/lit/ - Literature

>>11734444
I am expecting an answer along the lines of "because its in our nature." My question, properly understood, is why has nothing arisen that combats and strangles this degenerate side of our nature?

This will also be a thread to discuss culture and education. You know, I recently was dumb-founded at how seldom I heard the word "virtue" growing up. Seriously, reading Plato was sort of an epiphany: no one (that I was around either in or out of school) discussed virtue. Why is that? Is the government too afraid to take a side? Do we not trust public schools to do it right?

But even outside of schools. I was raised by a "weak" family, one which never discussed anything regarding how to live. To the extent anything was ever discussed, it was simply my mom saying
> I just want you to be happy
There was never any guidance. Has anyone else come from a family like this? How do you end up?

This is some deep shit bro

Anon I relate to your post, with regards to addiction, i struggle with addiction (less so than i used to). But i think its important to remember that it is possible to overcome it, don't assume that all people are addicts.
Some things that helped me.
Plotinus said "Desire does not negate privation, but creates it", this is the essence of buddhist thought and a lot of eastern thought in general and its not bullshit. Suffering is caused by attachment. It's a chase, desire creates more desire, its the way the brain works. Look into lacanian psychoanalysis, the imaginary, the unattainable object of desire.
Schopenhauer's denial of the will.
Some things call for complete abstinence, but for many things thats not needed, one thing i always come back to is the 'middle way'.
I found the bhagavad gita to be a great resource in discussing these issues, "the problems of life", in a simple and practical way.

These are just the problems of existence, we have an animal body, we live in duality, life isn't meant to be fun and it isn't meant to be a sentence (as far as i know) it just is.
I don't know if this helps at all but this is how i see things at the moment.

>>11734633
But how can we create a culture that educates the young? The question I am trying to raise is not so much about combatting addiction (though your thoughts are helpful) but about why we have addiction in the 21st century. It seems to me that culture has given up trying and that it waits for science to solve all its problems (like, to develop some anti-addiction pill). There is no longer any urgency to the culture. There is no pressing will to solve these deeply personal yet old problems.

As for buddhism, I have never studied the subject myself (and so ought to keep my mouth shut) but I'll reiterate what I have heard: isn't it nihilistic? Doesn't it despise life and wants to go against it?

>>11734677
You're right, institutions are backwards and most people are asleep/don't give a shit. People have too much distractions and are irresponsible, people are raised to be narcissistic. There are people who are trying to solve problems like this though, if you look there are positive cultures. People trying to help, culture is different than what it used to be, the internet is huge and its up to you where you want to focus your vision. At the same time i hold the hopeful belief that culture is self correcting and 'the cream will rise to the top' so to speak, whats needed will be found.

Yes buddhism is generally nihilistic, but that doesn't necessarily mean its life denying, its more of a rational response to the conundrum of life and it ascertains that you can achieve liberation from suffering. You don't have to take the nihilistic aspect of it though thats up to you, you can use it as a tool. Are you nihilistic though?

Does anyone else feel that the problems in their life are ones which people have always dealt with? Does anyone have a problem that they think is purely (post)modern?

>>11735058
> Are you nihilistic though?
I don't seem to have any choice. I mean I tried not to be. I've willed it not to be, but it doesn't work. However, as I convalesce from an all too long depression, I've been searching frantically for a way out. You see, I'm worried my depression could return at any minute.

> i hold the hopeful belief that culture is self correcting and 'the cream will rise to the top'
Unfortunately I don't see this as happening. Perhaps its possible for a small group to develop some new thoughts but there is simply too much inertia to the culture for it to change. I think we're still feeling the consequences of Newton, to be honest. I see it becoming more fractured, for sure. I think it'll remain fundamentally nihilistic. People will become relativists while secretly abhorring that position... I think there'll be another political movement, eventually at least, that takes advantage of the widespread angst. Somewhat like Trumpism. I dislike Trump, but he's certainly no evil. I fear that there'll be something more sinister.

