/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.8543385]

>religous studies

Hey /lit/ is there such thing as baby gods from ancient times? Like gods who rule the universe, but their babies lol srsly got me thinking like baby gods ruling the universe makes sense to me I wonder if people worshiped this ever

[Anonymous No.8543390]

Who are you quoting?

[Anonymous No.8543566]

>>8543385
>I wonder if people worshiped this ever

The child has been worshiped by the feminine since before thought existed

[Anonymous No.8543572]

>>8543566
nice enlightenment propaganda

[Anonymous No.8543589]

>>8543572
>muh spooks

[Anonymous No.8543626]

>>8543566
I wonder why that would be, since babies are disgusting.

Given infant mortality rates throughout history, worshiping something like an infant would have had drawbacks. A baby was an iffy thing- if it grew into a healthy young adult then hurray. If it died from a minor illness three weeks after birth the parents would have no recourse but to try again. Why worship an infant, which represents a dangerous, transient state in life, when you could worship a sexy fertility god or goddess?

[Anonymous No.8543641]

the best baby god

[Anonymous No.8543657]

>>8543385
Read The World As Will and Representation.

[Anonymous No.8543660]

>>8543626
>I wonder why that would be

It's how we continue existing. If women as a whole did not practically worship children then we would not have been nearly successful as surviving.

[Anonymous No.8543687]

>>8543660
> If women as a whole did not practically worship children

Most women don't worship children though, maybe their own, sometimes, but the whole idea of women are innately intoxicated by the sight of a baby is, I think, a fairly modern mythology.

[Anonymous No.8543694]

>>8543641
+1

[Anonymous No.8543703]

>>8543641
>>8543694
Baby Jeeter can fuck right off and take his three wide men with him.

[Anonymous No.8543707]

>>8543703

[Anonymous No.8543713]

>>8543687
>>8543703

[Anonymous No.8543717]

>>8543687
>maybe their own

That's mainly what I meant. The child as a personal household god.

[Anonymous No.8543728]

>>8543657
I know it thoroughly but because I don't dig prose-philosophy I haven't technically blah blah.

Why do u bring it up? Does shoppy say mention it somewhere?

I hope ur not bringing it up because of the whole "will to reproduce" blah yea I know that's not what I'm talking about

I'm trying to think sociologically, archaeologically, metaphysically even but not really immanuel

[Anonymous No.8543732]

>>8543728
>>8543657


It doesn't make sense to mention Schopenhauer when he was a complete anti-natalist. For him procreation is a horror at worst and merely unfortunate propagation of suffering at best.

[Anonymous No.8543734]

>>8543732
stop
No shoppy here
For once

[Anonymous No.8543746]

I mean think about it people. Wouldn't it make more sense that God is a baby. Prayer isn't to submit but it's to coo, a lullubye so that his tantrum doesn't ignite the furious furies. God is a baby, and we gotta take care of it. This would solve the earths problems as well. Think about the political/sociological implications of baby worship; every child is now a God, a reflection of the almighty. In one decade the race would be endowed with super children, kids raised as Gods. At the end of a century we would have made more progress than any time in history.

I say... HAIL BABY

[Anonymous No.8543752]

>>8543734

The ride never ends

[Anonymous No.8543777]

>>8543566
>>8543717
where are you getting this from

[Anonymous No.8543787]

>>8543777
from his own ass

[Anonymous No.8543796]

>>8543777
>>8543787
>mumsie didn't dote on him

[Anonymous No.8543801]

>>8543796
is that your evidence for your ideas? contemporary society?

again, enlightenment propaganda. children were barely considered people before the 18th century

[Anonymous No.8543806]

>>8543801
>implying mother/child veneration isn't ancient

[Anonymous No.8543815]

>>8543806
is that why wet-nursing exists? and milk kinship?

[Anonymous No.8543821]

>>8543815
the point is that women /in general/ are baby crazy

>>8543566
>>8543566

[Anonymous No.8543827]

>>8543796
>>8543806
>>8543821
you're not even that guy

[Anonymous No.8543829]

>>8543827
amd?

