/lit/ - Literature

story of the eye

the story of oedipus

>>18756960
No individual woman is worth obsessing over.

>>18756960
i thought that was a black queen showing whitey how she be readin. i'm disappointed

>>18756960
death in venice

>>18756960

>>18757006
She didnt look up from the book for an hour, i wish i had the balls to go talk to her but alas, here i am posting a creepy picture i took

I'd rather castrate myself than fall in love again. What a shitty experience overall, the high feels like opiate intoxication completely out of your control and then you gradually descend into circle of abuse, dejection and cuckoldry. It leaves you permanently disillusionment too. Of course, women can go through identical experience but they usually end up riding new cocks even before the failed relationship breaks up. If you insist on investing emotions somewhere, get a dog instead. They're called man's best friend for a reason.

>>18757037
it is for the best anon

madonna in a fur coat

>>18756960
A lot of Nabokov's works

>>18757045
This. Romantic love may have worked in the past when there was immense social pressure for woman to be chaste and feminine, but falling in love with a modern whore is a recipe for disaster.

>>18757037
Just stalk her anon; she's sure to return to the place where you took the photo. What you need to do is slowly plant the idea in her mind. Walk around where she lives wearing all black cloths, snatching glances at her; leave little notes in places she frequents talking about how beautiful she is, the way she walks, showers etc.; start sending messages to her online from various fake accounts, all saying similar things—etc. Eventually her esteem and self-grounding will be sufficiently shot that you can swoop in and save her from her own 'inner' demons.

Don't fuck it up op.

War and Peace

>>18757045
>>18757117
What if we combine the two ideas?

Op, have you considered seducing and fucking a female dog?

>>18757126
It was at an airport so i doubt it, 1 shot and i was too much of a coward to take it

>>18756960
That is a beautiful picture, symbolic of some unnatainable ideal, maybe some day attainable, who knows

>>18757003
So should one obsess over the collective of women?

>>18757276
yes

>>18756960
Definitely not my diary.

>>18757045
>>18757117
>>>/r9k/

>>18757037
wtf even is this? looks like a high school

>>18757391
An airport

>>18757117
spot on. It is not in women's interest to fall in love, unless he is a perfect chad. If you are an average joe, you dont deserve love and if you think you do, you will just inflict unnecessary suffering unto yourself

>>18756960
Faust

>>18757423
You literally have NOTHING to lose at a fucking airport. you were a pussy.

at least when I was a pussy over girls I wanted to ask out it was because they were ingrained in social circles I'm a part of

If she wasn’t young and fit you wouldn’t give a shit, real love only comes from above, you just want to cum.

You’re not in love you’re in lust, the proof? Imagine her turning to dust, the phlegm and pus which fills her body, imagine her body swollen with water and fat, her face becoming gaunt and saggy, it’s not about the book, it’s not about her, you just want to fuck her, if you just want to fuck you may as well go and jerk off in pathetic silence or actually go and ask a girl out for a date. Don’t talk about love when you haven’t the faintest idea of what love is, genuine human love is made not discovered, it is like a machine made of iron and not a quick dying flame. Built by mutual work, years and shared aspects, chief among them children and day fo day services. Until you can look at a woman as you would look a family member in terms of closeness, love And duty, you do not love her in the least. Do not mistake perversion for something so perfect as love.

>>18757489
Youre entirely right im such a fucking coward AAAAAAAAAAA

>>18757535
What a drama queen

>>18757535
he probably felt tender feelings for her. Yes, she was beautiful, but don't rob him of his innocence of intention with this blubbery about children and day to day life. Maybe she was suited to his platonic ideal, his monad of pure womanhood. He saw in her something from his own soul, perhaps. Don't be so crude, just to accuse someone else of crudeness.

>>18757559
I’m right and you know it, if she was a fat pig you wouldn’t care, I’m not saying it’s wrong to be attracted, but obsession because they’re youthful and fit is all that this is.

>>18757542
It's nothing anon who cares. I've done worse. But read my rec you're gonna love it>>18757062
its the perfect autism for you

The history of love by Nicole Krauss

>>18757535
Is mutual sexual attraction not the foundation upon which love is built on, you cannot remove reproduction, the essential link between man and woman, entirely from the equation of love

>>18757572
>he probably felt tender feelings for her.