>>11735068
generally yeah but i mean now we have no choice but to confront these problems from a postmodern perspective which tends to complicate things

>>11735118
Don't worry bro it'll be alright in the end

>>11735124
I am not educated enough to know what people mean by the "postmodern perspective." I know it has something to do with rejecting metanarratives. Obviously it is a somewhat rejection of modernism, but this itself was never a term I had fully understood.
...so reading wikipedia makes things a bit more clear. Does postmodernism have to do with the distinction between "is" and "ought"? I'm firmly in the camp that thinks the two are all together separate concepts. And that surely complicates things quite a bit.
I guess my question for you is, how do you choose to confront these problems? Would you be willing to open up about what you deal with?

>>11735131
Thanks anon. I hope so too.

>>11734444
I had similar lived experience, nihilism, anxiety, desperation: desire. looked into buddhism (superficially, ill admit), old master dissecting the self, didnt find what i was looking for. it seemed to me like buddhism and every desire denying philosophy/antropotechnics is itself bound to desire in a perverse way in that it bases itself around desire: where desire goes, I go in the opposite direction. furthermore, isn't wanting to get rid of wants (craves) itself a crave? it seemed like i could never escape desire, because desire is embedded in every motion. went to look into old vedic literature and found my prejudice confirmed: agni vaisvarana, the fire that constitutes all men and the very fabric of existence

>>11735174
yep exactly thus the middle way also this highlights the need for a disciplined practice. The way i think of it i play the game but then i also disconnect from it in a genuine sense, with a proper practice, daily repentance.

Dimwitted bafoons, you have nestled your self into a place of unbecoming, be, do - and think, do not complicate what it takes to be a Man. It is simple and it is sound, it as rock. Find God, submit your life and work for the better hood of all kind. Do not picture where it takes you - you will never know, nor understand the path until after it is done. Tread heavy with each step, each movement and difficulty is to be examined after - learn to train your personhood and why you stand. Are you still a child? Then why do you crawl to your death? I say march, and march unwavering.

>>11735224
who are you calling a bafoon mate haha

>>11735208
If I'm understanding correctly, this is what I do right now too. I do something I don't like (call it X), and then feel down about myself and repent and whatnot.

I might even go a few days without doing X, but undoubtedly I do something else I don't like, and it goes on like this. The thing that I cant smother inside of me is the ambition to live a perfect life. Every time I reflect and look at myself: I see a worthless runt of a thing, useless and hypocritical beyond measure.

Have you given up the urge to "better yourself"? If not, how strong is this urge? I love and covet this urge in me yet I know it'll be the death of me.

>>11735058
Buddhism is God denying, which is essentialy the same as life denying.

>>11735242
So obviously not one such as y

>>11735224
> do not complicate what it takes to be a Man. It is simple and it is sound, it as rock
I don't think it's simple. Though I will admit that it may be simpler for some. I don't know dude. You know, people have to confront what they pull out of deep dark recesses of their minds. It's not about purposefully complicating things, as if life weren't hard enough.

As for God. I've tried to commit to faith, but it has never worked before. I'm still trying. Right now I'm reading the Gospel according to John.

>>11735208
yeah, same
>>11735252
anon, what you need is some self love

>>11735273
You don't commit to faith, faith is it's own thing. It is not belief, it is above it.
Faith is like a primal emotion, you learn to harness that power.

>>11735252
i think you would find the bhagavad gita useful

>>11735252
I can honestly tell you the Bible will help you.

>>11735308
this but the rigveda

>>11735068
The rapid loss of privacy is a new conundrum. Algorithms collecting bits and pieces of our identity, hoping to capture and utilize our very essence. Cameras are becoming ubiquitous and no modern philosopher seems interested in exploring what will be lost because of it. If you go skinny dipping, an image of your naked body could be captured on google earth. The digital panopticon slowly rises and assembles itself. Guess those tribal elders weren't so stupid after all when they avoided the beady eye of the camera centuries ago.

