How is Christianity more life-affirming than what this guy had to say?
>original sin
>guilt
>commandments, "thou shalt not"
>it's okay if you suffer lol bcuz heaven
I can't think of any of the core tenets of Christianity that aren't just pleasant lies.
How is a commandment against murder somehow not life-affirming again?
>I can't think of any of the core tenets of Christianity that aren't just pleasant lies
Forgiveness is a virtue.
Christianity was the first large philosophical movement in the West that made a virtue out of suffering.
Suffering is not simple "OK" because it will be offset by pleasure at some point. Pain and suffering are GIFTS that we must learn to accept, and a source of evil is that we reject them.
>>1242138
>Not being able to take revenge is a virtue
lol
>>1242142
Christianity's views on suffering are not life-affirming, they're self-flagellting which is the exact opposite
>>1242118
it's wrong to think Christianity is either correct or incorrect.
parts are useful and other parts are not very useful, like all other religions.
>>1242142
>Christianity was the first large philosophical movement in the West that made a virtue out of suffering.
nietzsche doesn't make a virtue out of suffering either, nietzsche never says "one should suffer for it's own sake", whereas christianity pretty much does say that. nietzsche just thinks suffering isn't an intrinsic bad, you should accept suffering in order to be great.
>>1242118
If everyone was a ubermensch then there would be anarchy because no one would value morals or laws except their own.
>>1242163
But anarchy is the way of the future, just as Ubermensch are the future of mankind.
Unless capitalism drives us to extinction, in which case I suppose the last man was the future of mankind.
>>1242163
>Being this spooked
>>1242163
You sure that evolutionary predispositions are always going to end up drastically opposed?
>>1242163
the ubermensch doesn't have to be a law-violating sociopath.
![Collectivised-CNT-tram[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/49nTzIY.jpg "Collectivised-CNT-tram[1].jpg")
>>1242163
>If everyone was a ubermensch then there would be anarchy
there would be better public transport?
>>1242118
Christianity is insane. The fact that the new testament has been the primary religious text underlying western moral thought for centuries is perplexing, because Christianity seems designed to destroy great civilizations.
If any government started to take Christian values seriously, they'd behave like modern day Sweden or Germany. Basically cucking themselves to death all while exalting themselves for their virtue in the process.
>>1242243
but being self sacrificing has its just rewards :-)
>>1242243
>if society took Christian values seriously, they'd be like majority atheist countries
are you fucking retarded?
>>1242325
Sweden is majority Christian.
>>1242328
>According to the Eurobarometer Poll 2010,[6]
>18% of Swedish citizens responded that "they believe there is a god".
Stop being dishonest. Church membership in a state-run church =/= religiousness.
>>1242333
1. The Lutheran Church of Sweden is not a state run church anymore
2. Yes, they are in fact Christian
http://gutenberg.us/articles/Religion_in_Sweden#Religion_in_Sweden_today
>>1242342
>Only 1 in 10 Swedes thinks religion is important in daily life.
>About 5 out of 10 (45.5%) children are christened in the Church of Sweden.
>Just over 3 out of 10 (33.3%) weddings take place in church.
>The percentage of Swedes belonging to the Church of Sweden is decreasing yearly by more than one percent.
>The Church of Sweden services are sparsely attended (hovering in the single digit percentages of the population).[15]
>In 2000, 82.9%[9] of Swedes belonged to the Church of Sweden. By the end of 2015, this figure had fallen to 63.2%.[1]
This is a dead-end argument. I'm not even sure why you are bothering. Scandinavia is admired throughout the world by liberal atheists for this reason.
>>1242357
>liberal
Key point
Liberals love scandinavia, there's atheists out there who would heap more praise onto the very atheist societs of East Germany and Czechoslovakia.
Because fundamentally, they still believe themselves to be Christian. Even if they're fluffy liberals that identify god as some kind of life-force over a tangible being.
>>1242362
And what exactly would you praise those places for?
>>1242153
nietzsche isn't for forgiveness or revenge, rather forgetfulness
>>1242386
Being safe, comfy and not eating from the garbage can of ideology.
>>1242357
Sweden is full of pious atheists, as stirner identified them
>>1242118
Christianity is equally life-affirming because Christianity defines life in a way that is completely opposite to how Nietzsche defines it. This makes neither of them right or wrong, but simply philosophical opposites.
>>1242118
Nietzsche was a beta male cuck and so are you.
>>1242325
You can identify as an atheist and still place a high emphasis on collective guilt merely because you are alive, and treat suffering as a virtue, and martyrdom as the ultimate act of righteousness.
A lot of modern 'atheist' countries have managed to adopt all of the most grotesque moral aspects of Christianity but just dropped the God who advocated for them. In a way, that might be even worse than not believing in Jesus, because now these people genuinely believe their masochism is rational and not a matter of faith.
>>1242362
>Czechoslovakia
no such place exists
but czechs are endemicaly atheist, and the fun part is it isnt a result of liberalism, or even former 'state atheism', since in most former soviet republics religion rose rapidly in the 90is, in their case its just a question of local culture and popular opinion, it just makes sense to people, no one even sees it as a thing
at the same time they are sort of proud catholics, or at least proud of catholic heritage
this happens a lot in east europe generaly, people identifying with a religious culture or denomination while realy maintaining no belief in god or afterlife or such, or even goin to church except for weddings and the like, its just a question of group identity
so you have to take that into account when looking at self report statistics, 80% of any given nation will declare themselves catholic/orthodox, but realy its like asking what football club they root for (which is often equaly if not more important to many)
>>1243347
>no such place exists
I know.
I was referring to the old communist regimes of Czechoslovakia and East Germany.
As both the Czech republic and what was once East Germany are majority explicit atheists.
>>1243362
yes, but strangely slovakia isnt realy all that atheist for some reason
czechs and slovaks never realy got along much either
>>1242142
stoicism had elements of this too
>>1242146
operatively self flagelation is life affirming, kind of
its a source of perverted joy and masochistic self agrandisement, but also a spiritual practice, and generaly invigorating and engendering self discipline
if were gonna talk about willpower, giving oneself 40 lashes with a knotted cord each morning is a great way to train the will and develop all kinds of mental tollerance and character
>>1242118
>“However, it often happens that God shows more clearly his manner of working in the distribution of good and bad fortune. For if punishment were obviously inflicted on every wrongdoing in this life, it would be supposed that nothing was reserved for the last judgement; on the other hand, if God's power never openly punished any sin in this world, there would be an end to belief in providence. Similarly in respect of good fortune: if God did not grant it to some petitioners with manifest generosity, we should not suppose that these temporal blessings were his concern, while if he bestowed prosperity on all just for the asking we might think that God was to be served merely for the sake of those rewards, and any service of him would prove us not godly but rather greedy and covetous.”
>>1243500
Embracing suffering so that you may endure for the sake of emerging better is a good thing.
Embracing suffering by making a virtue out of suffering itself is the exact opposite of life-affirming, it is simply exalting the suffering of life whilst forsaking the pleasure of it. It is nothing short of suffering for suffering's sake.
>>1242118
>“This being so, when the good and the wicked suffer alike, the identity of their sufferings does not mean that there is no difference between them. Though the sufferings are the same, the sufferers remain different. Virtue and vice are not the same, even if they undergo the same torment. The fire which makes gold shine makes chaff smoke; the same flail breaks up the straw and clears the grain; and oil is not mistaken for lees because both are forced out by the same press. In the same way, the violence which assails good men to test them, to cleanse and purify them, effects in the wicked their condemnation, ruin and annihilation. Thus the wicked, under pressure of affliction, execrate God and blaspheme; the good, in the same affliction, offer up prayers and praises. This shows that what matters is the nature of the sufferer, not the nature of the sufferings. Stir a cesspit, and a foul stench arises; stir a perfume, and a delightful fragrance ascends. But the movement is identical.”
>>1242118
>“But”, they will say, ‘many Christians also have been killed, and many carried off by hideous diseases of all kinds. If one must grieve at this, it is certainly the common lot of all who have been brought into this life. I am certain of this, that no-one has died who was not going to die at some time, and the end of life reduces the longest life to the same condition as the shortest. When something has ceased to exist, there is no more question of better or worse, longer or shorter. What does it matter by what kind of death life is brought to an end? When man’s life is ended he does not have to die again. Among the daily chances of this life every man on earth is threatened in the same way by innumerable deaths, and it is uncertain which of them will come to him. And so the question is whether it is better to suffer one in dying or to fear them all in living.”
>>1243295
Pretty sure Heracles was the epitome of the ubermensch, and he was consumed and driven by guilt and that is what forged him into a hero.
Original sin as something inherited isn't Orthodox.
Literally every culture in every time has had rules about what you can't do. You think any of the empires Nietzsche waxes about would have been possible without rules? People like Napoleon could accomplish more because they applied MORE rules to themselves.
Vote
http://www.strawpoll.me/10407759/
>>1244754
How many times do I have to tell you to fuck off and stop trying to talk about Nietzsche? Nothing you have said is a point to anything anyone else has said, take your irrelevant and erroneous rantings the fuck away from here.
>>1244754
Also nobody cares about your meme Christian beliefs. Nobody cares that you wake up and tip your fedora about your superior hipster Christianity. We're talking about what's salient to our lives, and don't give a fuck about yours.
Pretty sure Heracles was the epitome of the ubermensch, and he was consumed and driven by guilt and that is what forged him into a hero.
Original sin as something inherited isn't Orthodox.
Literally every culture in every time has had rules about what you can't do. You think any of the empires Nietzsche waxes about would have been possible without rules? People like Napoleon could accomplish more because they applied MORE rules to themselves.
>>1243500
"character"
>>1242142
Read Nietzsche like a good reader of the Epicureans.
>>1244836
literally wrong on every point
>>1244836
You've told us Orthodox basically belive that humans became fallen after eating an apple and it applies to every human accept the goddess and her son.
This is basically original sin with a different name.