He felt dick-pleasures towards her. There is nothing cute about it, he wants to reproduce and she had the right combination of youth, fitness and from the book, accessibility.

>Yes, she was beautiful, but don't rob him of his innocence

There’s nothing innocent about the romantic delusions infecting people, innocence is approaching the world freshly as it is, it takes conditioning to mistake Lust for love, if I go to a bunch of 14 year olds they’ll be able to tell you they feel lust because their minds aren’t being obscured by polite society and romantic larp.

>of intention with this blubbery about children and day to day life.

What is more pure and more real than this?

>Maybe she was suited to his platonic ideal,

What ideal? What did he see? He saw nothing and grasped nothing but an aesthetical pleasure partaking Of no discernible qualities other than youth, fitness and relatability, there is no form being grasped, it is flesh desiring flesh.


>his monad of pure womanhood. He saw in her something from his own soul, perhaps.

And you say I’m speaking blubbery? Why deny the truth, he saw some random girl and got attracted.

>Don't be so crude, just to accuse someone else of crudeness.

I am being accurate. It’s far healthier to approach these things as they are.

>>18757535
You are right, of course, but I happen to enjoy and acknowledge my perversion. It's women who forces us into an emotional prisoner's dilemma.

>>18757616
Mutual sexual attraction dies in the vast majority of long term relationships, other than the mutual link (which isn’t even important if we consider how common arranged marriages are historically throughout all of humanity.) and sexual attraction does not guarantee long-term love, and displays of affection similarly are not love, these conceptions of love are why your people have 40% divorce rates and titanic amounts of cheating from both partners. The foundation of love is not sexual attraction but reproduction itself and the reproduced children. You cannot isolate the essential component of mutual work and shared offspring.

>>18757632
That’s completely fine, as long as you realize this is just sexual attraction you can instead of being overly emotional, take the pussy off the pedestal and approach this in a much more animalistic way. If you understand this is an animal question you can act naturally, if you idealize it, it will be impossible.

>>18757037
seeing a pretty girl at an airport isnt love lmao

>>18757620
>>18757572
>>his monad of pure womanhood.
I don't think there is a way I could use that syntagm in a conversation and not end up being misunderstood as referring to someone's vulva.

>>18757581
If she was a fat pig then that would let me assume a couple of things
>No discipline
>No drive to improve
>Obviously doesn't care about her body
>Indulges in comfort instead of seeking real
happiness (Sits on her ass all day eating shit)
How can i love someone who doesn't love themselves?

>>18757117
>>18757045
Incel alert

>>18757045
Learn to live in this wicked world, buddy. Love is a part of it, you just have to be careful or a douchebag.

>>18757620
Doesn't loving the form of something the same as loving the something itself?
Checkmate liberal

>>18757701
You literally know nothing about this girl other than aesthetics at a glance for a moment, don’t pretend there’s any deeper reason for liking this girl, for all you know she has a fast metabolism and just eats junk food and reads YA all day when she’s not too busy stomping on puppies. You literally do not know her.

>>18757734
>You literally do not know her.
I do

>>18757276
worse

>>18757740
The same way you know a rotten apple from a fresh one.
No one asked you to write poems and swear undying loyalty to the apple you want to eat tho.

>>18757725
Loving the sensual image of the thing is not loving the universal formal existent which pervades the thing. In Plato and the neoplatonists the sensual can be a link to the actual form by contemplation and universalization, the easiest smallest book on this would be Bonaventure and an aesthetic example of this is Dante with Beatrice, the sensual is not the formal though both are harmonized in the aesthetical, they are not one in normative perception.

all I can say is, if a girl isn't like pic related I would rather die alone, as I could care less about day to day life. I would have, and have had, short tempestuous love affair(s) and write about it into old age, rather than marry some pleb peasant woman. I don't care about fatness, your strawman, however.
>>18757620

>>18757813
>all I can say is, if a girl isn't like pic related I would rather die alone,

Alright so if your shallow ideals of beauty which get your cock going aren’t met you rather die alone without wife nor children, nice, innocent right?

