/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.4301366]

Is it just me or is this Nietzsche's best work.

[Anonymous No.4301370]

>>4301366
Yes, out of the millions of people who read Nietzsche you the the only one with this opinion.

[Anonymous No.4301377]

>>4301370
>Millions of people who read Nietzsche
Somehow I doubt that happens in the dumbfuck culture we live in.

[Anonymous No.4301407]

>>4301377
No, it's definitely millions. Sorry your 15 year old self isn't feeling superior anymore.

[Anonymous No.4301412]

>>4301377
>implying only edgy american cunts read nietzche

[Anonymous No.4301428]

>>4301366
It's his most un-Nietzschean work, that's for sure. He's still on Wagner and Schopenhauer's respective dicks.

If I had to throw one of my Nietzsche books away, it would be this one.

[Anonymous No.4301503]

>>4301366
>Nietzsche's best work.

>implying he has any

[Anonymous No.4301517]

>>4301366
in terms of prose? Maybe.

In terms of philosophy? Just as convoluted and shit as the rest.

[Anonymous No.4301518]

Haven't we disposed of this Kraut hack yet?

[Anonymous No.4301519]

>>4301503
/thread

[Anonymous No.4301656]

>>4301503
>>4301519
I agree, they're all great.

[Anonymous No.4301667]

>>4301518
no one likes your shitty comic, quit spamming it in every nietzsche thread

[Anonymous No.4301676]

>>4301518
Is that like a shit dead philosophers knock off?

[Anonymous No.4301698]

>>4301518
I love dead philosophers, fuck your shitty comic.

[Anonymous No.4301703]

>>4301518
Obviously made by a butthurt theist

[Anonymous No.4301709]

Can someone post that badly drawn caricature of Nietzsche leaning back with his arms crossed looking edgy as fuck saying "God is dead"

[Anonymous No.4301722]

>>4301698
>frederich

yank/10 stopped reading there

[Anonymous No.4301728]

>>4301722
Made by New Zealanders, so...

[Anonymous No.4301733]

>>4301709
I'd like to see this also

[Anonymous No.4301743]

>>4301667
>>4301676
>>4301698
>>4301703
I like how every reponse to it is basically "hurrrr". Nobody yet has addressed the fact that it legitimately debunks Nietzsche's philosophy.

[Anonymous No.4301745]

I prefer On the Advantage and Disadvantage of History for Life.

[Anonymous No.4301755]

>>4301745
>the most obscure book is the one I like the best!

a topping of fresh lel

[Anonymous No.4301756]

>>4301743
>dumb kid gets hit by a car

Holy shit! We might as well throw out all of Nietzsche books!

[Anonymous No.4301761]

>>4301756
>implying the kid isn't a metaphor for a reader of Nietzsche's books who has divorced himself from all law, morality and wisdom in order to follow his grand delusions of being a "creative spirit" or "overman" or "higher man" or whatever ludicrous metaphor

[Anonymous No.4301765]

>>4301756
>We might as well throw out all of Nietzsche books!

Sounds like a good idea to me. He was a heretic and a corrupter of youth. Philosophers that corrupt youths are punished according to the tradition.

[Anonymous No.4301772]

>>4301761
>implying on delusional 'tard is the entirety of Nietzsche's audience, and that Nietzsche's whole philosophy is telling people to be an Ubermensch
>2013
>still reading SparkNotes

[Anonymous No.4301777]

>>4301765
Yeah, he got syphilis. Crazier people have books on the shelves, like Glenn Beck and Ann Coulter. Should we just start throwing out all books by irrational people?

[Anonymous No.4301787]

>>4301777
>Should we just start throwing out all books by irrational people?

Of course.

[Anonymous No.4301793]

>>4301777
Lets just burn all the books.

[Anonymous No.4301807]

>>4301772
>implying on delusional 'tard is the entirety of Nietzsche's audience, and that Nietzsche's whole philosophy is telling people to be an Ubermensch

No, but his whole philosophy is one long-winded attack upon authority itself, the common-sense idea that some things are better than others, some things are true and some things are false, some are wise and some are fools, etc. He replaces this entire (Platonic) scheme with the idea that there is only "Will" and that the "Will determines values", which is a nonsensical metaphysically and destructive morally.

[Anonymous No.4301808]

>>4301407
Haha this.