>>1245127
It applies to all of creation, every rock, every animal. It's a contamination. However, that has nothing to do with guilt, and it doesn't *force* you to sin, it just makes your capacity to resist temptation greatly impaired. The Theotokos was sinless, but she still suffered from the contamination of the original sin (we don't subscribe the Catholic doctrine of the immaculate conception).
>>1245147
>It applies to all of creation, every rock, every animal. It's a contamination.
How utterly life-denying The perspective is that everythin on the planet is diseased and sickly. To think just a few thousand years ago religion had the inverse position, that everything is sacred: animism.
Overall the concept of sin has to rank as the worst idea in the history of religion.
>>1245147
So god literally fugged her?
>>1245147
It still says you're fundamentally flawed in some way. That's anti-human.
>>1245205
Everything is dying because everything lives.
Life is no disease.
>>1245241
No, being flawed is, not pointing it out
>>1245147
Scripture makes it clear that she wasn't a "random jewish girl".
>Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.
Luke 1:28
She was preserved from the stain of original sin because:
>...the Holy which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
Luke 1:35
She is literally the New Eve and was the perfect vessel for the Incarnate Word. Why can't you accept the truth of this doctrine?
>>1245282
If she were free from original sin, they she wouldn't die, would she?
>>1242118
I'm all for generalizations for the sake of time...but only if you can remain accurate, other wise it just looks like a lazy effort bro.
But God's word, if we're going to generalize, shows the peace and coherency that comes from not rocking the boat. And how it's impossible to please the flesh and not rock the boat. Thus, the importance of forgiveness and why both God and Jesus command that we forgive. The whole boat is the focal point here though.
Now all self gratification has the potential to lead to morbid selfishness. Only a complete arrogant and ignorant person would actually think if the virus of self gratification was set loose...it would or could, effect every one the same.
That means, just because one person who lives a life of pleasing themselves can with hold from reaching even further into self gratification, like to the point of enslaving the world so you can not only have yourself pleasing yourself, but now you can force others to pursue your pleasures...that doesn't mean, that if that virus is set loose, that another man if not a group of men, will also be able to refuse to lose all self control and refuse to contribute to the death and destruction that stems from being power hungry which leads to the exploitation of the weak and poor.
God's word, essentially is willing to cut the limb off...if it's threatening the whole. But he'll offer remedy by way of forgiveness before it gets that far 100% of the time. That's why people are willing to suffer, willing to combat their flesh in an attempt to remain disciplined. No ones perfect though, that goes without saying. But that's generally why believers are willing to fight and experience the suffering of that conflict.
But yeah, I mean from a broader context, God takes the route that any medicine would against a destroying virus.
>being an apologetic toward the virus
>implying that would help
^I just don't understand that logic.
>>1242118
These are eerily similar to the tenants of modern leftism...
>>1245286
Why would God allow this to happen to the New Eve who was prophetically alluded to in Genesis 3:15? Furthermore, she is clearly the Woman of the Apocalypse from Revelation 12 which Saint John wrote and in which he too describes her using the word "woman", in John 2:4 also.
Read Pius XII's Munificentissimus Deus:
http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-xii_apc_19501101_munificentissimus-deus.html
Besides, keep in mind that although early Christians quickly seeked out and preserved various relics of martyrs and saints, there are none of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
>>1245367
>Protestant
Huh? Do you call yourself Catholic? This is embarrassing.
>>1245454
There are none of Mary because she was assumed into heaven, but that was after her dormition, not before.
>>1245495
You accept her Assumption yet reject her Immaculate Conception...this is illogical because they go hand in hand.
>The "splendor of an entirely unique holiness" by which Mary is "enriched from the first instant of her conception" comes wholly from Christ: she is "redeemed, in a more exalted fashion, by reason of the merits of her Son". The Father blessed Mary more than any other created person "in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places" and chose her "in Christ before the foundation of the world, to be holy and blameless before him in love".
CCC 492
You should read Pius IX's Ineffabilis Deus:
http://www.ewtn.com/LIBRARY/PAPALDOC/P9INEFF.htm
>>1245286
>she wouldn't die, would she?
She did not.
>>1245563
Orthodox theology is garbage
>>1242118
How to pester humans when you are an abomination against the true god.
1. Put your name in the bible in the place of god.
2. Write whatever the fuck you like in the bible as if you weren't a full retard, which is what defines abominations who rise against god.
3. Give the title of god in capitals (God) as if this were a way to refer to him, then add more titles that aren't of god and make more claims, these along with your abominable name.
4. Devise human-hating commandments (remember that man is made in the image and semblance of god, so your nature is similar, anti human commandments are abominations).
5. Do not forget to mention mankind an god have enemies.
6. But do make sure to place the name of god in what would be the word used to determine your foe.
Example:
Title of god: god.
Name of god: Satan.
Prove me wrong by showing me a church of Satan, preaching Satan and starting wars and other bullshit left and right.
>two christfag tripniggers
>>1245649
And no, I don't mean fake churches of Satan, I mean an actual church of Satan that preachs Satan is god and was never an angel or some shit like that, but the one true original god. And that he is good and benevolent and loving and all that. Obviously laveyan and other fake churches don't do this. In fact they go ahead and reject Satan, claiming he doesn't exist.
>>1245653
*tips*
>>1242118
>1242118
Its not about the commands. Its about the pragmatic results.
A high civilization with order and healthy north rates.
Organized religion is about group success and morality leading to legitimate births. The commandments only apply to your own people. Theyre rules for living together collecitvely .
Guilt is a good way to control people without force. As long as the rules apply to everyone equally i see no issue.
>>1245653
Aelian's shitposting level is lightyears beyond Constantine's.
I have never seen Aelian post something that wasn't a pure unadultered shitpost, whereas while Constantine is a retard it's no more retarded than how I imagine the majority of /his/ would look like if we all used trips.
>>1245911
Aelian is best tripfag
Sorry he gets your fedora in a bundle
>>1244836
Guilt =/= Bad Conscience
Yet again, you fail to understand even the most basic of Nietzsche's ideas. Stop posting any day now.
>>1244836
"Nietzsche ends the Treatise with a positive suggestion for a counter-movement to the "conscience-vivisection and cruelty to the animal-self" imposed by the bad conscience: this is to "wed to bad conscience the unnatural inclinations", i.e. to use the self-destructive tendency encapsulated in bad conscience to attack the symptoms of sickness themselves."
"He further has a number of strategies which are guilty in the sense that they have the effect of making the sick sicker (although the priest applies them with a good conscience); they work by inducing an "orgy of feeling" (Gefühls-Ausschweifung). He does this by "altering the direction of ressentiment," i.e. telling the weak to look for the causes of their unhappiness in themselves (in "sin"), not in others."
Society doesn't need guilt to run, it needs bad conscience. Again you've demonstrated yourself to be a shitty, poor reader of Nietzsche who grabbed shallow, surface level readings and ran with them to their shitty, poor conclusions.
>>1245895
Constantine isn't bad in being too annoying in their posts, they just constantly post wrong fucking things and aren't willing to discuss it.
>>1246044
Nietzsche distinguishes guilt in German etymology, from the contemporary use of "bad conscience". "Guilt" means deserving punishment, and bad conscience being the feeling of remorse. Heracles suffered from both blood guilt (which he must be cleansed from) and a bad conscience. These terms are also distinct in Greek, guilt being what Nietzsche said, and to feel remorseful is a phrase which means literally "to change concern" (both terms are in the new testament, the former is generally translated as guilt, the other as to repent), which can apply to broadly but generally means to feel anguish over actions committed with a different mind; concern here is synonymous with "bother", as in to be concerned or bothered.
>If one good deed in all my life I did,
>I do repent it from my very soul.
-Aaron, "Titus Andronicus"
>>1246196
You never say anything that isn't pedantry.
>>1246213
You pointed out that Nietzsche made a distinction between guilt and bad conscience, I pointed out that they both apply to Heracles regardless.
>>1246224
Your example has no bearing on the discussion, you're just throwing out shit that nobody wants to read.
>>1246228
I don't see how whether or not you want to read it is relevant to its truth or bearing.
Nietzsche didn't see morality as binary, dogmatic and static. What he advocated was a rejection of social values and a creation of an individual set of ideals and values.
>>1246242
Man-made values are never created ex nihilo, they're always cobbled together from prior values.
>>1246276
What you are is what you are. If you happen to be a co-operative type then you might be willing to compromise with your fellow humans
>>1246389
You won't last long if you don't unless you're a newborn or something.
>>1246242
I think what we must ask here is, why should social values be rejected just because their social? This sort of thinking that something (in this case, morality) isn't good if it's "mainstream", and is only good if it's "avant garde" was applied to art, and it hasn't really had good results. Art is no longer valued as art, but by how "avant garde" it is, and Nietzsche applies this attitude toward morality without much justification. Social values are social values because they were perfected by countless people over a long, long period and on wisdom much greater than readily apparent.
>>1246413
*they're social
>>1246394
As Hobbes said, the realisation that life in this anarchic world would be 'nasty, brutish and short' will compel people to form civil societies, with laws that govern behaviour and enforced by the state by popular consent. The rules prohibiting murder, theft and a million other things are there not because they're intrinsically good, as ethical rules embedded in the universe by some deity, but because they are USEFUL and NECESSARY, without which civilisations cannot function.
They are the results of empirical observation and evolution, not dead gods
>>1246423
Hobbes was a liberal, but certainly not a republican.
>>1242138
can't be forgiven for things that aren't wrong
>>1246489
Saying wrong and right are just opinions is a step toward everything being just an opinion (which Nietzsche believed). Now that applies to things like gender because of this terrible road.
>>1246237
It's relevant to whether you post in the thread you fuck.
It's impossible to have a Nietzsche thread without you derailing it. Fuck you.
>>1246915
How on earth is this derailing it? The OP overtly demands a defense of Christianity contra Nietzsche on certain points, and we're talking about one of those points.
>>1246928
>an ancient myth has guilt
>therefore christian guilt is justified
You do realize this line of reasoning is unconvincing, right? Nobody replies to it seriously because it's hardly an argument, it's just a super pedantic point with no substance.