>as I could care less about day to day life. I would have, and have had, short tempestuous love affair(s) and write about it into old age, rather than marry some pleb peasant woman. I don't care about fatness,

A lonely, hard, unaesthetical life bred out of the ideals of other men, if you want to lie yourself and pretend shallow physical attraction is the end all and be all, be your own guest. You and everyone you love will lost their youth and age, becoming ugly. Leaving you with nothing but your larp.

>>18757834
I'm handsome and not a sperg, so you don't really know how my life will turn out, now do you? I just know what I love.

>>18757845
What does your looks matter? I know because this is how life works, everything is subject to decay and everything you love about youth and flesh will decay, rot and waste away, that’s the cycle of this world. If you obsess over whats transient than your joy will also be transient, what does it matter if you’re handsome now or that this woman is beautiful now if your entire basis for loving them is physical and passing? I will tell you because if you open your eyes and look around you, nothing stays the same, everyone grows sagging, ugly, even the beautiful people you meet will become ugly by acting ugly with you, basing your entire happiness and human relationships on these transient things is so incredibly foolish and short sighted. You don’t love any of these things, you’re just attracted, you have likely never felt what it is to genuinely love a female, for love is not a flame.

>>18757884
You keep acting like she’s just some whore, but there is context from OP that you are missing. She’s a cute reader. That is lovable, but maybe she is really flawed like your straw man assumes. In that case he has the memory of her unspoiled by any direct association of her. He is better off having not acted, because she was busy, but he is not wrong for feeling the way he did. I don’t think with my penis, like you assume, but maybe he did, also like you say he did, but like someone else said you can’t John at divorce that from love.

>>18757908
Just*
and also sorry if that was rambling I almost got run over just now

>>18757045
Agree. Unless the love is mutual it is a very painful experience. And love can easily override reason. Even the strongest men fall pray of it.

After the disappointment falling in love again is harder though which is… good or bad depending on ur perspective.

>>18757908
>You keep acting like she’s just some whore,

I have never said she is a whore, I have said we know literally nothing about her besides her looks. The fact you have this perfection-whore dichotomy when in truth she could be literally anything speaks a ton no?

>but there is context from OP that you are missing. She’s a cute reader.

By cute you mean fuckable, you see attractive qualities, dont sanitize it, her reading says nothing about her as a person, she could be reading anything and her consuming a kind of product says nothing about her mind or person.

>That is lovable, but maybe she is really flawed like your straw man assumes.

I don’t assume anything other than the fact we don’t know anything about her.

>In that case he has the memory of her unspoiled by any direct association of her. He is better off having not acted, because she was busy, but he is not wrong for feeling the way he did.

He is certainly wrong for exaggerating and not just saying to himself “this girl makes me horny, she looks pretty.”

>I don’t think with my penis, like you assume, but maybe he did, also like you say he did, but like someone else said you can’t John at divorce that from love.

Sure you can, look at the number of sexual attraction based relations which end quickly and never produce love, the many relationships which have love and are lasting which lack sexual attraction.

The only straw man being made is the one you have made; but rather, an idol. You have seen an image and having obsessed over it, believe you see a world, a person, a spirit. You see nothing of the sort, you only see a momentary passing image.

Frater, I love beauty, and yet beauty is not meant to last in this world. I am not even sure we will continue to love and see beauty in the hereafter. Nor will there be sex or intimacy, which is what I lack.

Shall I dissolve all of my loves into one love? I love a brother differently from a lover, or a parent, or a friend, or God Himself. However, only one love (so it is said) will remain, and I find it a pity that love of beautiful things, such as nature, or bodies, will perish.

>>18757948
yeah, maybe you're right. But I can't change. I get tender feelings and fall in love with beauty and cuteness. But beauty is different for everybody. I certainly think it is romantic of OP, however. I maintain that he is correct, however flawed that correctness is. Even if it is wrong to be like him, he is still in the high atmosphere, not the peasant nature of things as they are.

>>18757956
>Frater, I love beauty, and yet beauty is not meant to last in this world. I am not even sure we will continue to love and see beauty in the hereafter. Nor will there be sex or intimacy, which is what I lack.
>Shall I dissolve all of my loves into one love? I love a brother differently from a lover, or a parent, or a friend, or God Himself. However, only one love (so it is said) will remain, and I find it a pity that love of beautiful things, such as nature, or bodies, will perish.

