Post your favorite philosopher and critisize him briefly.
>infinitely biased
>intolerant
>often tries to legitmize his own way of life
Not really a serious criticism because all of those characteristics apply to any philosopher.
>British
>Scottish
>Kinda fat
>thought the Binding of Isaac was about Abraham's faith, when it was about Isaac's
>Quaker
>excessively nationalist
>too hard on Latin Christians
Also was kind of a degenerate before he went to prison (extra marital affairs, compulsive gambler), but that doesn't really count as a criticism since he turned his life around when he got out.
>so bad at teaching Goethe asked him to improve his rhetorics when in Weimar
>>511721
>thought the Binding of Isaac was about Abraham's faith, when it was about Isaac's
The willingness to be sacrificed isn't any less absurd than the willingness *to* sacrifice.
>>511739
That's absolutely right, but Isaac was the one being tested, so it's kind of important.
>>511744
Elaborate.
>>511732
Don't forget:
>shit author
>
>
>
>>511799
>Holy
>Roman
>Empire
should have read more greeks
I dunno, I can't think of any flaws
>>511734
>bad at teaching
>bad at writing
the well was he good at to get to the position of rector then?
>>511799
>French
>original fedora
>>511753
I mean, from a Christian perspective, it is Isaac's willingness to be sacrificed for God, which paralels God's willingness to be sacrified for the desedents of Isaac (also of Abraham). Certainly, Abraham's faith plays a role here too (since God the Father is sacrificing his Son), but the *trial* of faith here is paralleled in the NT, and Christ experiences a trial of faith as well (Gethsemane making it clear Christ does not wish to die, but does so only because of faith).
Abraham's faith is echoed in John 3:16, but Isaac's love is emphasized in John 15:12-13.
To be completely accurate, they are both being tested, but abstracting Abraham's test from Isaac's is a common error which distorts the point of it all. The Binding of Isaac was something they were both involved in--BUT Abraham's faith is that God will "provide a lamb", that is he will cancel at the last minute (not only does he say this, but Abraham would surely argue with God if he didn't think that, knowing Abraham), whereas Isaac's faith is actual sacrifice. Abraham is calling God's bluff, so to speak, whereas Isaac has no such understanding. Paul mentions Abraham being tested without Isaac in Hebrews, but in Galatians he affirms that Isaac is a metaphor for freedom (represented by being born of a free woman) as contrasted with Ishmael, being a metaphor for bondage. So Isaac clearly wasn't bound against his will, but accepted his fate on faith. Kierkegaard's long exposition was concerned about the suspension of the ethical (which is important), but you can't stress that too much as a focus because that was peripheral.
>>511794
How so? I think as a philosopher alone he was outstanding, but he was also a top notch writer, which is icing on the cake.
>>511812
Well, once you understood his weird way of thinking you saw that he was a brillant philosopher who was able to solve many problems philosophy faced at that time.
Did you never tried to read some of his work? I'll guarentee you it will be frustrating at first.
>>511816
Yes, but if you put Abraham at the center of your interpretation, it makes a lot more sense in regards to human sacrifice. Sacrificing your first-born son was common practice in many older, heretical religions. God stays Abraham's hand and thereby communicates to him that he does not demand such a sacrifice.
I agree though that the Binding of Isaac is about the faith of both Isaac and Abraham and the parallel that you drew to Christ makes sense I guess
>>511816
>Kierkegaard's long exposition was concerned about the suspension of the ethical (which is important), but you can't stress that too much as a focus because that was peripheral.
While Isaac certainly has to demonstrate his willingness to be sacrificed, Kierkegaard specifically talks about God and the suspension of the ethical because he was primarily interested in how this story could make sense to him personally as an individual.
Since I'm not religious at all, I can't seem to shake the feeling that there's nothing particularly noteworthy about the Binding of Isaac at all, since faithful self-sacrifice is literally a trope in all major religions, and even pre-monotheisms like the Inca and Aztec.
So, what makes the Christian version so impressive, other than you believing it is true?