On the other hand, we are now globally conscious in a way that has never happened before. Just as well, since climate change will manifest as a series of horrible events that will build on one another and grow worse over time in a perverse display of compound interest.

>>11735118
Clinton is far more sinister than Trump. I think a great portion of the left wised up to her game just in time. Although she did help expose her true nature through her sheer hubris: the way she ran that campaign was a slap in the face. The contempt was palpable. Her base's vigilant, fawning devotion to her was unnerving. That sickening combination of blatant contempt and unquestioning devotion would be anathema for a republic. The idea that this would be condoned because Clinton is a woman only underscores how stupid she considers other liberals to be. I'd opt for certain chaos over watching the world be subsumed by the epitome of neoliberal avarice: a type of cunning that seeks to sever every ligament of a working democracy. You can be sure as fuck that Clinton would have aggregated a horrendous amount power within the executive branch.

>Who of us is weatherbeaten and dodderer enough to take the mantle of sage and prophet? Who of us is muddleheaded yet soldier enough to attempt the unattemptable and set about as mechanic and surgeon to mend the mind’s sores? O compatriots and fellow man, how can I be understood? O muse, give me thy voice so that thy servant may speak to heal!
This is beautiful, OP.

>>11735321
>>11735308
I'll check these out

>>11735315
I'm trying to gain as much wisdom from the Bible as I can. I'm currently reading John.

>>11735338
Honest question for you, why is privacy a concern for you?

>>11735349
Like I said, your idea of faith is wrong. It's not a mental thing, it's a heart thing. Buddhism teaches mental gymnastics, you are at a crossroads.

Look, you've been getting nothing from the Bible but yet your heart keeps you there. I seriously ask you to take the Bible more seriously, see your self in the Bible. Find where you would be in it's story.

>>11735367
>askesis
>mental gymnastics
dumb posting from the christians as usual

>>11735367
I've tried "leaping into it". I have generally "flopped" to the floor in injury. Thats why, for now at least, all I can hope for is to gain some insight.

It's like when I was a child. I couldn't swallow pills. I would put them in my mouth, take a sip of water, and then...nothing. I couldn't do it. I was physically incapable of it. Of course, I grew up, and lo and behold I can do it (thank God for that, because antidepressants saved my life).

There's a saying from medieval philosophy: "faith seeking understanding". I know this is the only way, as you suggest, but my disposition has always tried to invert this to "understanding seeking faith". That's just how I work. I don't know how to be otherwise. And so I attempt this and fail. What do you make of this approach?

>>11735384
I've studdied everything from Buddhism to the Kabbalah end your squeals swine.
Try to refute any of my points.

>>11735355
>Algorithms collecting bits and pieces of our identity, hoping to capture and utilize our very essence. Cameras are becoming ubiquitous and no modern philosopher seems interested in exploring what will be lost because of it. If you go skinny dipping, an image of your naked body could be captured on google earth.
All these trends point to constant monitoring. The only people who receive such treatment are prisoners. What gives others the right to monitor my activity when I have done nothing wrong?

>>11735392
already did

>>11735393
because most of it you enter into willingly by using things like the internet. Some of it you can't escape but a lot of is voluntary

>>11735391
Unbearing of anything fruitful.

Have you tried to understand love? Understand God truely is a loving God. But the only way to have faith onto him would be to truly love him.