[Anonymous No.4301816]

>>4301728
Ignorant cunts at least, opinions dismissed entirely, petition for nuclear attack started.

[Anonymous No.4301825]

>>4301807
Also, this is the point that the father is making in the comic. That as he is wiser than his son he has a right to instruct him for his own benefit. Nietzsche undermines even this idea --- that a parent has a right to help and guide his child, and that the wise have a right to help and guide the ignorant generally (which follows from his rejection of God, who is the fountain of knowledge and the highest seat of authority). In which case the child is totally right to embrace his dionysian orgiastic overflow of passion and will in pissing on the road and getting run over by a car because it's a product of his Will to Power, at least according to Nietzsche.

[Anonymous No.4301828]

well that's something

[Anonymous No.4301829]

>>4301816
Ok?

[Anonymous No.4301832]

>>4301807

It really is a ludicrous delusion. The concept of the Ubermensch is mentioned in only one of his fourteen major works. He has frequently recurring - that is, 'important' - ideas and it isn't one of them.

[Anonymous No.4301833]

>>4301807
How does will not determine value? There have been countless examples throughout the 20th century, especially behind the iron curtain, and throughout history, of states, empires, etc establishing values through their own authority (the will of their rulers, etc).

Nietzsche's thought isn't at all unlike Machiavelli's "armed prophets." Think of nations like Czech and Poland who first bent to the will of the Germans then the Soviets and were willing to rat on their neighbour just for acceptance and survival within the current regime.

Will does determine value, morality, etc. Nietzsche stating this to be the case is neither moral or immoral.

[Anonymous No.4301847]

>>4301832
Shit, someone else in this thread actually read Nietzsche instead of just looking at the wiki article for "Ubermensch."

[Anonymous No.4301848]

Poor Friedrich

[Anonymous No.4301851]

>>4301833
>Will does determine value, morality, etc.

No, Will determines how strongly you uphold or bind to morality, it does not determine morality itself. If a communist dictator forced his citizens to accept that 2 + 2 = 5, would the citizens be right in parroting this obvious falsehood? Obviously not. So when there is a society that influences people to do immoral things like human sacrifice to pagan idols, is human sacrifice to pagan idols proved to be morally right by that very fact? Clearly not. The idea that "Will determines values" is the same as saying "values don't exist", which is not far off saying "truth doesn't exist" --- which coincidentally is the absurd line that philosophy largely seems to have taken since Nietzsche wrote his cleverly written books of idiocy.

[Anonymous No.4301855]

Why are French people so depraved?

[Anonymous No.4301881]

>>4301833
>>4301807

I think you both got it wrong, his point is that creation of all values is motivated by the will to power. They all are called to existence to increase the inventor's control over his life or his evinronment.

[Anonymous No.4301878]

>The idea that "Will determines values" is the same as saying "values don't exist", which is not far off saying "truth doesn't exist"

It's not the same as saying that, because will determining values recognizes that values exist; however, they are shaped or reassessed according to individual or collective perspectives that are shaped by a play of forces... historical, social, political, religious, etc. Values can be made from different perspectives, and ultimately it's power that will decide what a people will follow.

Re: perspectivism, Nietzsche's epistemological theory.

>If a communist dictator forced his citizens to accept that 2 + 2 = 5, would the citizens be right in parroting this obvious falsehood? Obviously not

What does it matter if the citizen is right or wrong? What matters is how the values of the regime function for the sake of life, according to Nietzsche's philosophy.


For the record, I'm not necessarily a Nietzschean, but I've read a lot of his shit and am arguing for the sake of clarity because a lot of people misinterpret or parrot naive readings of his work.

[Anonymous No.4301919]

[Anonymous No.4301923]

>>4301881
Values aren't created, they are co-eternal with God. In point of fact, true values and God are the same thing.
>>4301878
> however, they are shaped or reassessed according to individual or collective perspectives that are shaped by a play of forces... historical, social, political, religious, etc.
Values aren't shaped by things like history and politics any more than they are shaped by wind currents or temperature.
>, and ultimately it's power that will decide what a people will follow.
That does not mean that if I force somebody to accept murder as right . . . that murder is therefore right. It only proves that somebody has been made to hold false / evil values through my influence and that I am a monster.
>What matters is how the values of the regime function for the sake of life, according to Nietzsche's philosophy.
Which is one of the inconsistencies in Nietzsche's philosophy --- his constant talk of "life-affirming" values. Well, what's so good about "life-affirming" values? Why not death-affirming values? He gives us no reason to choose between life or death, truth or falsehood, beauty or ugliness . . . he just says, "choose what you want, and it choose it as strongly as you can".