>Masochist
>Voltaire
>>511840
But Isaac's choice is important in that he is a icon of freedom itself, which is pretty crucial in Christianity, especially if you're coming from an existentialist perspective. It's also very important because the expectation of Isaac is to die, whereas the expectation of Abraham is that he won't die. If Abraham thought for an instant that he would, Abraham would start to haggle with God. So Abraham suspends the ethical? Yes, sort of, but Isaac's leap of faith involves what Christ calls the highest love, which Christ uses to illustrate how we are to love one another, we are to be willing to die for each other. This is a love expressed toward God that goes beyond anything previous in Genesis.
People aren't 100% shit 100% of the time.
Also the church can be democratized just like any other institution, so it's a mistake to look for it for the source of infallible authority.
>>511846
There is no reason Christians have to believe it is literal. There's no reason why they can't either, of course.
As for its significance, I've already expressed that, but of course it loses quite a bit outside the context of Christianity.
>>511875
>but of course it loses quite a bit outside the context of Christianity.
Indeed. I don't even understand how anyone could think Abraham's or Isaac's behavior isn't absurd and delusional.
>didn't use lube while getting analy fisted.
>>511887
It's absurdist, certainly.
Delusional? Hard to say that when Isaac's very birth was miracle.
>>511894
I mean it is delusional to think it is behavior one ought to emulate.
>>511899
In the context of having clear proof that God exists and talks to you?
>>511906
>In the context of having clear proof that God exists and talks to you?
How would I know that the entity that talks to me is God, and not my mentally ill mind hallucinating?
I mean seriously tripfaggot, we have had this discussion before me and you, and I hope then that it penetrated your thick skull, but apparently it didn't.
>>511914
I think this is what Dostoevsky said is an example "atheist faith", like the atheist in hell who refuses to believe he is in hell out of faith in atheism.
>>511921
Yes, and I'd like to hear you defend the next mother in court who drowns her 5 children in the bathtub because she swears God told her to do it.
>>511938
But is all she is hearing as voices in her head, that's a big difference from living in a world where scientifically impossible miracles correlated with God's voice are very real.
>>511942
prove it
[spoiler]sorry, I couldnt avoid it[/spoiler]
>>511942
Abraham heard voices in his head and hallucinated.
The fact that you infer supernaturalism to those voices and hallucinations doesn't change anything.
>>511954
How does this position make you any different from the atheist in hell? If Abraham were hallucinating that hard and he accepted it, then there would be zero reason for him to even think his son were real.
>>511966
>If Abraham were hallucinating that hard and he accepted it, then there would be zero reason for him to even think his son were real.
Crazy people don't need to be wholly crazy. Abraham was a fanatical believer. He could've been hallucinating that God spoke to him whilst simultaneously be able to herd sheep without a problem.
The mind actually can function like that if you didn't know.
>>511979
No, considering all he went through, he'd be wholly crazy, as in beyond schizophrenic even.
Ain't this a bit much offtopic right now guys?
>>511824
I think it's the other way around, decent writer and shit philosopher.
>>512036
eh? what about notes from the underground? c&p? Nietzsche didn't respect him for nothing
>>512058
Honest to fuck wish you didn't just imply Nietzsche wasn't shit.
>>512060
how is he shit?
This absolute madman is certainly up there:
>mediocre architect
>dishes it but can't take it
>should've given more directly to the poor
>misread as a fideist, but to be fair he was dealing with people who were literally Russell-tier
>>512073
>dishes it but can't take it
Autists tend to have fragile egos.
>>512073
He went to school with Hitler, the complete bloody psycho.
>Sexual depravity
>>511701
>often tries to legitmize his own way of life
what are you referring to?
>>511812
Philosophy.
>>511914
>How would I know that the entity that talks to me is God, and not my mentally ill mind hallucinating?
How would I know that about literally anything?
>>511718
>"kinda"
>plays video games instead of writing his books
>stole money from grandmothers
>Grammer Nazi
>>511721
>thought the Binding of Isaac was about Abraham's faith, when it was about Isaac's
Judging by the Bible, God never acts with only one object. It can be both.
That said, top choice.