> reads NEETshe once

>>11734444
Those are some very good starting essay passages. I would suggest a few changes just from those isolates passages as by themselves, but I doubt my changes would alter positively the finished product, besides a few little pieces. One, for example, “O compatriots and fellow man, how can I be understood? O muse, give me thy voice so that thy servant may speak to heal!” The essay speaks in a style addressed to the modernity of the twenty-first century, yet reverts to this style of poetry outdated by a hundred years, if not a little longer. But, of course, that could be taken clearly as your dedication and passion to include this style dotted in your work, which is understandable (it reminds me very much of one of my favourite writers, Robert Burton), but I feel it would be more thematic and strenuous on you to emulate that old style, almost as if it were satire you were enacting in this style that can only be addressed by the given formality that what style you are writing in is in a way “safely” older, than if you were to write a poetic style more your own. And also, in a general concern, though I would feel a little biased in both agreeing with and against you on it, that you should try and modernise your writing style tailored to your own actually altogether. But that is obviously stepping stones in preference to your ideal vision of the essay piece and the taking of whichever direction you would like to see this essay’s style take. I genuinely liked the excerpts and hope to see it finished.

>>11735355
I would say privacy is in part dignity, and dignity, I suppose, would be fundamental. Privacy from corporations and governments is the sheltering and security against becoming some numerical caricature, a simple consumer, or reduced to [threat] or [no threat]. There's not much in way of argument, it's mostly a sentiment. If someone followed you around with a camera you would be anxious and even become angry. You instinctively know something is wrong.

>>11735393
But why do you fear this?
Serious question, I do not fear this.

>>11735397
Cute.

>>11734444
me be so deep me gwaun ask da boys on 4chan for help me construct me passages mon and den when i publish i not gwan cite dem mon, me gwaun look so deep that stacey gwuwan want fuck me mon, look me write like neetcheee mon like zaratoostra mon da only book i've ever read mon this book gwaun change the world mon i swear mon it's so deep i'm 23 and have all the answers mon read me book mon me guan be next neetcheeeee

>>11735418
>I would say privacy is in part dignity
But this is wrong, as a Child your parents should teach you this young in life.
This is an extreme - but sharing is caring.

Becoming a cog in society is up to the individual and always has been. Privacy has nothing to do with this.

You're argueing with emotions and not logic.

>christians trying to into buddhism

>>11735431
mon we so deep mon me spend me time arguing with da boys on 4chan mon even tho me have all the answers mon i still shrink to argue with da boys mon stay humble 4/20 mon i not in the clouds with neetzsheeeee mon me gwuan stay right here with da boys arguing like wise mon me love argue mon me deepest boy EVA mon dat's why i always take the time to argue with anons on 4fchan MON MON OMN

>>11735435
More like: > christians larping as nietzchan as a christian trying to into buddhism

>>11735416
Thanks for your advice. I understand where your coming from. Ideally I would write in the modern way, a la Bertrand Russell or somebody, but for whatever reason whenever I set out to, say, write like I talk, I just fall flat on my face. I end up reading a lot of older philosophy (call it poetical philosophy) so this just comes more naturally. But I'll be the first to admit that this wouldn't sway many people. Most would probably give it up or think its satire, as you pointed out. Thanks again, anon

>>11735432
imagine being such a willing cuck lol

>>11735432
> You're argueing with emotions and not logic.
Well we're speaking of values and not facts, haha. But that gets into a whole other discussion!

> This is an extreme - but sharing is caring.
Sharing is caring. But how much should one share of oneself? Everything?

>>11735449
> knows he is larping like a faggot
> wants to write like bertrand russel
> writing EXACTLY like nietzsche in thus spoke zara "comes more naturally"

fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you you are pretentious trash

you are pretentious trash

you are pretentious trash

you are pretentious trash

you are prententious trash

get it through your fucking skull

>>11735118
>I think we're still feeling the consequences of Newton
Explain this further please

>>11735468
calm down there bud. I'm not trying to impress anyone

>>11735449
Not a problem. And that is entirely understandable, how you put it; I am very much the same. I wish you all the best. Don’t let the fools in this thread bother putting you down. It seems they are just projecting all their insecurities in the claims of unoriginality in writing onto you for the sake of what they are clearly proving about themselves, that they have no place to speak of originality, or even recognising it while it is being written better by upcoming writers like yourself.