[Anonymous No.4301932]

[Anonymous No.4301956]

>>4301878
The problem is your use of the word "values". Values are absolute moral truths, and Nietzsche does away with absolute moral truths. If I go to an ancient pagan society and tell them that human sacrifice is immoral then I am appealing to absolute morality. According to Nietzsche's philosophy I can't make that appeal, all I can do is try my best to force them to accept my way of thinking (which I might do by appealing to absolute morality, but that would only be a Machievellian trick to persuade them to adopt my point of view).
If values are just "perspectives" or "interpretations" then why even call them values? "Value" itself implies that things have inherent qualities, that some things are better than others. Nietzsche says that there are no inherent qualities, that no one thing is better in value than any other --- he says that when people talk about "values" they are only fooling themselves in to thinking that their is an Order that doesn't exist, that this Order is just a phantasm that they've imposed on things through their "Will". In which case fundamental things like truth and being collapse, and everything is replaced by this "Will" which becomes the end all and be all of all reality. Reality is just "Will", there is nothing "real" except for what is held to be real by some will.

[Anonymous No.4301965]

>>4301743
Maybe people just think your comic is too retarded to be anything else than a poor troll attempt. If you've actually read Nietzsche and still seriously think that shitty comic is a remotely good objection to his philosophy, then you're just retarded.

[Anonymous No.4301971]

>>4301965
I've read Nietzsche and I've understood him better than you have.

[Anonymous No.4301972]

>>4301755
>most obscure book
Stop projecting your plebness.

[Anonymous No.4301977]

>>4301923
Nietzsche's view presupposes a non-religious perspective, if you're assuming a religious perspective by which you have a higher ethical appeal you have a lot of background disagreement to work through before you can sympathetically read Nietzsche and critically entertain his ideas in any real sense. And life-affirming could be death-affirming, but that's besides the point

Also not the guy you were talking to before, btw

[Anonymous No.4301984]

>>4301971
k

[Anonymous No.4301986]

>>4301972
Please don't say "pleb" in /lit/.

We're better than that.

[Anonymous No.4301988]

>>4301971
Yeah, that comic shows it perfectly.

[Anonymous No.4301992]

>>4301986
Is your first time here?

[Anonymous No.4301999]

>>4301828
That one's priceless.

[Anonymous No.4302011]

>>4301977
>life-affirming could be death-affirming, but that's besides the point
I think Nietzsche presupposes as well the point of affirming life rather than death- he's never said this in all that I've read from him, but from what I take our conscious realization that we are currently "living" is the only objective sensation held by all living beings- the only objective truth we (must) hold day-to-day is that we are engaged in the act of living, so the point of our lives then becomes to discharge the power and creativity stemming from our sense of being alive. We can't even begin to fathom "non-existence" or non-life or death.

[Anonymous No.4302021]

>>4301923
>he just says, "choose what you want, and it choose it as strongly as you can".

And from this we may as well choose not to make a choice. He gives us no reason to choose between one thing and another, he only says "make up your own mind". He gives us all these poetic metaphors and imagery and his writing and then says "make up your mind" . . . as though he wasn't trying to seduce us with his poetry, into worshipping his own idols like the "dionysian" and the "higher man".
Usually a philosopher has the courtesy to tell us his mind and the consistency to demand that we accept his philosophy as right (as if he didn't think his philosophy was right he wouldn't hold to that philosophy in the first place). Nietzsche says "make up your own mind" while pretending that he isn't trying to convince us that we should hold to HIS philosophy, his "make up your own mind" philosophy. If I'm really to make up my own mind then why shouldn't I choose to adopt the views of Plato or St. Paul . . . because that wouldn't be willful enough on my part? But why the fuck should I care more about your "Will to Power" more than Plato's "Forms" or St. Paul's "Charity"?

[Anonymous No.4302032]

>>4302011
>the only objective truth we (must) hold day-to-day is that we are engaged in the act of living, so the point of our lives then becomes to discharge the power and creativity stemming from our sense of being alive.