You're like Socrates but worse, you think finding one potentially contradictory detail lets you "win" the argument or something. Either put in effort and lay out a series of arguments or shut the fuck up. Don't just make one pedantic point and defend it.
You're the worst poster on this board, I swear to fuck I don't know why I bother replying.
>>1245895
>I have never seen Aelian post something that wasn't a pure unadultered shitpost
Because you have no eyes to see. Constantine always runs away when defeated.
Christianity as a whole is very much anti-life in nature
Only the norse faith is truly life-affirming for europeans
>>1249321
> norse faith
You mean glorious Slavic Paganism?
>>1246980
>You're like Socrates but worse, you think finding one potentially contradictory detail lets you "win" the argument or something. Either put in effort and lay out a series of arguments or shut the fuck up. Don't just make one pedantic point and defend it.
Hey now! That's uncalled for. Socrates at least knew that he knew nothing of consequence.
>>1249331
Aren't they strongly interrelated?
Also, I'd contend most forms of European paganism are life-affirming by the fact they focus on exalting things that are actually of this world, rather than trying to create some otherworldly thing that's above and beyond all things.
>>1249331
What are some defining features of Slavic paganism?
>>1243347
>at the same time they are sort of proud catholics, or at least proud of catholic heritage
Da fuck.
The Czech are traditionally hussites.
It's a pretty big event in their history.
>>1249321
Yes, i just love the life-affirming human sacrifices and going off to get killed in battle.
That stuff is really good for europeans, especially the half of the continent the snowniggers went to raid, regardless of faith.
>>1249460
> going off to get killed in battle
Only if you are part of dedicated warrior past of society. Compare it to Christian rulers in WWI and WWII where everyone was send to die for basically nothing/
>>1249460
The only one of those that's even remotely unique to Nordic paganism is the human sacrifice part (and not exactly unique, either, other groups did it, I just mean that Christians weren't), which is pretty fucking indefensible. But Christians did plenty of warring and raiding; the Norse weren't particularly exceptional in this regard.
>>1249466
>Only if you are part of dedicated warrior past of society.
I know of no such distinction. I do know a lot of people got themselves stabbed, to not wind up in Hel.
>>1249471
>But Christians did plenty of warring and raiding;
True, but that was considered grounds for penance(a lesser form of the one for murder), even if you did it justly, for defensive reasons.
Besides, even when it happened, there were treaties to minimise the damage inflicted upon civilians(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_and_Truce_of_God#Peace_of_God).
Compare that, to, say, even the civilised greeks, who considered being a pillaging, enslaving warrior a noble thing, and something one should aspire to(if the Anabasis is anything to go by)
>>1249370
Pretty much the same as of any northern Indo-European paganism
>>1242118
I tend to only see Nietzsche's complaints as applicable to Calvinist/Lutheran thought.
Christian teaching traditionally dealt with the path to human fulfillment. A very essentialist view. Instead of need or want, the motive for love is rooted in a deeply felt confidence that through loving I become more personalized and most real to myself. The motive being the urge to express the fullness of being. Poverty and sickness are not values to be celebrated in order to spite those who are rich and healthy, but they simply provide the opportunity for a person to express his love or give one and in some cases (such a vow of poverty) can better reform us towards the good. Nietzsche's claims of resentment are simply imagined.
Guilt manifests naturally from our desire towards the good. It is seen as sign of us being directed towards the good. In that sense guilt is not "good" but it is a dislocation that is useful. And even original sin is not some trait that actively taints you in traditional understandings but a privation of a previous gift.
The universe is not a proving ground or some consolidation but rather a gift that we struggle to fully accept and through our work and through our love we will come to accept it.
Take the ascetics for example. The ascetics will mention contempt for the world and a renunciation of the world it is not a hatred of the world but a hatred for the world as it is. By wrestling with the flesh, the ascetic seek to both restore the man to his rational self before the fall, no longer guided by irrational desires. By wrestling with the world the ascetic rejects not the world in itself but its sinful disorder and wishes to restore it to its own integrity rather than the modern optimism, where the world is praised for the world's sake.
The Christianity Nietzsche knew is worlds away from the Apostolic Christianity of people like St. Francis.
This is really only generally pointed at the questions OP asked, but that's ok, because it doesn't look like his questions were really intended to bring about careful thought.
Other vague modern people take refuge in material metaphors; in fact, this is the chief mark of vague modern people. Not daring to define their doctrine of what is good, they use physical figures of speech without stint or shame, and , what is worst of all, seem to think these cheap analogies are exquisitely spiritual and superior to the old morality. Thus they think it intellectual to talk about things being 'high.' It is at least the reverse of intellectual; it is a mere phrase from a steeple or a weathercock. 'Tommy was a good boy' is a pure philosophical statement, worthy of Plato or Aquinas. 'Tommy lived the higher life' is a gross metaphor from a ten-foot rule.
This, incidentally, is almost the whole weakness of Nietzsche, whom some are representing as a bold and strong thinker. No one will deny that he was a poetical and suggestive thinker; but he was quite the reverse of strong. He was not at all bold. He never put his own meaning before himself in bald abstract words: as did Aristotle and Calvin, and even Karl Marx, the hard, fearless men of thought. Nietzsche always escaped a question by a physical metaphor, like a cheery minor port. He said, 'beyond good and evil,' because he had not the courage to say, 'more good than good and evil,' or, 'more evil than good and evil.' Had he faced his thought without metaphors, he would have seen that it was nonsense. So, when he describes his hero, he does not dare to say, 'the purer man,' or 'the happier man,' or 'the sadder man,' for all these are ideas; and ideas are alarming. He says 'the upper man.' or 'over man,' a physical metaphor from acrobats or alpine climbers. Nietzsche is truly a very timid thinker. He does not really know in the least what sort of man he wants evolution to produce -- G.K. Chesterton, "Orthodoxy", Chapter 7
>>1249526
You do realize it was raids from predominantly Christian barbarians that did in the western Roman empire (in a militaristic sense, anyway), right? They may have not considered it OK with their ideology, but they still did it.
The fact is that behaviours like raiding or excessive warfare are driven almost exclusively by material factors rather than ideological ones.
Also, that whole "die in battle to get into Valhalla" thing is only part of the picture. There were a bunch of different afterlife concepts in Nordic paganism, like the mountain of the dead.
>>1249541
>Nietzsche's claims of resentment are simply imagined.
Bullshit. Christianity spread predominantly through the lower classes, slaves, and women in the Roman empire.
>>1249556
And also the emperor and higher ranks. But don't be so stupid as to judge claims of Christian thought by what laypeople do.
>>1249547
Chiming in for a moment.
I actually don't know anything about the Mountain of the Dead. Could you explain please?
>>1249541
>I tend to only see Nietzsche's complaints as applicable to Calvinist/Lutheran thought
Really? What about everything he said against the notion of "the beyond" ? His philosophy is grounded against this notion, which lays at the roots of both Plato's theory of forms and Christianity's understanding of the soul and afterlife and takes up the eternal recurrence in favor of it.
>>1249639
Well I meant his complaints directed to Christianity, as the OP's topic is on Nietzsche's Christianity-related thoughts.
His understanding of the afterlife I see driven heavily by Calvinist/Lutheran thought and his views on the soul (though he finds somewhat of a parallel with Platonic thought) only arise from the modernist view of the soul that was accepted wholesale by most Protestants.
Given Nietzsche's location and his upbringing, having Lutheran/Calvinist influence should be nothing unique to him.
Guilt is a by product of empathy, when you understand that what you did was truly incorrect, that the ramifications could cause more damage than anything else...and you recognize that YOU are behind the reason that this happened, the guilt has the ability to make sure you to never do something like that again.
It's a powerful emotion because it can create expansion of awareness, specifically awareness about others than yourself.
If we're going to look at this from a broader context, it's used as an emotional mechanism to correct and create buoyancy. It's a return to the mean in some sense.
Now when you're talking about God's word and His will, when you finally get the grasp of it, you in fact may feel guilt....but NO where in scripture does God or Jesus command people to STAY in guilt. It's just a by product of being in the darkness, outside of truth.
You step into truth, you see who you really were, your actions are brought into light when before they weren't even considered by your self. It's AS IF...your actions were in darkness, unable to be taken note of. But when God's truth and will and word break through, it all comes to light.
The Guilt though that follows...it's forgiven if true repentance is on the heart.
I mean this isn't that hard to understand, I don't get how people can just talk out of the side of their mouths about things they don't even study.
>>1249741
The Orthodox trip fag tells me Nietzche's understanding is of Catholic and Protestant Christianity and that they are life-denying but Orthodoxy is not. In fact just about every apologist I have seen insists Nietzche is not talking about their particular denomination of the religion, I've seen plenty of Protestants that have said their particular theology is not what Nietzche is talking about, he is talking about other Protestants and Catholism. If you pay attention even badly to his critisism you will see no denomination escapes it. The very concept of sin is about denying nature and the whole moral code is just about how it's good to be weak.
>>1249639
This. I've realized that the only decent religions to come out the West are the the pre-Platonic ones.
The New Testament is just Platoism for the masses.
>>1250105
That many people make claims does nothing to speak of the truth of the matter. If all people seem to argue that Nietzsche is not speaking accurately of their theology when trying to speak of Christianity as a whole perhaps there is reason for that and perhaps not. It's only right to view the evidence and have discourse.
Now I'm not an expert in Nietzsche so I can't speak on him in full but all I've seen and read seems very driven on misinterpretation of some elements and view other elements that are restricted to certain groups of Christianity as telling of Christianity collectively.
I speak of the view of nature and morality >>1249541
And even if you were to still reject it still, it would only be disingenuous to refer to it as life-denying.
>>1250114
>Platonism for the masses
How is that true at all? No doubt Platonic thought influenced the Early Church Fathers (themselves largely being converts from it) but they revolted against major elements of Platonism.