All that is good derives from God and being with God is not a dull oneness but rather a perfect inter penetration, all of these Loves and beauties shall remain but interpenetrated with the love of God, their true glory unveiled, christ loved his mother and his brothers and his lord and commands us to Love God the most and love our neighbor second. We are told also that heaven and earth declare God’s glory, that they praise God by their nature and God delighted in their creation, and if we consider it logically, that beauty is the perception of the harmony among things, and that the harmony of all things is truth, the essence of this harmony, the harmonizer, is God, then the idea that we shall lose beauty or lose anything Good is proven wrong, we are only given more goodness and holiness, more perfection.

When this world is made new again, so also shall passing and dying die, then the glory of God in creation you will behold forever.

Basically all of them

>>18756960
Everything Goethe. He also changed his views on love as he got old.

>>18757992
Frater, you tell me everything I hoped for, yet that is precisely why I fear to hear it.

Do you believe all will be saved, in the end, through whatever means (their free will intact, of course)? And the same with the legions of Satan and Satan himself? I believe the greatest thing would be for God to gather those lost sheep back under his wing. We would be appalled if a child were to be punished, having committed relatively few sins, but we are like children to God. With our few years of sin, we do not even begin to amount to His infinitude; so how can he let us and Satan languish in our own error? Would not the loving thing, the greatest reconciliation, the greatest beauty be to, having given us this life as an opportunity to create our personalities, restore everything to a higher state?

The only apparent thorn in your flower is physical beauty and erotic love; I do not suppose that will exist. Nor do I suppose any human behavior (eating, seeing nature) will exist; or perhaps I have not read the right theology. My impression has always been that it will be a very subtle, spiritual existence by God's throne, praising Him forever and ever and never moving, thinking, or acting otherwise.

>>18757535
It is true that love has to be built between the two, but the initial attraction is irrational and uncontrollable. Most men cant love an ugly woman no matter how good her feelings are.

The base of love is an initial sexual and emotional attraction. This is, platonic love.

Only platonic love can become real love.

>>18757983
>yeah, maybe you're right. But I can't change. I get tender feelings and fall in love with beauty and cuteness.

Emotions and feeling are not wrong but they also ought not be your master, they are a workhorse; not to be destroyed but used for your benefit.

>But beauty is different for everybody.

I genuinely believe beauty is perception of harmony, in which sensual images conform with certain ideals held by the perceiver. While the ideal may be different, it being harmony remains the same.

>I certainly think it is romantic of OP, however.

It being overly romantic without relation to the real is the problem.

>I maintain that he is correct, however flawed that correctness is. Even if it is wrong to be like him, he is still in the high atmosphere, not the peasant nature of things as they are.

There is more profound in the subtle than in the gross, and I am the most vain, the most vanity and decadence obsessed, I believe the peasant is similarly obsessive with the vain, vanity is not high mindedness, it is the most lowly of obsessions, obsession with a passing pretty sensual image. If you genuinely seek the most high minded then you would cast off your vanity, your care for sensual images and all aesthetical considerations and concern yourself with the most universal and ideal. That is the least peasant-like.

>>18758077
I am not that anon, but I am still a simple man. I love sensual and cosmetic beauty, but the greatest beauty is that of the personality (the love that doesn't care if the partner becomes ugly, or if there is a falling-out). It is something more subtle and imperishable.

However, in a distant reality, perhaps physical beauty will be restored, eternally, and we will be rewarded for our longsuffering and love of the finer aspect (having thereby edified ourselves) with such a thing.

I do not find it possible to cast off aesthetic considerations; I am still a man. That you concern yourself with something higher up the ladder (the universal) does not entail that you should knock off the lower rungs (the sensual). Where will your feet rest, then?

Unless you mean something different by "universal;" do elucidate it, Frater.

>>18758061
>Do you believe all will be saved, in the end, through whatever means (their free will intact, of course)? And the same with the legions of Satan and Satan himself?

I do not believe in the doctrine of apocatastasis as I do not believe the Bible ever speaks of it.

>i believe the greatest thing would be for God to gather those lost sheep back under his wing.