Why discharge that power and creativity? Why not repress it?

[Anonymous No.4302061]

>>4302021
here's an excerpt from Cicero that touches on this

[Anonymous No.4302071]

>>4302032
just because

It's arbritrary

[Anonymous No.4302080]

>>4302021
He "endorses" (more accurately, presents) a perspective with values that are the near-opposite of contemporary values to prove a greater point

[Anonymous No.4302084]

>>4302071
Exactly. Which is why according to Nietzsche Hitler was a better philosopher than he was, because Hitler managed to impose his arbitrary ideas more strongly on people than Nietzsche himself has, which apparently is the metric by which we judge the worth of something . . . it's capacity to impose itself, it's "Will to Power".

[Anonymous No.4302088]

>>4302032
there's no such thing as repressing it. it's literally impossible. the discharge of that power is the foundation of life as we know it.

[Anonymous No.4302095]

>>4302084
the Will to Power was presented as a device to lead one towards perspectivism, his actual philosophical position

[Anonymous No.4302097]

>>4302088
Are you making an appeal to logic? Frankly, I think you're wrong. And seeing as my Will is stronger than yours, you may as well just accept that you're wrong.

[Anonymous No.4302105]

>>4302095
What's the difference between perspectivism and solipsism.

[Anonymous No.4302106]

>>4302084
Wrong, Nietzsche said that wanting to control what other people think and do is a sign of weakness. Ultimately freddy cares about affirming life and will to power less than about his ideal of a healthy man. He also claimed that weak and mediocre people dominate history.

[Anonymous No.4302110]

>>4301923
>"choose what you want, and it choose it as strongly as you can".

Except he doesn't say this.

In Nietzsche's essay on history he sees a continuity of great lives throughout history, and a herd of people. The herd accept the horizon drawn for them by the great lives, and he recognizes the "plastic power" of man to redraw the horizon. Who does this? The great souls, who sometimes, he recognizes, are misunderstood by the herd, rabble, whatever. Sometimes the weak rabble (Christians) can even have the strength to topple regimes like the Roman empire.

Some people don't choose. Some people just accept, because they're too weak to exert their will.

He was writing in the twilight between the death of God - which, he saw as horrifying that God can no longer be a source of objective values - and the coming of an Ubermensch, or some other force, that would create new values. Values are only "co-eternal with God" if you're coming from a religious perspective (there's that word again).

The major problem with Nietzsche's philosophy was that he didn't anticipate a resurgence in faith, or things like the embrace of fundamentalism that happened in the 80s (Christianity in America, and Islam in the West); however, secularism still maintains hold over places like North America.

[Anonymous No.4302111]

>>4302106
>Wrong, Nietzsche said that wanting to control what other people think and do is a sign of weakness.
Who cares what Nietzsche said. He was a weak invalid. I am stronger than he was and I demand that you reject Nietzsche and accept Me.

[Anonymous No.4302121]

>>4302111
I actually can accept you since you agreed with him by showing contempt for his disability.

[Anonymous No.4302153]

>>4302110
>Some people just accept, because they're too weak to exert their will.

This doesn't make sense. How can they be "too weak to exert their will", how is it even possible not the "extert your will"? Don't you just mean that they were weak-willed? In which case I don't understand the previous comment on Christians, because the early Christians were extraordinarily strong-willed.

>He was writing in the twilight between the death of God - which, he saw as horrifying that God can no longer be a source of objective values

Doesn't make sense. If God does not exist then there is no such thing as an objective value, as God and objective value are the same thing. To speak of God as being a "source" of objective values doesn't make sense.

> Values are only "co-eternal with God" if you're coming from a religious perspective (there's that word again).

They are by definition co-eternal with God. If they aren't co-eternal with God then they aren't values at all, they are only "perspectives".

>The major problem with Nietzsche's philosophy was that he didn't anticipate a resurgence in faith,

Why didn't he? You just said that he foresaw the coming of an Ubermensch, and seeing as the most strong-willed people in history have been religious prophets it follows that he most likely saw a return to religious conviction / faith brought about by a prophet.

[Anonymous No.4302156]

>>4302084
Actually, how one would judge something from a Nietzschean perspective would be how well it serves life. He would acknowledge that Hitler managed to make monumental history, but I don't think he would consider him a greater philosopher, especially because part of his legacy is something so life denying (the holocaust).