>>1249321
>that disguised star of david
>>1249586
It was one of many Nordic afterlife concepts. Basically it was a mountain in which the souls of the dead lived, and it was considered bad luck to look upon this mountain.
>>1250213
>And even if you were to still reject it still, it would only be disingenuous to refer to it as life-denying.
But it is life-denying. It's about denying fundamental aspects of the human psyche in exchange of some promise of a "higher" existence.
>>1251004
That's literally not the case - at least not the one by any historic or generally apostolic interpretation of the faith. A standard Apostolic Christian view (I would say just "Christian" view but there are a lot of odd modern groups out there) would be that all things are good and that sin is seen as acts of the will that mean to work against or reject purposes. The effects of sin would be inherently a privation then.
And more importantly, how the fuck did you get that claim from what I said in >>1249541
>>1251084
>Take the ascetics for example. The ascetics will mention contempt for the world and a renunciation of the world it is not a hatred of the world but a hatred for the world as it is. By wrestling with the flesh, the ascetic seek to both restore the man to his rational self before the fall, no longer guided by irrational desires. By wrestling with the world the ascetic rejects not the world in itself but its sinful disorder and wishes to restore it to its own integrity rather than the modern optimism, where the world is praised for the world's sake.
Right fucking here. Where the ascetic's goal is to escape a fundamental component of their nature to establish this supposedly "pure" existence.
>>1251089
The ascetic's goal is self-overcoming.
>>1249542
Whoever wrote that is an asshurt idiot. Nietzsche states pretty clearly his ideas.
>>1251091
Except, not really. Self-denial is not self-overcoming. If you outright deny yourself something, you're still letting it rule you. By denying themselves a worldly existence, they refuse to actually face and master a worldly existence.
>>1251084
Not the guy you're talking to, but Christianity's "soul" and "afterlife" and Plato's theory of forms both share a commonality to Nietzsche. The ABSOLUTE, the BEYOND — being intentionally distinguished from the "material," from the "physical," as if there is anything more than that — Nietzsche rejects that wholeheartedly and considers all philosophies and systems which strive to teach men to live in accordance with this "otherworld" as life-denying. What is life-affirming is a philosophy which sides with war, the flux, impermanence, destruction and creation, fire, the cycles — not the absolute. THAT life is already perfect to Nietzsche, while the theory of forms and the so-called "perfect absolute reality" of Plato / Christians to him is an abomination of thought, sickness of the mind that wishes to escape the eternal recurrence of creation, destruction, and rebirth.
>>1251089
>Right fucking here. Where the ascetic's goal is to escape a fundamental component of their nature to establish this supposedly "pure" existence.
Except our irrationality of our desires aren't a fundamental component and there isn't an escape from it. Please re-read what I wrote. This is a taming - a mastery - of ourselves. Nothing of that entails an escape.
>>1251099
Right, self-overcoming is when Nietzsche says to abstain from alcohol and masturbation. Self-denial is when Christianity does it.
>>1251100
But here's the kicker, and the one thing that I've never seen a Nietzsche fan satisfactorily respond to: if I am a Christian, I believe the Absolute and the Beyond are REAL. They are not academic for me. They are not abstractions or interesting ideas. The afterlife is absolutely real. Heaven and Hell are absolutely, totally real. Death is only the beginning, just one leg of a journey my soul, my life, must take.
How on earth does Nietzsche respond to that? All of Nietzsche's thought is predicated on the untruth of Christianity. If Christianity is real, if eternal life is real, he has nothing of value to say.
>>1251110
>By wrestling with the flesh, the ascetic seek to both restore the man to his rational self before the fall, no longer guided by irrational desires.
Right here, seeking to escape a fundamental component of the human psyche, and yes, irrational desires are fundamental, read some fucking psychology.
>By wrestling with the world the ascetic rejects not the world in itself but its sinful disorder and wishes to restore it to its own integrity rather than the modern optimism, where the world is praised for the world's sake.
This so called "sinful disorder" is the world, and by trying to escape it, they're attempting to escape the world.
>>1251111
I don't recall Nietzsche saying much about masturbation, but his reasons for avoiding alcohol also play into that idea of denying life. Personally, I disagree with them and think that was just a matter of his own hangups infecting his work.
>>1251115
Not that guy, but you have no actual defence of those concepts. You've taken an irrational leap of faith into them without sound reason.
>>1251110
Irrationality of our desires is a fundamental component. To choose what to do you need some sort of justification. Rational justifications would be based on something. But you can't infinitely build such logical basis. Sooner or later some goals or principles would be choose arbitrary. This is from out fundamental irrationality comes from. Mastery and even taming wouldn't help you here. Any kind of a master allow something to control your life so this something would be irrational force in the end.
>>1251117
>I don't recall Nietzsche saying much about masturbation,
>The reabsorption of semen by the blood ... perhaps prompts the stimulus of power, the unrest of all forces towards the overcoming of resistances ... The feeling of power has so far mounted highest in abstinent priests and hermits
>>1251119
For Christians, faith is a virtue. And you didn't answer the question.
>>1251126
Ah, well I'm not an expert on the man by any stretch. Regardless, he had hangups like anyone else.
>>1251115
What do you mean by satisfactorily? Satisfactorily for you? I'm not sure I can accomplish that. But I've answered that question satisfactorily for myself in the past on /lit/.
>How on earth does Nietzsche respond to that?
He doesn't, because Christ isn't wrong. He doesn't ever directly address Christ. Instead, he offers us a possible psychological assessment of the Christ character, to break him down and provide incentive to disengage from him. This is not a matter of who is right or wrong. Both are right, and wrong to each other. They are philosophical opposites, Apollonian and Dionysian forces fighting each other for eternity.
>>1251130
That is the response. You an assert it's the truth until you're blue in the face, but you have not one shred of proof and thus no sound reason to believe it's the truth.
>>1251134
If Christ isn't wrong then Christ is God. Christ is the Alpha and the Omega, someone whom even Nietzsche will see upon his death. If Christ isn't wrong then the whole universe moves according to his design.
I think we may be talking past each other. I'm not sure how Nietzsche outmaneuvers God Almighty.
>>1251115
> Heaven and Hell are absolutely, totally real.
> Death is only the beginning, just one leg of a journey my soul, my life, must take.
I can't believe that you said both sentences. How death can be a start of the journey when both hell and heaven are static system of a respective pain or pleasure? What is a journey here? To burn in a fire for all eternity? To... I don't know... Listen to a hymns of angels over and over? This is hardly the afterlife. More like after-existence in the one state that would never change for the end of times.
>>1251135
Faith is a virtue even if you are secular person. No need to deny the truth at that particular case.
>>1251144
And if Nietzsche isn't wrong, then the Overman is the meaning of the earth, and God is dead.
>>1251151
I wasn't arguing against that. Though I think faith is only questionably a virtue. Regardless, I don't think there is an effective response at that point. Nietzsche clearly didn't think Christianity was the truth, and designed his philosophy around that assumption. If you do think it is the truth, he has nothing to offer you, try Kierkegaard instead.
>>1251170
Well, yeah, absolutely. If God isn't real, then Nietzsche is right. If God isn't real then Nietzsche is the most right of all because only Nietzsche properly grapples with the groundlessness of atheistic morality.
But what if he IS wrong?
>>1251187
>If God isn't real then Nietzsche is the most right of all because only Nietzsche properly grapples with the groundlessness of atheistic morality.
Hey now. Stirner does so too.
>But what if he IS wrong?
Not that guy, but that means he's wrong, and utterly fucked.
>>1251187
>But what if he IS wrong?
Well if the toss up is between Christ or Nietzsche, then it's either hell now and heaven later, or heaven now and hell later. All depends on what you prefer and see as more reasonable.
>>1251187
>because only Nietzsche properly grapples with the groundlessness of atheistic morality
Marx does it too
>>1251100
There is steep difference between platonic realism and Scholastic realism that it seems Nietzsche outright ignores. He's exaggerating to the point of falsehood. The line:
>Nietzsche rejects...
particularly stresses this mistake. There is massive jump that seems completely ignored when trying to lump together pure forms and Natural Law.
>>1251117
>Right here, seeking to...
Leave the rhetorical tricks out of this. If you have an argument, bring it to me. Don't have me do your work for you.
>This so called...
This is you trying to control terms.
Using your logic, do you think taming something is a process of trying to escape the uncontrolled? It's an absurd semantic game then, anon There is no escape involved. You're just desperately trying to be right
And the sinful disorder relating to the world doesn't fit at all. Nothing in the world that is real is considered bad What is considered bad is abuses of those things away from their purposes. The fulfillment of those purposes being understood in this system as the natural good of these things. How do you expect us to accept these abuses as simply "the world"? These things happen in the world but they aren't the world itself.
>>1251120
I would say the Christian ascetics understand this, as our moral selves are innate to us and not immediately justified by us. However, asceticism seeks to conquer vice. As a man habitually yields to intemperance or some other vice, his freedom diminishes and he does in a true sense sink into slavery. On the other hand, the more frequently a man restrains mere impulse, checks inclination towards the pleasant, and the like the more they increase their own self-command and thus their own freedom. Asceticism is that exercise.
I suppose the language here is where people get the idea of ascetics intend to "escape" but yet vice is not a natural trait but an abuse so it's better understood as self-controlling.
>Any kind of a...
I'm not sure what you're saying here, I'm sorry.
>>1251340
And sorry for the late response to you all, I was away.
>>1251340
>Leave the rhetorical tricks out of this. If you have an argument, bring it to me. Don't have me do your work for you.
There's no rhetorical trick. I'm pointing exactly where you make the fucking claim, you intellectually dishonest mong.
>Using your logic, do you think taming something is a process of trying to escape the uncontrolled?
Of course not. I think this wilfull act of self-denial is an attempt to escape fundamental aspects of the human psyche and reality itself. We're fundamentally irrational creatures and attempting to deny it by outright shutting ourselves off from that because you don't like the fact the world is full of sin is blatant fucking life-denial. It's like cutting your hand off because you think it's evil.