God offers this to all, God’s hunger and desire for men is all devouring and all consuming, burning so much in desire that hell itself is the flame thereof, and I know for he says as much himself, even if I were cast into hell he would be there with me also, and I know he would suffer with more sorrow than any man in hell, and there is beauty in this also.


>We would be appalled if a child were to be punished, having committed relatively few sins, but we are like children to God.

You would perhaps, but not me, for the sins of the parent do pass to the child, just as in the flood the children, the babies were drowned in the deluge along with their parents, so also will the children who themselves have not gone to god and have not parent give them to God.

>With our few years of sin, we do not even begin to amount to His infinitude; so how can he let us and Satan languish in our own error?

For our debt is infinite, the cost of a singular sin is death, because sin is not against another man, it is not against the Law, it is against God. Sin is Imperfection against he, if you wish to consider a loving relationship it is god and man, and sin is us infringing this relationship. The cost of such is infinite, which is why an infinite sacrifice (the Logos becoming flesh and dying) was required.

>Would not the loving thing, the greatest reconciliation, the greatest beauty be to, having given us this life as an opportunity to create our personalities, restore everything to a higher state?

This life is our opportunity.


>The only apparent thorn in your flower is physical beauty and erotic love; I do not suppose that will exist.

You are flawed then in your understanding, for we will have these in even holier and greater forms, the forms we know of being faint shadows of the true beauty of these, for my proof read the erotic poetry of the Song of Solomon, read the nature-based poetry of psalms and consider how heaven is described as bejeweled, the beauty of love between man and woman shall be magnified into the love between the bride and bridegroom.

>Nor do I suppose any human behavior (eating,) will exist;

In Eden they did and these things are thanked for and praised to God for, as such I do not see why we shall not partake of the good things which god delighted in creating which we also enjoy. We will simply partake of the same but more perfected. If eating and drinking existed in Eden then God desired we eat.

>subtle

It will be both, both extremely mysterious and subtle but also this very world physically, we shall partake of the marriage of heaven and earth.

>>18758071
>, but the initial attraction is irrational and uncontrollable.

It is completely rational because every beauty and attraction can be divided into ideals being fulfilled, such as youth, geometric proportion, fertility and what have you. This is fully rational and knowable upon even the animal level.

>Most men cant love an ugly woman no matter how good her feelings are.

Sure they can, ask any old man if he loves the woman he spent his life with who is now as shriveled as he, he will say he loves her most likely.

>The base of love is an initial sexual and emotional attraction. This is, platonic love.

Nothing platonic about it. Kek.

>>18758138
>I am not that anon, but I am still a simple man. I love sensual and cosmetic beauty, but the greatest beauty is that of the personality (the love that doesn't care if the partner becomes ugly, or if there is a falling-out). It is something more subtle and imperishable.

The personality is also a transient and changing thing and simply nice personality qualities is not the same as saying love, for when you say love you are saying you consider this otherness; this object, is as essential to your being or more essential to your being than your own self, your own identity. That this is a core of your “I” as such, it is not the raw personality which you care for, but the shared length of time, the moments, hardships, shared things, again, love as a constructed and slow thing. It is more than just their personality being favorable to your preferences.


>I do not find it possible to cast off aesthetic considerations; I am still a man.

And I do not expect you to not be human, I expect you to realize what is cosmetic and understand your own vanity as we all should, and us being vain and weak is not an excuse for vanity and weakness. Just saying “I am human, I am weak” does not justify the weakness.

>That you concern yourself with something higher up the ladder (the universal) does not entail that you should knock off the lower rungs (the sensual). Where will your feet rest, then?

If you could genuinely care for only the highest, then you would have no concern for where your feet rest, being a wayfarer, a wanderer, a passerby in the world, your concern being with the highest you will be ever satisfied, for your satisfaction is unchanging. If you can only care about the eternal and take happiness and satisfaction with this, surely this is better.

>>18758182
Punished in Hell, not by death (as to the question of children in my previous post). Death and suffering are not a punishment, and I do not see the purpose of Hell. Why punish when you can restore? I see the beauty in God suffering with us in Hell, but it is strange for Him to only suffer with us. Love is persistent, it does not watch its beloved suffer from its own wantonness or weakness.

