcs (Marcus Aurelius being the most proeminent example), the Epicurean (Epicure, Lucetius), the Cynics (Diogenes), the Skeptics (Cicero) or the Cyrenaïcs (Aristippes senior and junior).

Aristotle as also very consistent ethics.

Eastern philosophies (be it Buddha or Confucius) could help you too.

[Anonymous No.3998917]

>>3998910

Yes, the pagans that I am referring to are the germanics, specifically the vikings. You are correct in your assumption of Northern Europe.

[Anonymous No.3998926]

>>3998901

Nah, only that your country is better than other countries and is worth other people dying for.

[Anonymous No.3998930]

>>3998917
But German is Central Europe, right ? The vikings weren't precisely from Germany.

[Anonymous No.3998932]

>>3998930

inb4 >blah blah pangermanic unity, white man stronk

[Anonymous No.3998934]

>>3998560
What I say is that moral is declared by the weak.
Why shouldn't you exert your strength, if you have it? Why shouldn't you get more money if you can?
Sure, maybe I suffer for it, but what am I?

[Anonymous No.3998937]

>>3998930
>weren't precisely
Anglo-Saxons were.

[Anonymous No.3998938]

>>3998930

Uhh, depends on your definitions. By germanic I am referring to the germanic peoples, which is a fairly culturally distinct collection of different "tribes" and peoples. They invaded and were invaded by the Roman empire several times, and the basis is indo-european so obviously there is a great deal of cultural similarity between the germanics and other european peoples. What I am referring to is the specific group of languages and traditions that are fairly homogenic, cf my other posts for examples of some of these.

[Anonymous No.3998939]

>>3998893
ohh guys.. I thought we learned about the harms of ad hominem in 4th grade..

[Anonymous No.3998944]

>>3998939

If you do not understand that what he was expressing was the implication of a reverse correlation, then I pity you.

[Anonymous No.3998945]

>>3998938
>>3998932

See?

[Anonymous No.3998950]

Now taking bets on how many posts until someone blames the Jews for the collapse of Western civilization.

[Anonymous No.3998952]

>>3998945

What is your point? Are you one of those egalitarians who deny cultural differences based on ethnicity and region?

[Anonymous No.3998954]

>>3998944

[Anonymous No.3998957]

>>3998950

Well, I think you are probably referring to me, the raving mad nazi fascist who is talking about germanic paganism and such. I do not blame the jews - I blame the degeneration of European culture, which started in the south with the Romans, for exploiting the alien Hebrew traditions and purposefully letting them penetrate and destroy existing Tradition. The "Jewish Problem" is just a tragic cosequence of this.

[Anonymous No.3998958]

>>3998954

What an elaborate response. You truly are a master of debate.

[Anonymous No.3998959]

be nice to people.

[Anonymous No.3998963]

>>3998959

Be nice to yourself - it is only for selfish reasons that you are nice to other people, regardless of how hard you try to delude yourself otherwise.

[Anonymous No.3998968]

>>3998952

I'm implying that your reverence of "Viking" culture is a childish fiction that you cling to because you really can't deal with the stress of knowing that the Christianity which produced you was forced on your mud-grubbing ancestors by foreign invaders. The fact that you think you have any connection to the pagans and the pagan ways is utterly laughable, almost as laughable as the notion that the pagans and their ways were worth jackshit in the beginning. (hint: if rejecting humility is so great, why did the Roman church convert the pagans, instead of the other way around? no no, don't tell me -- it was all a conspiracy, i'm sure.) Seriously, maybe it's just that being American gives me a bit of perspective that Yuros lack, but you have fuck all nothing to do with whatever your ancestors worshiped and when you try and argue that that was truly the superior way to live and behave when you live on the back of a modern world produced by post-Christian thought -- get real, you sound fucking laughable. If the "Vikings" you keep touting met you, they'd probably split your retarded head.

[Anonymous No.3998969]

come on guys. keep it pHD in here.. you are skewing the results to the left too much

[Anonymous No.3998977]

>>3998969
>/fit/ above average.
Keep dreaming.

[Anonymous No.3998980]

>>3998977
Don't start this shit.