>And the sinful disorder relating to the world doesn't fit at all. Nothing in the world that is real is considered bad What is considered bad is abuses of those things away from their purposes. The fulfillment of those purposes being understood in this system as the natural good of these things. How do you expect us to accept these abuses as simply "the world"? These things happen in the world but they aren't the world itself.
Because what you term to be "abuses" are not that in the slightest, and it's only your life-denying insanity that makes you think so. This supposed sinful discord is the state of the world, and doing anything but making peace with it and attempting to actually master it rather than escape it is denial.
>>1251340
>I suppose the language here is where people get the idea of ascetics intend to "escape" but yet vice is not a natural trait but an abuse so it's better understood as self-controlling.
Bullshit. Also the definition of vice you use is ridiculously broad.
>>1246413
>and Nietzsche applies this attitude toward morality without much justification.
stop posting at any time
>>1251093
it's from chesterton
and yes he's dumb (and fat)
>>1251445
Yes, I gathered that. But I have no idea who he is.
>>1251145
you are using earthly mesures to judge the afterlife. In heaven and hell there is no time. A single moment extends into eternity
>>1251363
>There's no rhetorical trick.
>"read some fucking psychology" is the only thing used to back up your claim
>Of course not. I...
This kind of thing seems like it's written with no grasp of the ascetic's worldview but there is the inherent disagreement between both you and the ascetic's view: You believe that we're fundamentally irrational creatures while they would assert that we're fundamentally rational creatures. The distinction centering on the will.
Denying sensual pleasures is only used as a form of exercise to strengthen the will, they aren't rejected as bad. The rejection is done so they may be used moreso to their purpose rather than abuses. It is literally done out of LOVE for the world. And yes, this view will deal with Final Causality. If you have a problem with the view you'll have to assert some reasoning and not just call what philosophical principles you don't like "insanity".
Next up, SIN as a concept relies on the worldview of Natural Law. If you even accept sin to exist then you are realizing that people and such are not okay in their state of sin. It's literally working against their own nature by that view. All you COULD argue for is the lack of sin to exist. To accept a world full of sin is to not love nor welcome the world at all.
>Because what you...
[Daily reminder that essentialist views and final causality are nothing more than "insanity" and bad despite us being irrational creatures]
Don't bitch at things you don't like and keep a rational argument. At least pretend you're a rational creature.
>This supposed sinful...
Frst off, making peace with it and mastering it are two exclusive things. Are simply aren't making peace with the world if you're then trying to bend it to your will. If you've made peace, there is no need for bending.
We're trying to argue from two entirely different worldviews and you're just stubbornly trying to interpret the ascetic's view through your own. From the ascetic's view, you promote slavery.
>>1251532
A plea to get you to learn basic psychology, understanding that we are fundamentally irrational (guided by subconscious impulses well out of our control).
Also I never said we were exclusively irrational, just that it is a fundamental aspect of our being, don't distort my argument.
Natural law as Aquinas envisioned it is the single most retarded thing to have ever been put to paper; a natural law that can be violated isn't, it's just some bald hack's opinion.
I have a problem with final causality because there has never been demonstrated a reason to believe it that doesn't hinge on the retarded bag of beans that is "god said so."
>Don't bitch at things you don't like and keep a rational argument. At least pretend you're a rational creature.
Don't assert inanities and pretend they're objective fact, you fucking worthless piece of dog vomit.
>First (sic) off, making peace with it and mastering it are two exclusive things.
No, they're not. You need to make peace with the nature of reality before you can attempt meaningful mastery with it. So long as you continue to wilfully deny it, and claim that it is in violation of some "laws" a bald butcher of Greek philosophy as a means to escape it, you can never, ever master it.
>We're trying to argue from two entirely different worldviews and you're just stubbornly trying to interpret the ascetic's view through your own.
And you're just stubbornly trying to avoid the baggage of your own.
>From the ascetic's view, you promote slavery.
And from my view, they can't make peace with their own humanity and function as actual human beings.
>>1251560
You're clearly only upset because Aquinas was much better at arguing than you are
>>1250213
>That many people make claims does nothing to speak of the truth of the matter. If all people seem to argue that Nietzsche is not speaking accurately of their theology when trying to speak of Christianity as a whole perhaps there is reason for that and perhaps not. It's only right to view the evidence and have discourse.
You can spin around in circles all you want, most people find Nietzsche's descriptions of Christianity very apt and think the apologetics are pedantic horseshit.
>>1251091
Not in the same sense you equivocating faggot.
>>1251111
*tips fedora* read the Epicureans
>>1251115
Yeah, and lunatics believe their shit is real. It doesn't matter to anyone what you fucking believe. Ultimately it has to come back to the real world, something tangible.
>>1251560
>>1251560
>A plea to get you to learn basic psychology, understanding that we are fundamentally irrational
A line to back up your claim and persuade without using argumentation.
Literally a rhetorical trick.
>(guided by subconscious impulses well out of our control)
As I said to another >>1251340 that's fairly true by the Christian view as they would assert that God's moral law is innate to us and not rationally justified by us. That and our will draws towards the good innately by the Christian view so we do have that subconscious impulse that draws us in. However the label of "rational creature" comes from our capacity for reason over (without denying) our passions. I'd assert that you'd be focused on keeping reason down below the passions and remain an irrational slave to those passions and vices. This is where the claim of slavery from last post comes from.
>Natural law as Aquinas envisioned it is the single most retarded thing to have ever been put to paper; a natural law that can be violated isn't, it's just some bald hack's opinion.
I have to no reason to make this about this person's interpretation of a view but "It's stupid and the guy is dumb" isn't an argument.
>I have a problem with final causality because there has never been demonstrated a reason to believe it that doesn't hinge on the retarded bag of beans that is "god said so."
Literally all philosophical arguments for from the Greeks on don't rely on "God said so". Why don't you look at them.
>Don't assert inanities and pretend they're objective fact, you fucking worthless piece of dog vomit.
If you're going to call the opposition crazy from the beginning and never take on the core of their argument then why even fucking bother posting? Calm your shit, OuterLimits.
Part 1/2
>>1251652
>No, they're not. You need to make peace with the nature of reality before you can attempt meaningful mastery with it.
Explain why. An ascetic can grasp how the world works to make things occur according to their will and you said they haven't made peace. What is this "peace-making" that is so important.
Further, how can you make peace and accept the world as how it is and still try to bend it to your will? Attempting to bend it to your will entails you be unhappy with how things were beforehand (hence the reasoning for bending). It seems to me you need to reject the world to be able to master it.
>And you're just stubbornly trying to avoid the baggage of your own.
No, I continuously address your own arguments from your view and I have from the beginning. You're just intolerant of views outside your own and it's holding up discourse as you're now spending much of the time bitching at me.
>>1251601
>making me out to be disingenuous and appealing to popularity
>at the same time
I'm impressed.
Well done.
Nietzsche was wrong when it came to suffering. What doesn't kill you, but makes you suffer, will make you hate life.
>>1251652
>A line to back up your claim and persuade without using argumentation.
>Literally a rhetorical trick.
Oh for fuck sake. This is fucking common psychological knowledge. I'm not going to post a psychology 101 textbook because you believe in woowoo, you bloody moron.
>As I said to another >>1251340 that's fairly true by the Christian view as they would assert that God's moral law is innate to us and not rationally justified by us. That and our will draws towards the good innately by the Christian view so we do have that subconscious impulse that draws us in. However the label of "rational creature" comes from our capacity for reason over (without denying) our passions. I'd assert that you'd be focused on keeping reason down below the passions and remain an irrational slave to those passions and vices. This is where the claim of slavery from last post comes from.
The Christian view is completely unsubstantiated here. It's an asspull to justify dogma.
>I have to no reason to make this about this person's interpretation of a view but "It's stupid and the guy is dumb" isn't an argument.
You missed the key of it because your husbando got insulted. A natural law as Heraclitus first envisaged it was something that couldn't be violated. Aquinas' take on the concept could, thus removing it of any significance, it literally became just a matter of his opinion; an attempt to make his hangups more important than they actually are.
>Literally all philosophical arguments for from the Greeks on don't rely on "God said so". Why don't you look at them.
As you use it, they do. The Greek's philosophical arguments about final causes, or requirements of unmoved movers are bunk based on not understanding that the universe doesn't give one fat rat's ass about human hangups over what "makes sense." If you want me to address them, post them.
>>1251655
Simply stating problems you have with an argument, in no way articulate and in no way confronting the problem of the argument, is poor form.
As well, it's totally legitimate to say Nietzsche's criticisms of Christianity are valid if a large amount of people take them seriously. Just because a few pedantic twats get upset doesn't mean much.
>>1251652
>If you're going to call the opposition crazy from the beginning and never take on the core of their argument then why even fucking bother posting?
Why should I bother, when you haven't even posted them? You've just taken them for given fact.
>>1251655
>Explain why. An ascetic can grasp how the world works to make things occur according to their will and you said they haven't made peace. What is this "peace-making" that is so important.
Because the fact that an ascetic considers the state of the world to be a product of some sort of discord, a violation of its true state shows that they don't truly appreciate how it is; they've instead built up an idealized construct that they're trying to realize rather than embracing what actually fucking is.
>Further, how can you make peace and accept the world as how it is and still try to bend it to your will? Attempting to bend it to your will entails you be unhappy with how things were beforehand (hence the reasoning for bending). It seems to me you need to reject the world to be able to master it.
You need to understand both tool and medium before you can attempt to work with either.
>No, I continuously address your own arguments from your view and I have from the beginning.
No, you don't. You do the same thing you always do. Assert Catholic doctrine as though it were objective fact.
>You're just intolerant of views outside your own and it's holding up discourse as you're now spending much of the time bitching at me.
I'm plenty tolerant of them, so long as they accept their fucking implications and don't shy away from those implications because they paint them in a bad light, you life-denying fuckface.
>>1251659
Many people suffered without hating life, even to the point of getting wounded and almost killed several times in a few years.