>>11735432
It's good to have boundaries, anon. It's important to enforce those boundaries when technology enables many to transgress them.

>>11735462
Well God does.

Do you think you are so important you would be individualy picked out and policed? The power is already there for that and yet here you are arguing for the undoing of time.

>>11735507
Technology has always pushed the bounderies by it's mere existence. It's like adding a new mathmatical concept - it is there to not be denied it's privlidge, it's use is it's life.

Do you deny the Life of a metaphysical idea anon? How?

>>11735491
Really all I mean is that once you start looking at what things are made up of, once you really take the atomist view seriously, and once reason/science has had some success in that it can make complicated predictions and such, then what naturally happens is that reason runs riot over the mind. Actually, I guess it has more to do with the Socratic way of life than Newton. Anyways, once reason gets a bit confident it sets out looking everywhere, overturning every stone. And, lo and behold, it doesn't like what it finds; "values" are entirely arbitrary! And so on. I think too much reason, in short, leads to nihilism, at least at first. It remains to be seen if nihilism can ever be escaped.

>>11735546
I've escaped Nihilism. There is a pathway outside the dimview - the fragmented life of a self idoler. But would believe?
Nay, I say you would not.
I say you would argue and riot at my word of intruding burdens.

>>11735531
Technology is a tool devoid of conscience and must be wielded accordingly. People determine the uses of technology, so the onus is on people to use it wisely. Do not hand your agency over to a shiny new tool and call it life. It's only you, handling a tool, hoping to skirt the repercussions of your actions through its sheer novelty.

>>11735525
The TSA already does this. The Boston Globe exposed a program that actually follows people who are on no watchlist or anything--just ordinary people who didn't something awkward in the airport. And I don't think we need to go back in time to restore privacy. Reasonable policy measures could do that.

Like I said, I don't have many arguments. I think it is a value judgement to make

But I throw it back at you: do you support the loss of privacy?

>>11735557
Try me, anon. I will try to be receptive. Is it a religious path? Because I don't doubt such a path exists. I just don't know how to follow it.

>>11735563
>technology is a tool
Wrong, technology is an idea, an idea that lives inside modern man. This is why the post modern man has fallen, he has forgot what is and is not.

>People determine the uses of technology
Wrong, perversion inside man determines the use.

>Do not hand your agency over to a shiny new tool and call it life. It's only you, handling a tool, hoping to skirt the repercussions of your actions through its sheer novelty.
Wrong, I have faith in God, and I have faith God sculpts this world.

How do you deny a key virtue of God, yet cry for your ethics which still fall short of God's?

>>11735565
Okay, and what is wrong with watching people? Please explain to me. Do you watch people?
Do you think if AI were to exist it would be able to watch people?
What if a said God where to act as an AI?

I support nothing but the now, I maintain that your fear of the future is a failure on your part to understand your current position in society.

>>11735568
Of course it's a religious path. It's a path of self denial - literally succumbing to God, and using his virtue as providence.

>>11735468

>>11735582
So technology is an idea, its use is determined by man's perversion, and this is all in accordance with God? So what is God's key virtue? Being a pervert?

>>11735606
Why do you not understand man has Fallen and does Not use his Will?

God is perfection - man is not.
Your nihilistic idealogy is why you fail to think seriously about this topic.

>>11735591
> I support nothing but the now
I suppose there is were we differ. One should be interested in the future as well.

>>11735645
The future is becoming - by product alone of the now.

So I ask, where exactly do we differ? Because I believe we both want what's best for humanity and society as a whole.

>>11735622
Are you trying to force God to intercept on man's behalf with technology?

>>11735788
Yes, but I'm also saying it's inevitable.

>>11734444
>If you are not dealing with these problems, if you are ubermensch enough to look down on our situation, please explain how it is you got that way.