Hitler does, however, function as an example of the will to power, but isn't so life affirming.

Also, Nietzsche wasn't a supporter of German nationalism or anti-Semitism.

I don't know if you just misunderstood Nietzsche (or the Wiki articles), or if you're just being facetious.

[Anonymous No.4302163]

>>4302156
>killing is life denying

Are you trying to make some precious hippie out of Nietzsche?

[Anonymous No.4302177]

>>4302153
Neeche said that there is no stronger and weaker will. In his opinion what manifested as strong will was having one of your drives reign supreme while weak will was a multitude of drives clashing with each other. Ultimately healthiness is what matters. Also, he agreed that the rebellion from life like christianity is creative in it's first stage but then leads to stagnation.

[Anonymous No.4302178]

>>4302156
>Also, Nietzsche wasn't a supporter of German nationalism or anti-Semitism.

I wouldn't say that: if the strong-willed are on the side of nationalism and anti-semitism then Nietzsche is on the side of nationalism and anti-semitism, because Nietzsche is on the side of the strong-willed.

[Anonymous No.4302185]

>>4302156
And Nietzsche himself probably wouldn't endorse the Will to Power, so measuring him by that standard is pointless. People take Will to Power to seriously in his philosophy, I wish more books had his self-commentary, he's far more straightforward in it than he is in his prose (generally

[Anonymous No.4302189]

>>4302153
>>4302153

See >>4301977

This conversation will get nowhere unless you read Beyond Good and Evil with an open mind.

God being a "source" of values, but not the only source of values, make sense, from a Nietzschean perspective. See: perspectivism.

I don't know why Nietzsche didn't anticipate a bunch of people coming to embrace fundamentalism in the 1980s. It could be that he was writing in a different historical era with a different play of forces shaping his perspective. Gee, funny how that works. Next time I travel through time I'll ask him why he didn't foresee it. Jokes aside, I don't know why "it follows that he most likely saw a return to religious conviction." Why did it have to be religious in nature?


Anywho, I'm going to the gym. Good conversation though.

[Anonymous No.4302193]

>>4302178
He wasn't inferring that from Nietzsche's philosophy, Nietzsche directly called anti-semitism and nationalism dumb multiple times at other points in other works

[Anonymous No.4302205]

>>4302193
Pretty sure Fred would let that slide as being rabble rousing rhetoric when the new Napoleon set out to unite Europe.

[Anonymous No.4302213]

>>4302177
> Also, he agreed that the rebellion from life like christianity is creative in it's first stage but then leads to stagnation.

I really want a Nietzscheite to explain to me why Christ insistently talks about life as though it's the greatest thing imaginable (", He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life", "I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.") then how can Christianity be accused of being "rebellious against" or "anti-" life? Surely Christianity is the most "life-affirming" philosophy/religion ever, since it's whole aim is to ensure a person obtains eternal life. If Christianity hated life, then why would it speak of eternal life as though it were holy and blessed? Surely eternal life would be the greatest punishment if life were so terrible.

[Anonymous No.4302244]

>>4302213
Christ is not Christianity. Nietzsche had a deep respect for Jesus.

[Anonymous No.4302246]

>>4302213
>>4302095
it applies to his characterization of Christianity as well

[Anonymous No.4302251]

>>4302205
>>4302185

[Anonymous No.4302258]

>>4302244
Respecting Jesus is the most idiotic attitude you can have towards him. Either you worship him as God or you reject him. Rejecting him as God while saying, "oh, but I do respect you" is arrogant and condescending. If you don't worship Jesus then by that very fact you hate Jesus.
"He who is not with Me is against Me."

[Anonymous No.4302266]

>>4302258

So you're saying that you absolutely cannot like Jesus, or agree with any of his views, unless you also believe he is God?

[Anonymous No.4302274]

>>4302258
>implying that the only a christian view of jesus of nazareth is possible

Kek.

[Anonymous No.4302280]

>>4302266
Yes, that is what I'm saying. That is also what Jesus said concerning himself.
>>4302274
I didn't say that it was impossible, I said that it was idiotic.

[Anonymous No.4302289]

>>4302280
There's nothing idiotic about it. He's a historical figure as well as a religious figure. Are you saying it's idiotic to study Mohammed's life if you don't believe him to be the prophet of Allah as well?