>>1251689
That's the entire problem. Tripfagging on 4chan is just narcissism. I have them all filtered.
>>1251670
>This is fucking common psychological knowledge...
You have already elaborated on your understanding of what it means to be "irrational creatures" and we both basically agree (though it's not directly conflicting the understanding of the term "rational creature" by the way I was using it so I'd hold that too) so we can drop the topic here, I'd say.
>The Christian view is completely unsubstantiated here. It's an asspull to justify dogma.
?
All that was justified what the view of reality, not the dogma. The dogma was used to justify, not the other way around. Please re-read.
Further, I'm a bit annoyed that you simply outright ignore me explaining the term you're trying to argue against. That seems counter-productive.
>A natural law as Heraclitus first envisaged it was something that couldn't be violated.
You'll have to assert why the ability to be violated or not violated is of any worth altogether. It just seems Heraclitus and Aristotle had different conceptions of Natural Law altogether that function in different ways.
>As you use it, they do. The Greek's philosophical arguments about final causes, or requirements of unmoved movers are bunk based on not understanding that the universe doesn't give one fat rat's ass about human hangups over what "makes sense."
What? How is unmoved movers related to this?
>post them
You sure? It's a big topic.
http://philosophy.ucr.edu/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Does-Efficient-Causation-Presuppose-Final-Causation.pdf
Basically that efficient causation presupposes final causation (as seen in the link) and that any attempt to argue the lack of final causation simply implies it elsewhere.
>>1251677
What's so bad with my initial critique here >>1249541
While it's obviously not comprehensive, I think it does fine to confront the brunt of the argument. Please tell me where I'm wrong if you disagree.
Part 1/2
>>1251683
>Why should I bother, when you haven't even posted them? You've just taken them for given fact.
I literally did post them, that's how this part of the conversation fucking began.
I've been stating this with the pretense of it being their view quite often, not simply as fact.
Now I'm seeing an strange contradiction with your next part. Tell me if I'm wrong in my judgement:
>Because the fact that an ascetic...
This part labels the peace-making to be based around properly appreciating something as it is rather than understanding it mechanically, which doesn't conflict with what the ascetic is doing. Meanwhile...
>You need to understand both tool and medium before you can attempt to work with either.
This part labels the peace-making to be based around understanding things mechanically rather than properly appreciating something as it is, which doesn't conflict with what the master is doing.
>No, you don't. You do the same thing you always do. Assert Catholic doctrine as though it were objective fact.
As I said earlier, I give much of the explanations with the pretense of it being of what view it extents from rather than asserting things as simple fact.
>I'm plenty tolerant of them, so long as they accept their fucking implications and don't shy away from those implications because they paint them in a bad light, you life-denying fuckface.
As whether they are truly implicated IS the core of the debate how are you not currently being intolerant of the opposing view here?
>>1251689
Damn man, I'm sorry. I was just assuming based on what you were saying, not implying all the stuff you accuse me of. Chill.
>>1251683
>Because the fact that an ascetic considers the state of the world to be a product of some sort of discord
And I would add that this isn't a fact whatsoever and I've already spoken against it.
Heading out for a bit.
>>1242118
So this guy died in pretty bad shape, I guess he had a mental break down and never fully recovered- but he had a philosophy about becoming "ubermensh", which is a superhuman...so he couldn't even live his own message to keep his sanity. And no one questions this? lol Okay.
Also I'm reading that he said people should embrace envy and learn from it and use it. Basically that the envy inducer, is just an indicator of something you may one day be able to become. That's his thoughts on envy. This guy was lost beyond lost.
Look, this is the problem with the self-righteous and arrogant. They think they can bend the rules and find the greater answer than what was already given out of sheer stubborn pride and arrogance and a desire for attention for their perceived intelligence.
So in this case he's combating morality. He's waging a personal war against the definition morality. Specifically, Christianity.
Yet there's one thing that simple and narrow minds, arrogant minds, minds with ridiculous subconscious motives, minds like his are forgetting. A simple problem they never address, they don't address this simple problem because their arrogance, pride, and self righteousness has them sitting in the dark where they can't see the truth.
The truth is this- Envy as he stated, should be used and embraced....As if every man that will ever walk this earth will be able to prevent themselves from the jealousy and madness that follows. As if ALL men, can hold their liquor. As if ALL men, will NEVER have addictions.
>>1252017
You see? Nietzche waged war on the foundation of morality of his time, meanwhile he was completely void of the very fact that again, in the case of his perspective on Envy, how it was harmless because the "UBERMENSCH can defeat it." Completely void of the fact that the very reason why it's considered an evil...is simply because of its POTENTIAL destruction.
The arrogance....to think that EVERY MAN can play with fire and not get burned, the arrogance to think you can leave your debit card on the table in a room full of people, with the pin number written down on a post it, as if every man in that room is going to be able to play the game within the rules of the honor system.
No disrespect, God rest his soul, but that's delusional. And I don't find a coincidence, that men who were characterized with this kind of arrogance in the Bible, like Nebuchadnezzar, also had mental break downs as a result of their delusional pride.
Not only that, but this guys lack of foresight. As if he didn't know what the effects of something like envy could have on people who REFUSE discipline. As if he couldn't see the reason envy is categorized as a sin. The total lack of foresight. But at the same time, I can see why his philosphy is highly regarded on this board. It speaks to the arrogant and pride of the individual. Something we're all susceptible to.
>>1252018
Never post again
>>1252034
Why did I miss something?
>>1252017
>>1252018
Are you having a fucking giggle m8?
>>1251455
A notable and prolific Christian apologist of the early 20th century.
>>1252130
Are you saying that envy doesn't lead to further immoral decisions? Further regression, in relation to communication with others?
Or are you saying that everyone can maintain control by embracing their envy as Nietzsche suggests we should, to become supermen?
In either case you'd be wrong.
>>1251866
nobody
fucking
cares
>>1252018
>As if he didn't know what the effects of something like envy could have on people who REFUSE discipline. As if he couldn't see the reason envy is categorized as a sin. The total lack of foresight.
you're either dumb or an ebin troll
>>1249542
wow gk chesterton is a total fedora
"oooh nietzsche such a pussy lol he ain't even brave enough to say somethings GOODER THAN GOOD :-)"
that's some of the worst shit i've read about nietzsche and you should feel bad for posting it
>>1252175
Tell me where Nietzsche is an advocate of envy, you're being stupid as fuck.
>>1252175
>Are you saying that envy doesn't lead to further immoral decisions? Further regression, in relation to communication with others?
>Or are you saying that everyone can maintain control by embracing their envy as Nietzsche suggests we should, to become supermen?
My main gripe is that the lynchpin of your post is your claim that that Nietzsche intended his works to be apply universally when that's pretty much the exact opposite of what he said. But don't take my word for it:
>This book belongs to the most rare of men. Perhaps not one of them is yet alive. It is possible that they may be among those who understand my “Zarathustra”: how could I confound myself with those who are now sprouting ears?—First the day after tomorrow must come for me. Some men are born posthumously.
>The conditions under which any one understands me, and necessarily understands me—I know them only too well. Even to endure my seriousness, my passion, he must carry intellectual integrity to the verge of hardness. He must be accustomed to living on mountain tops—and to looking upon the wretched gabble of politics and nationalism as beneath him. He must have become indifferent; he must never ask of the truth whether it brings profit to him or a fatality to him.... He must have an inclination, born of strength, for questions that no one has the courage for; the courage for the forbidden; predestination for the labyrinth.
>The experience of seven solitudes. New ears for new music. New eyes for what is most distant. A new conscience for truths that have hitherto remained unheard. And the will to economize in the grand manner—to hold together his strength, his enthusiasm.... Reverence for self; love of self; absolute freedom of self....
>Very well, then! of that sort only are my readers, my true readers, my readers foreordained: of what account are the rest?—The rest are merely humanity.—One must make one’s self superior to humanity, in power, in loftiness of soul,—in contempt.
>>1252188
Explain.
The only way you could ever attempt to redefine envy as something useful, is if your pride and arrogance is off the charts.
This guy, no offense, but he was blatantly delusional and vain. I mean to think you could outwit the natural course life itself takes, in an attempt to psychologically become a "ubermensch" .....
Dude, that's a little goofy.
I don't care how charismatic or glossy his choice of words were, it's still not only incorrect but a lie to himself, a delusion.
And again, the arrogance it takes to try and redefine what's good vs what is not good. That's just irresponsible. For your own mental health and the mental health of others.
>>1249542
>Other vague modern people take refuge in material metaphors; in fact, this is the chief mark of vague modern people.
muh obscurantism
>Not daring to define their doctrine of what is good,
"What is good? All that heightens the feeling of power in man, the will to power, power itself. What is bad? All that is born of weakness. What is happiness? The feeling that power is growing, that resistance is overcome." - Friedrich Nietzsche
>they use physical figures of speech without stint or shame, and , what is worst of all, seem to think these cheap analogies are exquisitely spiritual and superior to the old morality.
What the fuck is a physical figure of speech?
Nietzsche also doesn't "think" his analogies are superior, he knows it.
>Thus they think it intellectual to talk about things being 'high.' It is at least the reverse of intellectual; it is a mere phrase from a steeple or a weathercock. 'Tommy was a good boy' is a pure philosophical statement, worthy of Plato or Aquinas. 'Tommy lived the higher life' is a gross metaphor from a ten-foot rule.
This is some fedora shit; really now? "Tommy was a good boy", worthy of Plato? Saying something is higher is an important distinction from good? Did GK Chesterton even crack the cover on Nietzsche's works?
>>1249542
>This, incidentally, is almost the whole weakness of Nietzsche, whom some are representing as a bold and strong thinker.
Remember, Nietzsche's weaknesses are:
1. takes refuge in material metaphors
2. is vague
3. doesn't define what is good (even when he does)
4. thinks he's smart by calling things "high"
5. isn't worthy of Plato and Aquinas because he won't call things good, which he does
6. uses "higher" which is apparently the worst thing ever
>No one will deny that he was a poetical and suggestive thinker; but he was quite the reverse of strong. He was not at all bold. He never put his own meaning before himself in bald abstract words: as did Aristotle and Calvin, and even Karl Marx, the hard, fearless men of thought.