Curry a situation where your carnal desires are achievable and your intellectual achievements are enough to self examine any situation that brings you into the trappings of animalistic cravings, so that you are hyper-aware of the developments and can always end it. Ignore your own happiness. Become a slave to yourself. Become the will and lose consciousness and supplant it with others', as your own was already a patchwork, a palimpsest of auto-progeny and autophilia that serves no other purpose than to feel safe in your limitations, and other's are where the dimensions of the world lives, where the escape route lives. Enlightenment is recognizing yourself as a stranger against time.

>>11735808
you bastard

>>11735842
True.

To answer a few of your questions...
Very similar path in life, parents were non-entities in terms of values, and yet there was a strange guiding principle beneath all of it. In a sense, I was always an anachronism because my parents themselves were caught out of time - compelling one into an impulsive society.
I suppose this pathologized my search for meaning and value, as not only was I raised devoid of any guidance but forced to see the world from a point of negative values and guidance. This is perhaps a large part of any adventure into the abstract world of metaphysics and theology - or addiction even. The ability to simply live is in some way lost to us, and while we question the dominant values of society we can quite easily turn ourselves into inhuman beings. It becomes quite easy to become the imp in the globe, or the poisoned thorn in the middle of the path - we are caught between worlds of cultivation and darkness. Irregardless of how right we may be, we are stuck with the curse of delaying our mourning.
To contrast this with a video game one might say that the resolution of values has been turned down, the settings - even at the lowest level - threaten to overheat the GPU. Gravitas, clementia, and prudentia are not only turned down to zero but seem to cause a glitch in the NPCs where they attack any player who attempts to level them. World-building, subjectivity, and process are all wrapped up in a way that the mechanics of value have no meaning, and when we attempt to search for these things in the traditional way we only find ourselves more lost - such is the paradox of meaning in the modern world.
As for drugs, I don't think we should see them in the sense of addiction. Rather, the purpose of drugs is entirely that of ritualisation - and in modern times the rite begins with that of attenuation to a world in which being cannot keep up without relinquishing its human form. The drug is thus a technique of maintaining capacity, and this explains the prevalence of extreme accelerants and painkillers - while alcohol has lost its position and is instead relegated to performance as an off-switch. Where addiction takes over one is merely becoming out of time with his attenuation, he is no longer using his drug to keep him in rhythm with machinic-being; and this could be his searching for classical rites in drugs, or simply an inability of his character to keep up with such powerful drugs. As the potency increases so too do the numbers of those incapable of enduring the residues of Gods which have overtaken Bacchus in their drunkenness.

>>11735905
2/2
Another way of seeing this is in our being which approaches immortality: the knowledge of our death is lost to us. We are thus caught between worlds by our very nature, fated misanthropes. Thus, the drug may act as a surrogate of our going into mourning - or in the case of impending doom, that lingering collective death which gets too close and threatens us with its knowledge, we use it in our tarrying with Life itself. Death, which is forever lost to us, is not enough of an enemy, and so we enter the tavern to contend with something greater: that which fates death itself.
One of the great catastrophes of Christianity is how failure and doom is written into its story. We are fated to contend with the unknown, a great abstraction which God himself cannot put words to. In the old pagan myths one at least had the opportunity of knowing the spirits of which he would have to fight for his life. Our fates are not always attached to law, and in the modern era this becomes the case for everyone: law is in opposition to all of us, as it is a desecration of justice. It is in this sense that meaning and rite can be seen as free of purpose, and nihilism itself has become law. But nihilism has a purpose, it is that unfolding which always overwhelms us at the end of a journey. For those of us standing outside of its mysteries, dumbfounded, we are simply overwhelmed by the overwhelming.
But others have found meaning in it, such unending nihilism is their 'understanding seeking faith', because God is no longer outside of the world. He was extricated, and we in turn extricated Him. He is now something we must form ourselves into. All theology today speaks to this: we have taken on His wounds as if they are our own. No wonder then that there is such gravity and hopelessness, for such a task is certainly beyond us. And no doubt the quest to replace God with human values only deepens the catastrophe. For there is little doubt that Asclepius administered differing treatment to His own than to humans. So perhaps our healing can only be seen through the sepsis, or hospital sickness, which inevitably comes with the weight of drugs and sutures not intended for us.