[Anonymous No.4302292]

>>4302280
Jesus wasn't a god he was just a hippy Palestinian going all Che Guevara on his contemporaries.

[Anonymous No.4302293]

>>4302280

That's... remarkably stupid.

[Anonymous No.4302302]

>>4302266
Imagine on Judgement Day when Jesus asking a man if he believed and the man responding, "of course I didn't believe what you said about being God or whatever, but I did respect alot of your views". Jesus would reply, "So you lived a life in complete indifference towards the fact that I am the Saviour ignoring everything that I said about myself, and at the same time claiming to respect me. Hypocrite."

Either Jesus is God or he was a complete maniac / deluded idiot or he never was at all.

[Anonymous No.4302318]

>>4302293
That's because you hate Jesus and refuse to take him seriously when he says, "He who is not with Me is agaisnt Me". If you don't worship Jesus then you are by that very fact against Jesus. If you don't love him, then you hate him. This isn't the case for anything else, e.g. just because I don't love Holland does not mean that I hate Holland, but it is the case for Jesus, because Jesus DEMANDS that you love him, and so if you don't love him you must therefore abhorr his demanding that you love him, i.e. you abhorr him. Jesus Christ does not care that you "respect his views". He wants you to love/worship him. If you don't love/worship him then he considers you to be one with Satan and with those who crucified him (bear in mind that those who crucified him weren't just the Jews that hated him, but also the Romans who professed a kind of his indifference to him. This very indifference is hatred when it comes to Christ).

[Anonymous No.4302324]

>>4302302

The dude was a leftist radical, how could I not agree with his views? Like, yeah, him being the son of God/being God? I don't agree with that one, but I'm almost certain all of that started up after he died, and he didn't claim such lofty things himself.

Then again, a lot of this gets into what I don't like about the view that God is a really insecure and vindictive asshole that cannot deal with you not worshiping him, even if you aren't evil.

[Anonymous No.4302331]

>>4302318
>Jesus DEMANDS that you love him

He sounds like a really needy ex. I know Jesus was all about love, but I didn't realize he meant a love of him.

[Anonymous No.4302332]

>>4302302
>implying Christian "orthodoxy" was right about the Christ

[Anonymous No.4302333]

>>4302318
>mfw biblebelt on my /lit/

I thought we only had cultured catholics and shit.

[Anonymous No.4302342]

>>4302318
>bear in mind that those who crucified him weren't just the Jews that hated him, but also the Romans who professed a kind of his indifference to him. This very indifference is hatred when it comes to Christ

i.e. if you are one of the people who "respected Jesus" you would have been numbered among the Romans and with Pontius Pilate who said "what is truth?" when Jesus said to him, "I am the truth". You don't take seriously Christ's assertion that he is the truth, you crucify him as though he were just another man / nuisance to the state. In other words, if you do not love Jesus, then morally you are among the people who would be perfectly fine with the crucifixion of the very man who would love even his enemies while they are crucifying him and profess the truth even when it leads to his death . . . it means that you despise love and that you despise the truth, because Jesus is the kind of love that dies for the sake of love and the kind of truth that dies for the sake of truth.

[Anonymous No.4302344]

>Another Nietzsche thread on /lit/

don't you faggots have anything better to talk about?

[Anonymous No.4302347]

>>4302333
This is the Catholic / Orthodox view.

[Anonymous No.4302351]

>>4302302

>not realizing Jesus was a gnostic who never claimed to be god.

>59. Jesus said, "Look to the living one as long as you live, otherwise you might die and then try to see the living one, and you will be unable to see."

[Anonymous No.4302364]

>>4302258
>>4302266
>>4302274
>>4302280
>>4302289
>>4302292
>>4302293
>>4302302
>>4302318
Aaaaaand derailed

[Anonymous No.4302365]

>>4302331
Love of him and love of God are one and the same, because he is God.
And the first of Christ's two commandments that he added to the ten is "And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength."

[Anonymous No.4302377]

>>4302347
Pretty sure the Catholic church doesn't consider non-religious views "idiotic" because "those people hate jesus".

[Anonymous No.4302391]

>>4302365

Man, that sounds SUPER creepy.