This life is a sorry opportunity; if it were not so, the gate would not be so narrow as to prevent the entry of the majority of the human race; even some saints experienced difficulties passing through the "toll houses" (whatever you think of that doctrine). How much less hope for the layman!

Interesting, it is, that we have no say in our own sinfulness. We are weak, and tempted by demons, and inherit specific dispositions and sins from our parents. God's forgiveness is infinite, we need only to ask for it.

In the Orthodox church, I see that we pray for the salvation of all mankind. We still retain that hope, but it is not our position to save, but rather God's.

And only love between woman and man?

>>18757045
The problem is that the modern society is just a very ugly place so most of what you get is ugly people or shallow people, nothing beautiful. If you find a worthwhile person you better than your lucky fucking stars man, maybe if you live in third world cunts you can find more down to earth people but any western country or major country is mostly just fucking empty people

>>18758245
>. Death and suffering are not a punishment,

Romans 6:23
23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Genesis 3:17

To Adam he said, “Because you listened to your wife and ate fruit from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘You must not eat from it,’ “Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat food from it all the days of your life.

>and I do not see the purpose of Hell.

It is the hunger of God and the justice of God.


>Why punish when you can restore?

Our God being perfect, is both perfectly merciful and perfectly just, having perfect wrath and perfect impartial judgment. Infinite evil deserves infinite suffering, while you and I may disagree, we must agree as both of us are Christians, that God is perfect and his perfection is perfect justice. If he did not have perfect justice then hell would not be, and then sin would not matter and this world would be illogical. Though we as weak humans may disagree, this is the sovereign opinion of our divinity.

>i see the beauty in God suffering with us in Hell, but it is strange for Him to only suffer with us.

He has done more than just watch, he became man and died upon a cross, establishing his church for us. What more could we possibly desire.

>Love is persistent, it does not watch its beloved suffer from its own wantonness or weakness.

Which is why the church exists and why Christ died on the cross.


>This life is a sorry opportunity; if it were not so, the gate would not be so narrow as to prevent the entry of the majority of the human race; even some saints experienced difficulties passing through the "toll houses" (whatever you think of that doctrine). How much less hope for the layman!

Moses made it by the skin of his teeth.

>Interesting, it is, that we have no say in our own sinfulness. We are weak, and tempted by demons, and inherit specific dispositions and sins from our parents. God's forgiveness is infinite, we need only to ask for it.
>In the Orthodox church, I see that we pray for the salvation of all mankind. We still retain that hope, but it is not our position to save, but rather God's.

God wishes all men to be saved and calls all, he knocks and we either deny him or enter into a living relationship with him.

>And only love between woman and man?

It is the only type which reflects the marriage of bride and bridegroom, both celibacy and marriage are respectable, anything else is against what the lord has said and Demonstrated.

>>18757276
Only the intangible concept of women. Flesh and blood women deserve nothing more than the flesh and blood eros of my self, in other words, my cock.

>>18758233
"Personality" was not the proper word, and there is an extended portion to it (what you've suffered together with your lover, memories, a child or project) as well. Perhaps even some unordinary ideas such as "being made for each other" or the ideas set forth in The Secret Teachings of Plants (not novel to his book, but hearts giving out magnetic waves or some such waves and two hearts according).

I understand that acknowledging my humanity is not an excuse to you, but I do not see it as a weakness. But explain this more- this idea that we need to slough off aesthetic considerations, though they will continue to exist in the hereafter. I'm neither where you are at, nor am I a "coomer;" where am I? What is your position? What do you love in a partner?

You and your ascetics do not care where your feet rest because your are birds, I am a man. Why split life apart like this? You can rest on your branch, I need to brace my legs against the trunk in order to climb. That I care for the highest need not mean that I ought to discredit the lowest; some can make that work, but they are not like the rest. I will hesitate to say that they lack something, or that they are subhuman, although they say the same about me.

>>18758351
nice.

Why is it wrong to not value beauty when you are young (and at least not as ugly as you think you are) or beautiful yourself?

freakshow thread

>>18758322
I agree that God is perfect, but we do not know what perfection is. Perfect judgement is an abomination without perfect love; I do not worry about an absence of Hell. It can be purgatory, or it can exist as a big stick we fear but will never feel, helping us act like proper men. It really doesn't matter, and we cannot say that the absence of such a thing would be meaningless; many things appear meaningless, even in the immediate world, but are not so (having been made by God). I do not say these things as a man judging God, but as a man judging other men's conception of God.