This is utter bullshit and anyone familiar with Nietzsche's life knows it. Nietzsche was terrified of his own thoughts much of the time. And GK Chesterton seems to have only read one section of Nietzsche's aphorisms, this old coot does know Nietzsche didn't only write in aphorisms, right? The vast majority of his work is essay.
>Nietzsche always escaped a question by a physical metaphor, like a cheery minor port.
No he didn't, he tackles every question pretty directly.
>He said, 'beyond good and evil,' because he had not the courage to say, 'more good than good and evil,' or, 'more evil than good and evil.'
This is hardly coherent, I don't think GK Chesterton even understands what beyond good and evil means; it's as if he's incapable of viewing anything outside of the lens of good and evil.
>>1249542
>Had he faced his thought without metaphors, he would have seen that it was nonsense.
Except for the massive amount that isn't metaphorical, and nonsense is only a charge one can make when one is not sensible; sure is looking like Nietzsche is more sensible than GK Chesterton, more influential as well.
>So, when he describes his hero, he does not dare to say, 'the purer man,' or 'the happier man,' or 'the sadder man,' for all these are ideas; and ideas are alarming.
Nietzsche does talk about all of these things, what the fuck is the man smoking? Oh right, he probably read some short summary of Nietzsche and ran with it, not knowing what the fuck he was talking about.
>He says 'the upper man.' or 'over man,' a physical metaphor from acrobats or alpine climbers.
? Is this fucking guy serious? Uber means literally above to him?
>Nietzsche is truly a very timid thinker.
Because he's "not brave enough" to talk about the things he does?
>He does not really know in the least what sort of man he wants evolution to produce -- G.K. Chesterton, "Orthodoxy", Chapter 7
Sure he does, the man who could past the eternal recurrence test
I was considering reading GK Chesterton, but after this he's dropped on my list to "disregard". This was the worst paragraph I've ever read on Nietzsche, and one of the worst by a reputed thinker. And it pisses me off that you condescend to me in this thread like "I'm not serious". Careful thought doesn't mean engaging in pedantry with fedora Christians who take this shluck seriously.
>>1252207
>The only way you could ever attempt to redefine envy as something useful, is if your pride and arrogance is off the charts.
Where does Nietzsche say that? I'm fine with you criticizing Nietzsche, just stop telling me what he says and repeat to me what he says. I get tired of reading "criticisms" of Nietzsche that start with "NIETZSCHE THOUGHT X [which is almost always false], THEREFORE HE'S WRONG" with no reference to any text, or at best a cherry-picked quote that they obviously googled.
>This guy, no offense, but he was blatantly delusional and vain.
He was insightful and diagnosed every illness Germany had with great accuracy. Of course you won't substantiate, you're only here to shitsling.
>I mean to think you could outwit the natural course life itself takes, in an attempt to psychologically become a "ubermensch" .....
Nietzsche doesn't think we can do that. Cite me the source material where he does.
>I don't care how charismatic or glossy his choice of words were, it's still not only incorrect but a lie to himself, a delusion.
Nietzsche was incredibly self-aware. Moreso than most people I've ever read about in my life. Spend time in his personal letters!
>And again, the arrogance it takes to try and redefine what's good vs what is not good.
Arrogance is thinking you already know it. You're far more arrogant than Nietzsche, and you're being far more arrogant than he ever was right now.
>>1252202
Literally read it as one of Nietzsche's 4 main recommendations. "Embrace Envy."
>>1251659
>Nietzsche was wrong when it came to suffering. What doesn't kill you, but makes you suffer, will make you hate life.
Nietzsche didn't think suffering was good for it's own sake, but it's not bad to end all bads. He's pretty close to the Epicureans, and his take on suffering is pretty close to theirs.
>>1252207
>And again, the arrogance it takes to try and redefine what's good vs what is not good. That's just irresponsible. For your own mental health and the mental health of others.
Yeah, it's much better to let the basis for your morality be a collection of ancient foreign mythologies that's been used to further political ends for some two thousand years now.
>>1252253
Text, chapter, give me an actual citation.
>>1252207
>And again, the arrogance it takes to try and redefine what's good vs what is not good. That's just irresponsible.
Oh god the ironing
>>1252253
I googled "Nietzsche 4 recommendations", and only came up with http://www.mercecardus.com/4-recommendations-from-nietzsche/
Is this where you got that? Because Nietzsche didn't write that.
>>1252253
On the other hand, here's actual quotes from Nietzsche regarding envy and jealousy:
"If, however, a person should regard even the emotions of hatred, envy, covetousness, and imperiousness as life-conditioning emotions, as factors which must be present, fundamentally and essentially, in the general economy of life (which must, therefore, be further developed if life is to be further developed), he will suffer from such a view of things as from sea-sickness."
"Surrounded by the flames of jealousy, the jealous one winds up, like the scorpion, turning the poisoned sting against himself."
>>1242138
Christianity favors the weak, because weak are controlled more easly.
>>1252156
After reading his shit, I agree more and more with Benjamin Franklin.
It's the apologists for Christianity that make me hate Christianity, not the Nietzsches of the world.
>>1252275
>shitposting on the internet
Next you'll tell me that the papacy is the antichrist
>>1252307
It's true though, a powerful Christian is a contradiction in terms.
you know it
>>1251187
>God isn't real, then Nietzsche is right
It's not that he wasn't real, but that he's dead now.
>>1243295
PAUL REEEEEEE
>>1245257
>this response
>>1251340
>There is steep difference between platonic realism and Scholastic realism that it seems Nietzsche outright ignores.
I don't think he ignores it... rather, he rejects both notions for different reasons.
For platonic realism, if we go off of this definition:
>the doctrine that universals or abstract concepts have an objective or absolute existence
Clearly Nietzsche rejects this notion. Nietzsche was over the subject-object perspective. He denied Schopenhauer's emphasis on what's behind appearances not only by placing value in the appearance too, but by altogether bringing to light the mistake in judgment in making any distinction between appearance and the "real thing." The distinction is false; it is characteristic of a sick mind.
For scholastic realism, using this excerpt from the synopsis of John Peterson's Introduction to Scholastic Realism:
>Universals, strictly speaking, only exist in minds, but they are founded on real relations of similarity in the world. Scholastic realism goes beyond moderate realism and affirms that universals also exist transcendently; but instead of having a separated existence, transcendent universals exist in God's mind.
The notion of universals and transcendence here is still a problem. It is, once again, creating an unnecessary distinction, and is characteristic of an error in judgment. In short, there is no universal, and nothing is transcendent for Nietzsche.
Nietzsche made the claim about Jesus that Jesus did not care at all about our world. To him, everything in our world was merely sign, a bunch of symbols with which to utilize, or ignore. Well, I would like to make the claim that this was the case for Nietzsche too — to him, everything in the world is sign. And it greatly helps in understanding Nietzsche by taking this into consideration.
>>1253111
>Nietzsche was over the subject-object perspective
I'm sure he wouldn't care if you were using it in some loose way, but yeah if you tried to make it a serious philosophical doctrine he would laugh
>>1242118
Nietzsche wanted to reframe the Christian values you just gave.
He thought man's yearning was strong enough to cast off religion, it wasn't.
>>1255384
What?
>>1255384
>it wasn't
Sure it was, first world society is largely secular now and religious fanatics are commonly seen as utter nutjobs, rightly so.
>>1252017
>So this guy died in pretty bad shape, I guess he had a mental break down and never fully recovered- but he had a philosophy about becoming "ubermensh", which is a superhuman...so he couldn't even live his own message to keep his sanity. And no one questions this? lol Okay.
He developed brain cancer you fucking asshole.
>>1251806
>By wrestling with the world the ascetic rejects not the world in itself but its sinful disorder and wishes to restore it to its own integrity rather than the modern optimism, where the world is praised for the world's sake.
Right here. This is exactly where you said it. You fucking liar.
>>1252175
You do realize that Nietzsche never suggested his philosophy was for everybody, right? In fact he recommended against that, fearing there would be people who would use it as an excuse to justify petty thievery and the like.
>>1243295
EBIN!
>>1253111
Thanks for getting into it.
I believe we have gotten off to the wrong foot here. This being my fault. It's no doubt that Nietzsche is anti-realism and anti-essentialism but the core of the issue deals is the application of it. Hence you saying:
>Nietzsche rejects that wholeheartedly and considers all philosophies and systems which strive to teach men to live in accordance with this "otherworld" as life-denying.
I mention interpretations of metaphysical realism with the intent of it being followed up by the line "There is massive jump that seems completely ignored when trying to lump together pure forms and Natural Law." The most basic trait being that you cannot have an "otherworld" akin to Platonic Realism without the Platonic understanding of realism. Because of it you're not rejecting the material for the transcendental at all from the Christian worldview. It's simply not happening.
This is best understood by the difference in religious endgame. For the neoplatonists, the afterlife is simply the soul escaping the body to move to the transcendent realm of forms (with some details on the soul that are irrelevant for this). For Apostolic Christians, union with God ends with the establishment of the the New Heavens and the New Earth. That is, a return to the material. Further, the soul in these Christian groups would be best understood in a hylomorphic sense. Instead of being trapped in the body, the body is a union of soul and matter so it would be odd to simply have the Christian endgame being a dislocation of the body, especially when so much of Christian theology speaks of the resurrection of the dead.
That Protestants have largely forgotten the details of the New Earth and also largely began to accept cartesian dualism (which can be seen as akin to the neoplatonic view of the soul being trapped in the body) is part of why I say that Nietzsche's criticisms of Christianity are limited to forms of Christianity than Christianity itself.