[Anonymous No.3998982]

Honestly Camus and Rawls are pretty good.

[Anonymous No.3998983]

>>3998977
TYHS

[Anonymous No.3998984]

>>3998969
should put /pol/ at 145 for a laugh

[Anonymous No.3998992]

>>3998560
Reccommended Reading for paragons of morality.

[Anonymous No.3998997]

>>3998968

>was forced on your mud-grubbing ancestors by foreign invaders

>the notion that the pagans and their ways were worth jackshit in the beginning.

It is obvious that you have never read a serious work describing any aspects of paganism. Our ancient high culture was distinct - among other things it exalted truth, loyalty, the family, the woman in her true context, wisdom and most of all spiritual and physical strength.
You seem utterly unaware of the geo-political circumstances between the 9th and 12th century, else you would be well aware of the wars that were waged, and that the christening of Scandinavia was the result of a long struggle. We possessed our own unique culture before christianity, with our own non-latin language, letters and written works (which were of course mostly burned by the Christians after the turning) which in many aspects were superior to those that came after.

>if rejecting humility is so great, why did the Roman church convert the pagans, instead of the other way around?

Good question, why do you think? I am sure that the Roman church showed a shitload of humility in the conversion, right?

>>3998968

>The fact that you think you have any connection to the pagans and the pagan ways is utterly laughable

> If the "Vikings" you keep touting met you, they'd probably split your retarded head.

You might be right, but nothing stops us from attempting to reach for what could be.

As for the record, I respect certain types of humility, but I have already made myself abundantly clear as to what types. You are obviously showing a lot of it in your fantastic post, and you must be very erudity judging from your intelligent regards on paganism.

[Anonymous No.3998999]

>>3998997

*remarks on paganism.

[Anonymous No.3999007]

>>3998957
You seem misinformed. The "penetration" of "alien traditions" in Europe begins with the introduction of alphabetic writing, it's much older than Rome and was already there at the height of Athenian classical philosophy. Basically you are complaining about a tradition that evolved through its interaction with the West corrupting another tradition that was built in part on its use of concepts imported from the first tradition. You're making problems out of non-issue by oversimplifying the very complex history of mediterranean cultures. More background in history and consideration of facts could help you.

[Anonymous No.3999010]

>>3998963
Then there's no more reason to be nice to yourself than to be nice to people you want or need to be nice to.

[Anonymous No.3999012]

>>3999007

I am talking about the values of christianity, the Hebrew values if you will, not intellectual feats such as the latin alphabet which I am well aware off.

[Anonymous No.3999013]

>>3998959
You're cute.

[Anonymous No.3999016]

>>3999012

*of.

>>3999010

Assuming a solipistic perspective, I would dispute that. Other persons are external, and the only true center of value must obviously reside within in some way or other.

[Anonymous No.3999019]

>>3998887
Hes amoral

[Anonymous No.3999029]

>>3999012
Christianity is in some part a reaction to Judaism though, and a lot of the rituals in the Catholic Church bare some resemblance to Pagan rituals. Indeed, the Catholic Church is one of the few places you can go to nowadays to experience such paganism (albeit overshadowed by Christian doctrine).

"Manliness" was not what characterized paganism, and womanliness or effeminacy or weakness is not what characterizes Christianity. That is a sort of Nietzschean interpretation. What characterized paganism was a stern commitment to duty and respectability in civil life.
If you would read Kierkegaard you would see that paganism is actually more childish and effeminate than Christianity, mostly because it allows one to sneak through life without answering to one ultimate authority, and as such as a kind of leniency and flippancy. If somebody in paganism faulty then he is "imprudent" or has a "vice", if somebody is faulty in Christianity he is damned.
Christianity and the other Abrahamic religions are far more manly and serious. They put a far greater demand on the individual. Christianity is also a much more joyous religion than the pagan religions were too. As, I said, paganism was stern, it required you to be brave and face your fate face-to-face, accept it. Christianity doesn't have that respect for "fate", it puts much more emphasis on the individual's "free will" and asserts that true happiness and salvation is within the grasp of all, not matter one's fate.