[Anonymous No.8543847]

>>8543821
yeah due to literal enlightenment propaganda against the ancien regime, after there was an intellectual interest in the 'natural' and the development of children. there was no point getting attached to something that could die and the purpose of breeding was to secure heirs not worship the children. the idea that a mother's natural state was raising children for their moral health (and by extension the moral health of the 'nation') was something arrived at by philosophers in a specific context, not a natural predisposition shared by mothers across cultures

[Anonymous No.8543867]

>>8543847
>the idea that a mother's natural state was raising children for their moral health (and by extension the moral health of the 'nation') was something arrived at by philosophers in a specific context, not a natural predisposition shared by mothers across cultures

Then why does like every other single intelligent mammal on earth have the mother do literally everything for their young for an extended period? Months, years. The mother must protect the offspring as if it is a special gift even if it threatens the life of the mother in some cases. Have you ever even into David Attenborough?

[Anonymous No.8543896]

>>8543867
>Have you ever even into David Attenborough?

he is making television programs. note how he doesn't document mothers eating their young even though it happens in the wild. also humans aren't like other mammals unless you think other mammals are capable of worship. in any case you misuse the term worship.

you'll probably notice a complete lack of any art or luxury goods depicting any sort of child worship before the 18th century, forgetting of course the baby jesus since that is something else entirely. often jesus is depicted as a small adult anyway

[Anonymous No.8543915]

>>8543896
>note how he doesn't document mothers eating their young even though it happens in the wild
Must be the US edit you're getting.

[Anonymous No.8543919]

>>8543896
>often jesus is depicted as a small adult
...okay a baby is like a small adult but come on.

[Anonymous No.8543947]

>>8543915
in that case there's no point bringing up a piece of evidence that contradicts your own argument

>>8543919
well i'm glad you decided to argue the one point i said was irrelevant

[Anonymous No.8543961]

>>8543947
>the one point i said was irrelevant
Did you?

It was a stupid point to be fair.

[Anonymous No.8543966]

>>8543961
the way you interpreted it was stupid but it should have been clear what i meant by 'small adult', as in have adult proportions but appear smaller

[Anonymous No.8543978]

>>8543966
You'll be confusing "not having ickle baby proportions" with "having adult proportions" then.

[Anonymous No.8544012]

>>8543978
what?

[Anonymous No.8544038]

>>8544012
Oh wow.

A lot of early Christ child representations have proportions of a child rather than as either a baby or an adult. If that's still opaque then I think quit talking to people bruh, it's not your forte.

[Anonymous No.8544054]

>>8544038
this is the most pathetic attempt at dragging an argument out. christ child doesn't matter like i've already said

[Anonymous No.8544064]

>>8544054
If examples don't matter then how come our eyes are real huh?

[Anonymous No.8544070]

>>8544064
the christ child is worshipped by everyone, not exclusively the feminine, and depictions of christ aren't limited to the madonna and child. it's not an example.

neither are sculptures of breast-feeding, unless you'd like to actually explain your reasoning for once how that constitutes 'worship' in any way

[Anonymous No.8544077]

>>8544070
>the christ child is worshipped by everyone, not exclusively the feminine, and depictions of christ aren't limited to the madonna and child.
Neither of those things make it not an example.

>neither are sculptures of breast-feeding, unless you'd like to actually explain your reasoning for once how that constitutes 'worship' in any way
You want objects of worship that depict worship? Are you meant to be on some medication bruh? Your reasoning is all over the place and you're not making sense.

To add on about later christian iconography, of course chubby baby cherubs are taken from religious icons of antiquity.

[Anonymous No.8544081]

>>8543896
>unless you think other mammals are capable of worship.
I reckon Elephants and some primates are capable of worship. They have some pretty religious behaviour.

[Anonymous No.8544082]

>>8544077
again, maybe you'd like to actually explain your reasoning, or your examples, or maybe even contend some of my own claims with something more substantial than 'no', or just do anything at all?

>You want objects of worship that depict worship?

what are you talking about

[Anonymous No.8544093]

>>8544082
I think explain yours first bro. You p much just went "child worship never happened before the 18th C and Jesus doesn't count".

[Anonymous No.8544094]

>>8544093
is this you?

>The child has been worshiped by the feminine since before thought existed

[Anonymous No.8544099]

[Anonymous No.8544520]

>>8544094
That's bullshit (and not me), but it's not enlightenment propaganda. Enlightenment is all about how people are like all basically the same, even in terms of men v women, and that how one is treated is won out by how one lives their life (becoming a person is a process and generally we're like blank slates). Even the heirs thing is bullshit, although I would say that Malthus criticizes the movement in large for not looking at baby making enough. Enlightenment tended to be like "hey we all got killed by the plague so no worries on overpopulation and we even found this fucking place called America, crazy right? And that's like a bunch of land so we on eezee street"