>>11735909
Damn. High quality anon posting is high quality.

>>11735857
Why do you feel so divorced from God that you must find every opportunity to accelerate the demise of his creation in order to meet him? We're crossing a delicate threshold and this is your impetus? Has he locked you into some insufferable existence? Is that why?
You don't want to continue at all, do you? So this is where you've been all along.

>>11735909
>law is in opposition to all of us, as it is a desecration of justice.
How so? You mention because we must not follow the law, but I don't see this logically flowing from the last premise.

>>11736001
same fag

>>11736036
Modern law and Christian law are two different things, and law itself may be in opposition to justice. As well, our fate (or spiritual essence) can easily be in contention with the law, which turns us into something of an exile, or even atheistic in the classical sense.
At least in Christianity there remained the possibility of justice, but in the modern era this possibility is written out entirely - or reduced to the individual's balancing of chance and his willingness to enslave himself to such ardent possibility. Law is materialised, recreated as divinity through its very certainty within the world - and thus divine law, as well as its parent Justice, is made impossible.
This is why I say it is a desecration. To go into it further would take too much space, but I did not say that 'we must not follow the law,' only that true law must tarry with Justice and form itself of that spirit which she cuts out of the elemental through Her blind sight. By its very nature, then, Justice knows our true spirits and that which it cuts into implies a thrust which exists beyond our worldly spirit and its laws.
There is no certainty in this, yet it does imply that any system of stone laws can divide us from our spirits leaving a darkness even greater than nihilism. For what is that meaninglessness which we can sense yet is outlawed by something even more than law? The ungraspable by nature of our being?

>>11736181
>arduous possibility

>>11736181
law is not a big deal, why do you focus on in it so much?

>>11736221
You asked for my clarification on a question of law, perhaps?
And we live in a world where law is almost everything, a supposedly capitalist world, and yet the justice department employs more people than any conglomerate. What are you even trying to say?
How could law not be a big deal? It is literally the only arena in which old world aesthetics still reign, so how do you justify saying that it is not a big deal?

>>11734459
>why has nothing arisen that combats and strangles this degenerate side of our nature?

how can you write pretty words and still be functionally retarded?

>>11736289
>It is literally the only arena in which old world aesthetics still reign,
I'm saying this isn't a big deal.

>>11734444
>Where are our antidotes?

>>11736375
i think it's a joke.

>>11736375
Ok, so explain how law - which is a cornerstone of society and generally one of the main questions of philosophy - isn't a big deal.
Or continue to follow the law of libertines while simultaneously arguing for a morality beyond law.

>>11736289
I think it's a joke.

>>11736397
I'm talking about your emotional reaction to current law is laughable, it's going to change there is no reason to make an argument to change it.

>>11736404
You are clearly a troll trying to derail the thread. What's the point?

>>11736412
I'm not, I'm saying your heated up over a mere distraction and there are better things to philosophize about

>>11736420
Ok, then maybe you could answer the questions I already posed?
Or, how about explaining the way in which law is a mere distraction?
And what exactly are these better things to philosophize about?

>>11735255
Does Buddhism deny the Abrahamic conception of God? Sure, you could say that. However, I think it's bit of stretch to say it's "God denying" in totality. "God" is such a loaded term, that depending on what you mean, Buddhism could very much claim the existence of "God." Even the Buddha was referred to as "Bhagavan" (meaning "Lord"), in a similar sense to the Vedic Bhagavan (e.g. Bhagavad-Gita)

Hell, there's even room for intercession from deities in Buddhism, such as Amitabha, the devas, or even Indra (the Indo-European sky father) himself. The problem is that the Abrahamic-infused Western mindset, whether consciously or unconsciously, identifies itself as being an "immortal soul" made by "God" destined for "heaven." Since Buddhism either ignores or even denies such concepts, we tend to think this just means "we are nothing, enlightenment is extinction, nothing exists." This of course is primarily a problem with interpretation, not ontological reality.