[Anonymous No.4302398]

>>4302377
The Catholic Church does consider non-catholic views to be idiotic (naturally), and it's a simple point in theology that those who do not love Christ do not love him because they love sin instead. They love their sin, and hate Christ, and "No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other." If you do not take Christ as master it's because you are holding to some other master.

[Anonymous No.4302408]

>>4302391
You must have some really impoverished view of love.

[Anonymous No.4302425]

>>4302398
>If you do not take Christ as master it's because you are holding to some other master.
>holding to a master at all

[Anonymous No.4302438]

>>4302425
Egoists hold their own ego as master, which is laughable because the ego is the most untrustworthy master there can possibly be. You would be better served worshipping a little grasshopper than the ego.

[Anonymous No.4302444]

>>4302438
>stirnerist einzige
>dualistic individual and his ego relationship

[Anonymous No.4302447]

>>4302444
So you worship the stirnerist einzige, whatever that is.

[Anonymous No.4302454]

>>4302447
>thinks der einzige is a spook that can be upheld

[Anonymous No.4302456]

>>4302454
So you worship the idea of no idea, the spook of no spook.

[Anonymous No.4302457]

>>4302447

It's the concrete makeup of a person free of any abstraction or intellectual comment.

[Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ No.4302459]

>>4302425
>Stirner
>Steve Jobs
Hmmm

[Anonymous No.4302460]

>>4302456
Nope. (I'm out of stimplyers)

There is such a thing as a life without worship, cathy licks.

[Anonymous No.4302467]

>>4302459
>tfw no EinPod

[Anonymous No.4302482]

>>4302460
>There is such a thing as a life without worship, cathy licks.
But that's exactly what I've been asserting.

[Anonymous No.4302494]

>>4302482

by telling everyone they're worshiping something?

[Anonymous No.4302525]

>>4302494
Sorry, I thought it said "there is NO such thing . . ."
What I've been saying is that there is no such thing as a life without worship. Those who don't conscientiously worship something do all their worship "subconsciously". We all worship things (Christianly, these things are false idols / demons) subconsciously to an extent. Like when a man masturbates to the image of a nude woman --- he sets up that image as an authority over him. This would be a minor case of worshipping sex (or a form of "Aphrodite"), an extreme case would be embodied by somebody like De Sade. Even De Sade though, never gave a conscious sacrifice to the god of sex (or "fertility") in a pagan manner. Still, in a spiritual/theological sense, he worshipped a false idol, and we all do this to varying degrees. It's similar to what Stirner calls "spooks" actually. These things that he call "spooks" which people let have authority over them are, Christianly speaking, demons.

[Anonymous No.4302552]

>>4302525
>What I've been saying is that there is no such thing as a life without worship. Those who don't conscientiously worship something do all their worship "subconsciously".
I know one like that.

>you want to fuck your mother
>if you don't agree you want to fuck your mother subconsciously

pls refute

[Anonymous No.4302574]

>>4302552
>you want to fuck your mother
>if you don't agree you want to fuck your mother subconsciously

This isn't my argument. I'm not saying that there are things that we want that we don't acknowledge that we want, I'm saying that the things that we know that we want we are also worshipping --- even if it's not an explicit form of worship (like a prayer or sacrifice) and we don't acknowledge it as worship.

[Anonymous No.4302583]

>>4302525

What do you mean by worship? If we want to bring Stirner's "spooks" into this, spooks are what COMMAND us towards things, what we are "slaves" towards. And not in the sense that intuitive impulses like sexuality, hunger, tiredness etc. compel us towards certain actions. But in the way in which things outside of our concrete makeup make us do things.

[Anonymous No.4302599]

>>4302583
Yeah, that's what I'm talking about. Sexuality, hunger, etc., and all the appetites are not the demons / idols / objects of worship, they are only the appetites which are sated by our worship of those spooks or demons.

[Anonymous No.4302603]

>>4301366
Objective morality = stupid (yes this means Christians are stupid. Fedora trend is over, kids).

[Anonymous No.4302611]

>>4302599

So would you be saying we all have a complex system of symbols that is necessary to the kind of abstract way we function?

If so I could actually get behind that.

[Anonymous No.4302623]

>>4302611
>So would you be saying we all have a complex system of symbols that is necessary to the kind of abstract way we function?

Yes, but the particular symbols themselves are not necessary, they are contingent, and goodness/holiness/grace consists in having the right symbol in the right place, namely, God above everything.