Why does Nietzsche strawman the Gnostic perspective of the material as the Christian perspective of the material?
>>16474
Because most fedoras lump all of Christianity into one cluster fuck.
which never works because they usually then just pick the easiest christians to refute (the anti science baptists) and say all christians are like this.
He was arguing with the secret occult forces, not the profane plebs. Would you rather debate Rosirucians or Baptists?
>>16704
What the fuck is "the cult of science"?
>>16772
dawkins harris dennet etc
>>16704
Nietzsche wasn't opposed to science, but he believed it was instilling in people a sort of nihilism.
>>16704
Science is a British lie, just next wave alchemy
>>16969
Philosophy does not belong on this board, this is a mistake.
Are you the Thomas from /lit/ that said democracy comes from the Greek demos = people and kratos = property?
>>17140
Yes, but that isn't what I said. People were asking how Plato's Republic is more democratic than Athenian democracy, and I said 95% of power (kratos) is property, and since property is public in Plato's thought, the 5% of power that isn't democratic still totals less that the total power that's not democratic in Athenian democracy.
So I said demos = public
kratos = property
>>17216
>said kratos = property
>that isn't what I said
>says it again
>>17300
That is what I said. Power = property. That's a bit different from saying kratos translates as property.
>>17368
Well I guess we're just too silly to really understand an equals sign, Thomas. All the nuance of an equals sign.
>>17472
No offense, but if you had been following the conversation, you'd get it.
>>17539
I was making the conversation. You said that democracies that didn't let women vote weren't really democracies, I mentioned that the demos can be whatever it wants, you went off on power and property and then defined kratos as equal to property.
What I'm saying is stop being an egotistical namefag and maybe your idiotic pseudo-Marxist ramblings won't cross boards with you.
>>17670
>You said that democracies that didn't let women vote weren't really democracies
I never said that, I said Plato's society was *more* democratic. Which I maintain.
>What I'm saying is stop being an egotistical namefag and maybe your idiotic pseudo-Marxist ramblings won't cross boards with you.
I'm not a pseudo-Marxist, I'm a Christian.
>>16474
Christianity really was kind of anti-material in it's early stages. The Platonic influence is partially to blame It got less and less as time went on.
You can really see Christianity's anti-life views with the concept of original sin and the immaculate conception. A woman's womb is a corrupt place that harms children.
>>18616
Christianity was never anti-material.
>You can really see Christianity's anti-life views with the concept of original sin and the immaculate conception. A woman's womb is a corrupt place that harms children.
Original sin, as in you are tainted with sin due to your parents having intercourse, was a Roman Catholic idea added much later, that's why it's not present in Orthodox Christianity. To supplement this doctrine, Roman Catholics had to say the conception of *Mary* was immaculate (that is what "immaculate conception" is about, not about Christ's birth), which also isn't a doctrine in the Orthodox Church.
>>16474
He doesn't.
>>18679
Either you are implying the Catholics are not Christian are you have no argument.
During the very early stages of Christianity Catholicism and Orthodoxy did not even exist. It was just a myriad of different sects with varying theology.
>>18933
I'm implying, nay, stating, that the theology you're talking about didn't exist until Augustine, and it wasn't adapted as doctrine until after the schism.
I also recognize Catholics as Christians, but I consider the Orthodox Church to be the one founded by Christ.
>>17216
>>18485
Where are you getting your percentages from?
And exactly what part of the Republic gave you the idea that the city in speech that Socrates, Glaucon, and Adeimantus develop was "more democratic" (i.e., ruled by the demos), when it's very evidently ruled by either philosophers when fortune graces the city with one, or the guardians otherwise?
>>20694
>Where are you getting your percentages from?
Just look at history: if people like Jacob Fugger can twist the arms of monarchs, then property and fiances are where real power is.
>And exactly what part of the Republic gave you the idea that the city in speech that Socrates, Glaucon, and Adeimantus develop was "more democratic" (i.e., ruled by the demos), when it's very evidently ruled by either philosophers when fortune graces the city with one, or the guardians otherwise?
It is, but the property is all public.
>>20875
Okay, but how does any of that play into the arguments of *Plato's* book?
The ruler of the city-in-speech (the maker of laws, and the director of policy) has no property. One could *maybe* suggest that that means that Plato was being tricksy, and that he's saying that the people have the real power the whole time, but that has nothing to really do with the more substantive issues in the Republic; the artisans barely get treated at all, and the question is never about whether the ruler has *power* but of what form the city would need to take in order to be a Just city.
And the property is public *for the auxillaries and guardians*. The artisan class seems to be kept out of the picture, and presumably functions as your standard Athenian artisan would, except they'd be customarily expected not to attempt to meddle in business they're not already demonstrably adept at.
>>21281
>The ruler of the city-in-speech (the maker of laws, and the director of policy) has no property
Yes, exactly. His power is thus pretty limited, unless you buy a juridico-discursive conception of power. Pretty meaningless, if you compare Stalin's constitution with his power.
>And the property is public *for the auxillaries and guardians*. The artisan class seems to be kept out of the picture, and presumably functions as your standard Athenian artisan would, except they'd be customarily expected not to attempt to meddle in business they're not already demonstrably adept at.
But on the other hand, they aren't the property of other people, and that is a massive element of power.
>>21465
None of that shows that the city is democratic, or that the city-in-speech is *more* democratic than Athens.
Again, they don't get to make the laws, they don't get to direct policy, and the auxiliaries are designed to be the only people able to fight, and to be ferociously protective of the city and the institutions (such as the position of philosopher king) and ready to kill anyone that threatens to ruin it.
>But on the other hand, they aren't the property of other people, and that is a massive element of power.
Are you getting this from somewhere in the dialogue, because I'm not seeing how it shows that Plato designed a society that was democratic in the least, let alone a society where political power is in the hands of whoever has property.
>>18679
>Christianity was never anti-material.
What about Gnostics?
>>17012
It would be nice to have a phil board, but humanities are phil so
>>18485
even worse ffs
>>21802
When property isn't a factor, there isn't a whole lot of policy to direct, desu
>>22179
>Gnostics
>Christian
Christianity was a Jewish sect claiming to be a continuation of Judaism proper, rivaled by Rabbinic Judaism. Gnostics were never even Jewish, they were just some Greek guys who heard about Christianity and made their own ideas from it, they completely reject the basis of Christianity because they don't think Christ is the Christ (Messiah) from the OT.
"Know thyself is the entire field of knowledge - only when the human being has finally attained knowledge of all things will he have known himself. For things are merely the boundaries of the human being."
What did Nietzsche mean by this?
>>17670
>pseudo-Marxist
What kind of idiot thinks the equating of property with power is a uniquely marxist principle or idea and that it didn't predate marx belonging to political economy as a whole?
>>23755
Pretty obvious if you think about it.