>>11736181
Did not expect the Christian aspect of this answer, and this explains my confusion. Are you saying laws are opposed to us because written man-made laws are not omniscient, and thus do not actually possess justice but the reputation of it that manifests it to ourselves?
>>11736221
Not this anon

>>11736438
>"Bhagavan" (meaning "Lord"),
Not GOD. This is heavily implied by his own language.

Buddhism is about self preservation.

>>11736503
Well, Christian law was part of the original argument, which is why I attempted to clarify. Christianity has an aspect of law which is absent in the old paganism, it unveils a rigidity while also taking hold of uncertain areas of life - which can also veil the hidden if this aspect becomes dominant.
So, in a sense, I am saying that Christianity tends towards the worldly to the extent that it undermines its own doctrine through that which can only be carried out by the worldly. Particularly, in terms of law, I am saying that once we lose the ability to apprehend Justice we are destined to collapse into a state where worldly application of justice becomes omniscient. This is linked to a greater argument, that Christianity presupposes a fall into knowledge even though its doctrine is that of faith - so it is in contradiction of its greatest law. With this in mind we can imagine what becomes of its commandments: they too escape the divine realm and become entrenched within the worldly.
Modern law is birthed from this progressive abandonment of heavenly law, so in contradiction it becomes both omniscient in the world and impotent within the heavens - which explains the lunacy surrounding many of its decrees and what appears to be an unfolding of all laws into lawlessness. This is because of its total abandonment of divine justice. Proof of this can be seen in the excrescence which is the justice system, now invading every last corner of 'innocent' life. Such a monstrosity occurs as a desecration of Lady Justice.
Hopefully that clarifies it a bit, it can be hard to explain such contradictions.

>>11736596
define christian law?

>>11736604
I don't see what the point of that would be other than causing us to wander even further from the question at hand.
What matters is the extent to which a circumscribed set of laws begins to separate our spirit from our being. And pagan 'doctrine', if one can even call it that, allows for an intricacy and nuance which is abandoned by Christianity - hence why its conception of justice can only be applied to singular cases and a worldly delegation of tasks. It lost the ability to apprehend divine law because of its emphasis on resolving the human representative form through eternal decree. The very symbols of divine law are written out, and presumed to be triumphed over.
And this prevents Christianity from ever returning to a divine form of law, thus condemning itself to a law of anachronism or capitulation to its temporal reserves. In other words, it grounded the eternal God within the temporal - this is its greatest strength and weakness. In form, however, there is an emphasis on the temporal, which again is a contradiction of its greatest law, or statement of intent.
The necessity of control unveils that which an authority is incapable of reconciling with. In this case, the Christian God is incapable of reconciling with the world, which casts doubt on the true nature of his being.

>>11736740
I'm saying you can't define Christian law because your not Christian. You have no actual idea what are you talking about.

>>11736802
>your
You can't write proper words, so why are you writing them?
>>11736412

>>11736855
>denies argument on grammar.
Swine

>>11736887
Will you spare my feelings?
https://youtu.be/phL_SGPSrN4

bump

up

>>11734444
You need to take a long break, I mean a year or two years, from reading Nietzsche. You've obviously just been reading a lot of Nietzsche, and consequently you sound like Icycalm trying to sound like Nietzsche. Don't worry, we've all been there. If I am wrong and it's not Nietzsche, then it's certainly someone else with an infectious style. You need a palate cleanser.

>>11734444
I would be willing to post the rest of the essay once its finished? I would like to read it.