He died on a cross, indeed. But we died alone, without meaning, and were given over to our own sins and Hell, forever. Most will go there, although I do not see a world populated mostly with monsters who would reject the living God, if they knew Him.

If I would call for my son, I would not send signs I know he will reject or dismiss. Indirect signs are no signs. I would find him directly.

>>18758351
>there is an extended portion to it (what you've suffered together with your lover, memories, a child or project) as well.

And this to me is the primary building block of human love.

>Perhaps even some unordinary ideas such as "being made for each other" or the ideas set forth in The Secret Teachings of Plants (not novel to his book, but hearts giving out magnetic waves or some such waves and two hearts according).

I do not believe these because I know the historical truth that so many good, long lasting and loving relationships are produced from arranged marriage and these today work better than the common style today. And as for being made for each other, this flawed idea is another reason why the western relationship so often fails, the man and woman must both be broken in accordance with each other, refined and made to fit together through time. This is true if you examine any good long lasting relationship.


>I understand that acknowledging my humanity is not an excuse to you, but I do not see it as a weakness.

All that is not of the highest is weakness when the question is virtue, goodness and rightness, anon. You may disagree on what is good and if these are constructed even, but if the question is abiding in the highest formal ideal, then it is certainly a weakness.

>But explain this more- this idea that we need to slough off aesthetic considerations,

It is not an either or question, but in the highest most perfect love we are dissolved in the fire of passion for the higher things, our minds so absorbed, I do not tell the OP he should do away with his aesthetic desire but rather approach them as they are, an aesthetical, vain and chiefly sexual thing, thus not be bound mentally, having mental clarity concerning his own view of the world. I will continue to say though, if you do make the higher and eternal your foundation, you will not worry one bit about the passing as long as you cleave to the eternal.

>I'm neither where you are at, nor am I a "coomer;" where am I? What is your position? What do you love in a partner?

I cannot speak concerning you as I do not know your inmost, true love is none other than love between man and God, human love in its highest is of the family and duty variant which requires works and efforts and mutually shared things, this is because love is finding an other inherent to your subjective nature, and the identity itself is a narrative, a product of aggregating past events and marrying that to the current moment, Love is finding an other as essential to this identity, even to the level that you would sacrifice your identity for that other.

>Why split life apart like this?

For you are a man thus have reason, and the primary power of reason is division, you perceive the better and the worse, you already divide it.

>>18756960
Umineko no Naku Koro ni (LN)

>>18758364
What are you really asking, anon? You posed your question strangely. Indeed, why would it not be right to value beauty when you are beautiful or young? But when you are ugly, or have no eyes for beautiful things, then you have lost your legs. Then you can no longer be a poet, because you either see only dirt, like a worm, too haughty to look at "higher things," or only the vague, anemic palettes of the sky, like a bird, too haughty too look at "lower things." But the poet sees all of these things, and everything in concert.

>>18758364
Your passing youth and passing beauty do not change what is good or what is bad one bit. I do not care if you have more brilliance in your looks than a diamond and have 400 years of youth, it shall pass as all things on earth pass and be rendered nothing. Such passing time does not modify the nature of what is good and what is bad.

>>18758430
Indeed, but the passing of time does not change the nature of what is beautiful, though it changes those who possess beauty and virtue. Those who possess the aforementioned can as easily lose these things.

What is the point? One's beauty does not change the good, but one's goodness tramples, changes beauty?

>>18757037
you should've approached her, introduced yourself, told her you adore her gracile features, and asked if she would be so lovely as to permit you to tongue punch her fart box

>>18758430
I find old women attractive. I think old men can be handsome. I don't think everything rots in time.

>>18758289
Do you believe there is a set ammount of virtue a person holds that makes them beautiful, or is it relative to the people around them. Even the most virtuous humans fall short of an ideal, so why should everyone be judged against that ideal and not just the people around them, I'd argue that we do just that, wether it be conciously or subconciously, its not that someone is internally beautiful against some transcient ideal rather just that they are more internally beautiful than those around them.