[Anonymous No.3999046]

>>3999012
>the values of christianity, the Hebrew values if you will

Problem is that those two are really different. The value of Christianity as we know them have a core of jewish-inspired beliefs (from the teachings of Jesus and the rewritings we have of it from the Evangiles) but you can't neglect the influence of Greek culture on it (most of the New Testament is written in Greek after all, and the Evangelist were culturally Greek). Christianity is a synthesis operated over various centuries, with a great deal of Greek and Roman import and a lot of the dogma was shaped by theological discussions and political struggle among Roman school of thought and imperial officials. Making a stark separation between, on the one hand, "european" values inherited from the Greeks and "christian" ones come down straight from the Hebrews would be, as I wrote earlier, an oversimplification. There's a reason the Jewish don't recognize themselves in Christianity (amusing fact: a Jew is not in theory forbidden to praying in a mosque, but he is not allowed to do so in a church): because while they share a lot of things their values and practices are different.

>not intellectual feats such as the latin alphabet which I am well aware off.

I'm glad that you have this in mind, but still, I'm not sure wether sorting out religious influences from cultural and technical ones is not somewhat misleading. But more importantly, Hebraic and Greek culture have influenced each other for a very long time, and you also have to account from Egyptian and Mesopotamian influence on the Greeks. All those largely predate Christianity.

>>3999016
>Other persons are external, and the only true center of value must obviously reside within in some way or other.

My point was, since even caring for other is at heart egoistical, there isn't really a difference between being nice to yourself and being nice in a well-calculated way to a few selected others. Now, depending on how you want to use social interaction to maximize self-happiness, you could be lead to be nice to most people around you. It can be a sensible egoistical calculation.

[Anonymous No.3999052]

>>3999029
This, except for the musings on paganism which, while interesting, forgets to account from the diversity and richness of paganic tradition, most notably in the Roman Empire. In the end which religion is more "effeminate" boils down to interpretation, a more interesting question to me would be "where early Christianism and paganism that much at odds in terms of values ?". A lot of the forced conversation that ensued the council of Nicea was a matter of politics as much as religion.

[edgy No.3999053]

worship edge god

[Anonymous No.3999058]

>>3999053
Okay

[Anonymous No.3999060]

>>3998997

And now your ancient high culture has brought you to be a part of the exact same culture as everybody else. I'm sure if you'd been there when those dirty Christians were killing your dirty forefathers you could have turned it all around and we wouldn't be in this mess, blah blah blah, but the truth is "your" culture became extinct a long time ago and the latter-day assclowns that practice Asatru or whatever other ridiculous ideology are dumber than LARPers. At least most LARPers can admit that what they do is silly bullshit.

The truth is that the Roman church possessed a thousand times the "spiritual and physical strength" that your dipshit forebears did, Varg. The difference is that they were able to use this spiritual and physical strength to actual ends, because they possessed sufficient doubletalk to destroy your pissant Scandi culture and then convince the retards that made it up that it was evil in the first place. Just like the modern rationalists would later do with Christianity. Anyone can say they reject humility, but that doesn't change the fact that all those calling for a return to the old ways are Eurotrash too humble to raise a hand against their post-Judeochristian overlords, and too weak and few to accomplish anything if they did. One could fault Breivik, for example, for being a murderous crazy - which he is - but at least he's only living in the last century, rather than the last millennium. Get with it. Nobody cares about MUH AESIRS anymore.

[Anonymous No.3999061]

>>3999046
> Now, depending on how you want to use social interaction to maximize self-happiness, you could be lead to be nice to most people around you. It can be a sensible egoistical calculation.

This here is the dumbness of egotism and the "egoistical calculation".
Going back to the Nietzsche quote somebody posted here earlier, it states that one does not fall in love with another human being so much as one falls in love with one's own passion, and as such what one really loves when one loves another human being is one's self. This is something that a Christian might even accept, that romantic love is self-love - and further declare that love of the neighbour is the only true love. Going back to my point, however: as soon as you recognize that you are not in love with the person but with your own passion, then the passion disappears. Once a passion becomes aware of itself it immediately begins to dissipate. Kierkegaard used a metaphor for this, he said it's would be life if an arrow in its trajectory suddenly gained awareness of itself and its trajectory - at that point it would immediately fall to the ground. So the egoists aren't egotistical at all, that's their problem. Instead of trusting the fancies and whims of their egos like an egoist should, they instead are always suspicious of their ego and looking for ulterior motives in it, and so they always succeed in destroying the captivating illusions the ego conjures. Self-defeating philosophy.