Part 1/2
>>1256296
Now Christians would promote the idea of sanctifying all things which has somewhat of a mirror with Neo-Platonism's imitating of forms (and many of the early church fathers coming to Christianity from a Platonic background didn't help their rhetoric) but instead of simply trying to be more "themselves" (better mirror their essence), Christian teaching would appeal to Natural Law. Final Causality was seen to be of nature and so Natural Law was something objective rather than transcendental (at least not transcendental in the sense of neoplatonism) which would guide us. This fits fine with the view of God's law being innate to us by the Christian standpoint. Granted Nietzsche is anti-essentialist so he'd still have problems but this would serve to reject the issues he had that you and others had brought up.
Appeals to being more "real" through sanctification is leftover Neo-Platonist rhetoric from the Platonic influences of the early church fathers, not actually telling of Christian thought. What you see instead is the insistence of a drive of all things towards their good naturally. Deviations from that done by the will are considered sin (rather than deviations from their form in Neo-Platonism) and the severity and manner of deviation has much work devoted to being explained.
>>1255897
Not to defend the other guy's assholery but wasn't it syphilis?
>>1255914
I had to take a double take to see what you were talking about.
This is indeed my error. I thought the person said "the world to be a product of some sort of discord", not "the state of the world".
My bad.
>>1252186
I didn't do it to be noticed, I did it out of courtesy of the person I was speaking to. If you're going to depart for a while in the middle of a back and forth it's common courtesy to warn the person so they don't sit there waiting.
Chill m8
>>1256296
All that stuff would only not be a rejection of the world in favour of a higher spiritual something if those things actually existed. You're still tacking on non-existent concepts on to a perfectly good reality that you've deemed otherwise "unfit."
>>1256305
>Not to defend the other guy's assholery but wasn't it syphilis?
Modern diagnosis based on available evidence has come to the conclusion that brain cancer is more likely.
>>1256317
I don't see where that view comes from. Please explain.
I mentioned >>1256305 that the view entails that all things, by their nature, seek the good so you aren't rejecting but rather fulfilling nature (either yourself or more) through sanctification.
No offense to you but "tacking on non-existent concepts onto a perfectly good reality" seems like just a condemning way to say "having a different worldview than you".
>brain cancer is more likely
I hadn't heard that, wow.
That's pretty awful.
Thanks for filling me in.
>>1256385
>I mentioned >>1256305 that the view entails that all things, by their nature, seek the good so you aren't rejecting but rather fulfilling nature (either yourself or more) through sanctification.
But you see, that's only not a rejection of their nature if the good is indeed their proper nature. Otherwise you're just trying to make them fit this otherworldly (in the sense that the good is indeed something supernatural in nature, stemming from the divine, which is indeed otherworldly, or at the least cannot be actually observed as part of this world) something. It rejects the notion that the "sinful" is also in accord with their "nature" being in fact just another component of what they are, rather than a perversion of their intended function.
>No offense to you but "tacking on non-existent concepts onto a perfectly good reality" seems like just a condemning way to say "having a different worldview than you".
It's not meant as such. There's no real reason to believe in these essentialist notions of natural law; they have no basis in what can be seen to be.
>Thanks for filling me in.
No problem.
>>1256417
Also, while I'm at it and it's on my mind. I'm sorry for being so rude to you yesterday. It was assholish. I may not see eye to eye with you, but I feel as though I shouldn't have behaved in such a manner.
>>1256305
>Now Christians would promote the idea of sanctifying all things
Except your entire theology is centered around a huge list of things you can NOT affirm as essential and nessiary, which you call sin
If you want to consider that there might be some innate drive that moves all humans that already exists, it's called the subconscious. In general a great deal of these drives are at war with the Christian ethics system, which is another way of saying that Christian ethics violate nature.
What we get is instead a reversal of what could be called "natural law". The subconscious pushes for conflict, sexual gratification, and self-interest. The standard theological claim against this is to say that human nature is actually corrupt and somehow inauthentic. However when you look at psychology and evolution you see this is not the case. What is called "sin" is actually what we are born with and what has kept prospering as a species.
No here's the kicker. If you affirm sin as being holy, as being essential (which it is) than you don't need forgiveness. This is essentially the spirituality that Nietzsche pushed, that everything is sacred. He measures a man's success by how much they can take suffering and misery, see the necessity and beauty in it and ultimately turn it into their advantage.
>>1256417
>But you see, that's only not a rejection of their nature if the good is indeed their proper nature.
That is a good argument. This way on the surface the Christian doctrine of a fallen nature cannot be fought by Christians unless they reject the state of the world "as it is", which I assert in my first post here >>1249541 to be the case. In that point, you're right.
My issue with this is that welcoming our irrational desires (our concupiscence being the last positive effect that constitutes our fallen state. The loss of grace in original sin is a privation, not a positive trait.) works against the proper end of the will itself.
With Natural Law, as I've told you, the view is that all things naturally seek their proper end (final causality). While we have irrational desires that you'd say denying would constitute us denying our reality, supporting them would constitute denying our will by the view of Natural Law so it seems to me that you'd be in a pickle where you'd be denying our reality as well. Not in favor of something transcendent, of course, but still denying a part of reality. We'd be in a situation where we have an internal conflict of interest within us all. How far the will goes seems to put you in a small life-denying situation now no matter how you arrange it by your view. You have the capacity to be moved by the passions and moved by the will and denying one simply denies your capacity for the other. Please tell me if I got that wrong.
I only see the Natural Law view escaping this conundrum. To allow the will to flourish does not disallow the desires to flourish. And the position of the ascetic is basically /fit/ for willpower. With less homo of course. I'd say the closest thing you get to actual denial is ascetic exercises meant to strengthen the will. And, as with dieting, I wouldn't say abstaining from food to control yourself means you're hating food at all.
Part 1/2
Sorry for typing so much.
>>1256645
>>1256417
I don't think we have the room to, all of a sudden, get into an essentialism v. existentialism debate so I'll just leave us to disagree there. It's obvious we aren't going to be eye-to-eye here but I definitely do enjoy the conversation.
And of course all of our views end up being based on whether our concepts (final causality, existentialism, essentialism, and the like) are real or not. That's a whole other thread.
>>1256424
Mate, I do thank you. Same to you as well. I noticed that I myself was being quickly harsh on you and sometimes inconsistent so I apologize and hope we can move forward into something nice despite our differences. And that I'm at least more understandable, haha.
>>1256478
>If you want to consider that there might be some innate drive that moves all humans that already exists, it's called the subconscious. In general a great deal of these drives are at war with the Christian ethics system, which is another way of saying that Christian ethics violate nature.
You're talking about desires, which is an altogether different thing than what I'm speaking of when I talk about the components of Natural Law.
>>1256645
>last positive effect
"lasting positive effect" rather
Heading out for now.
>>1242138
>forgiveness is a virtue
>literally saying your god is not virtuous
Wew lad.
>>1256692
you did it again and you weren't even talking to anyone you faggot
>>1256852
It's simpler than that. Forgiveness as a virtue is the result of people being unable to avenge them-self.
One of Nietzsche's point is that the early Christians had no choice but to NOT avenge them-self because they had no power. Deep down they wanted revenge for their persecution (this is what hell is) but they couldn't get it so they made a virtue out of their own weakness.
>>1257024
Christian love: in the end it wants to be paid well.
>>1256657
I'm talking about the only real thing you can say all humans are pulled by, subconscious desires.
There is also no getting aroudn the idea that it's existence nullifies all ideas of God's ethics.
If we assume that
1. There is a God
2. He made humans, including planning how their brains would work
3. Evolution and basic psychology are true
Than the logical conclusion is that God wants people to sin, he specifically gave them brains that push into it. Furthermore he designed a universe where doing sin was essential to a specie's survival.
>>1257024
>It's simpler than that. Forgiveness as a virtue is the result of people being unable to avenge them-self.
religion is a coping mechanism once you face your failure of your life, just like other contrived fantasizes, your faith in the scientific method included.
Religions are meant to leave material-bodily hedonism, travels, concerts, foods, sex and so on, for a spiritual hedonism, through prayers for theists and mediation for atheists.
Plenty of material hedonist love to think of themselves as less hedonistic than they are, since it improves their hedonism in thinking that they are not animals...most people who claim to be religious are not all, it is just the way they are.
In buddhism, you even leave this spiritual hedonism, after you have gained it, which is called jhanas, since you understand that this bliss from prayers, which is just a great, but not perfect concentration-stilness, are not personal nor permanent and that you are still prone to avidity and aversion.
>>1257037
>your faith in the scientific method included.
Lol if this isn't the most out of the blue shit ever
>>1256645
>With Natural Law, as I've told you, the view is that all things naturally seek their proper end (final causality). While we have irrational desires that you'd say denying would constitute us denying our reality, supporting them would constitute denying our will by the view of Natural Law so it seems to me that you'd be in a pickle where you'd be denying our reality as well. Not in favor of something transcendent, of course, but still denying a part of reality. We'd be in a situation where we have an internal conflict of interest within us all. How far the will goes seems to put you in a small life-denying situation now no matter how you arrange it by your view. You have the capacity to be moved by the passions and moved by the will and denying one simply denies your capacity for the other. Please tell me if I got that wrong.
I would contend ultimately that a Stirnerian approach of utilizing either as it suits you, seeing neither as something to be rejected or served but instead put to use as tools would probably be the way around this. You neither outright deny, nor outright embrace either side of yourself.
>>1258843
Would be a way around this, I mean.
>>1242118
Because God is Life.
>>1257037
I'm not talking about hedonism. I'm talking about the basic drives behind everything. You cannot run from your subcoscnious. It's not a switch you can turn off it's always ticking.
The point is that it's absurd to call something a creator and than to say the ethics code it lays down is the exact opposite of the code it designed you to follow (subconsciousness).
Further more I would argue that material and spirtual cannot be seperated. Trying to do this is just going to back Platonic nonsense and showing you are unable to find the material world world meaningful. The reason I say material and spiritual are the same thing is because any spiritual sensations you get have a material basis. Sensations of feeling the divine are all subconscious and also involve the physical brain.