[Anonymous No.3999074]

>>3999029

I disagree with both the Nietzschean and your interpretation of manliness and effeminacy. I do not believe that either doctrine favoured such values in the way you are describing.
What is clear, however, is that, as you partly suggest, paganism was much more connected to nature (as in what is aximatic and immanent, rather than constructed). Responsibility was ultimately owed to onself, and not to some higher divine absolute. The differences are obvious when we compare pre-christian and post-christian "chivalrous" ideals, and the reality related to those.
For the pagan, dishonour was the worst fate, much as damnation for Christians. That responsibility was relegated to the self and the family rather than a divinity just meant that it was more organic in its nature.
Pagans did believe in fate, but they were in no manner fatalistic. What happened was meant to be, but that didn't dismiss the concepts of responsibility and freedom.
Keep in mind that when I am referring to "pagans" I am referring to Germanic pagans, and not any other traditions.

[Anonymous No.3999075]

>>3999061
another self-defeating philosophy like this kind of egoism is the "opportunist" philosophy, and the realpolitik. The idea of being "efficient" in your conduct. The problem with this is that you are so busy looking for the next opportunity that you fail to see anything through to its end, as soon as one opportunity shows any difficulty you hop to the next ripe opportunity.
The people who really have done something in the world weren't the sly opportunists, they were the people who obsessed over something and were determined to see it through to the end, regardless of "success". This is why the kind of people that call themselves opportunists always tend to seem like very frivolous people who are proud to put on a serious face.

[Anonymous No.3999079]

>>3999061
>Once a passion becomes aware of itself it immediately begins to dissipate.
This sounds debatable, you can be conscious that you are locked up in a toxic romantic relationship and still be unwilling or unable to deal with your feeling and kill your own infatuation from inside.

>So the egoists aren't egotistical at all,
>Self-defeating philosophy.

I agree on that, however.

[Anonymous No.3999080]

>>3999074
> Responsibility was ultimately owed to onself, and not to some higher divine absolute.

Not at all, I don't think the pagans ever thought that they owed responsibility to oneself. They weren't that retarded. They, because they were sensible, knew that they had responsibility first and foremost to the gods, to the polis, to the family, etc.
You might say that a pagan would say, "one owes it to oneself to be wise", but I don't think they feared being fools because they might miss out on "being the best they could be" or "fulfilling their potential" as the modern egoists say, it's because they didn't want to be seen as laughingstocks in the eyes of the gods.

[Anonymous No.3999094]

>>3999079
>you can be conscious that you are locked up in a toxic romantic relationship and still be unwilling or unable to deal with your feeling and kill your own infatuation from inside.

yes, but that's because infatuations are so strong that you are unable to see anything but the "beautiful ideal". The egoist's downfall is that they he insists on looking behind "beautiful ideals" and looking at the "dull reality", and as soon as you do that the beautiful ideal disappears. You won't be able to fall out of love by thinking of your beloved's hair or her eyes, but you might be able to fall out of love by constantly thinking about the chemicals in your head which are supposedly the source of your infatuation, which is what some of the people I've talked to insist on doing with love.

[Anonymous No.3999101]

>>3999080

I agree about family and polis, but not about the Gods. The Gods were most likely seen as something more along the lines of very powerful heroes and sometimes even personal "friends", but with limited influence, rather than all-powerful divinities. The Gods did not symbolize absolute values, and if you read the Eddas for example you can clearly see that they were far from perfect, and were not even seen as ideals.

[Anonymous No.3999923]

>>3998871

>"If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness."

- 1 John 1:9

[Anonymous No.3999958]

>>3998766
No, you start with Stirner, not with the individualist anarchism -ism that starts to murk up his glorious message.

[Anonymous No.3999973]

>>3998707
Aurelius is just third-hand Epictetus.