>>18758495
The beauty of the elderly is different from the beauty of the youthful, but (in a healthy mind) it permits for no eroticism. Beauty truly is immortal, for it is the only thing that justifies our existence. Not morals, not obedience to God, not syllogisms, but beauty and the artfulness of His creation.

But to elevate eroticism to heaven, I cannot in good conscience do.

>>18758467
Ones perception of the beautiful is perception of what is harmonious according to ideals as married to sense forms, if it is good always then it is good, you say (if it is you) that the ugly person or the cripple shouldn’t concern themselves with poetry or the beautiful and that’s silly to me, if it is good it is good. Your age and your nature do not change what is, only your perception. If I were a dwarf but I maintained my current mind, my tastes should be no different.

>>18758495
Say this while looking upon a rotting corpse, say this when confronted with real decay such as the loss of teeth and limbs. Everything rots and passes away and is replaced by vain repetitions. This is known and easy to see.

>>18758527
>Beauty truly is immortal, for it is the only thing that justifies our existence. Not morals, not obedience to God, not syllogisms, but beauty and the artfulness of His creation.

I do not see a division between the highest beauty, the most moral and obedience to God and the logical, it is simply that men have inferior definitions and perceptions of all of these things, that we are imperfect we do not see the unity of these, and above all of these reigns still God as God.

>>18757535
quite rightly

>>18758550
I think you're a virgin, or married to someone ugly and this whole thread you've ruined is a massive /cope.

>>18758550
I don't remember saying that ugly people have no sense of beauty, so it was probably a different anon.

But I will answer for the other anon-
One can find a rotting corpse beautiful. One can find everything beautiful, and these things can actually become beautiful. All it requires is a different way of looking at things and a relinquishing of superficiality.

>>18758562
Of course, beauty, goodness, and truth are together. But the latter two serve their own purpose, and that is not the justification of this world.

>>18758666
He really does preach an unheroic gospel, accuser. But we cannot even overcome the hurdles of solipsism or induction, and yet we believe we can make universal claims about the human experiences and culpabilities of others.

What is your belief regarding love, soursore? What about beauty? Rehash it for me

>>18756960
The Collector
The Monk
The Phantom of the Opera

>>18758722
I think that love should be dangerous. I haven't really said that before. But unless a girl makes you nervous to approach her, captivates you with her "female"ness, then it is not very sporting. I think that love and beauty go together, and if you can't find beauty in the other person, that rush from the opposite sex, then you are living a drab life.

What Frater initially said that I disagreed with is that, basically, it is in day to day life that love is for and all that dull everyday steadfast love. I think that is ok, but if you can't see someone and instantly like them at an airport, then there is something wrong with you. Also, he was very crude. I didn't know he was Christian at first, because he was very vulgar. I think that he doesn't understand that you can feel tenderness for a stranger without an erection.

>>18758666
I have three kids and I consider my wife physically attractive.

>>18758722
>One can find a rotting corpse beautiful. One can find everything beautiful, and these things can actually become beautiful. All it requires is a different way of looking at things and a relinquishing of superficiality.

Not in the erotic loving way which is the foundation for this thread, the enjoyment of a corpse aesthetically is far different than of a beautiful woman and all of these different from love.

>Of course, beauty, goodness, and truth are together. But the latter two serve their own purpose, and that is not the justification of this world

The justification of this world to me is not for man, but for the satisfaction and expression of love of God, the knowledge of god by his many aspects being revealed is the whole justification, so yes, truth is the justification of the world, for beauty is nothing but harmonization of data points, of facts, the sum of all facts is knowledge, the unity which pervades knowledge is truth, thus beauty is reflection of truth.

As for heroism or the lack thereof, I speak of conquering this world and of conquering the self, I speak of cursing the glory of this world in the name of insanity (as the world considers it) and glory of God. And my words do not fall because they are stained with words spoken by the dweller in eternity.

Once more, I argue for clarity and sobriety in the mind, I do not say the average person ought not have aesthetic desires, but they should approach them properly, and if the question arises of what is better, the aesthetical and beautiful or the eternal truth, I will gladly point to the eternal and the problem of transience, which is to us who do love the eternal, also a beautiful thing, though it devours all that men consider in vanity.

>>18758743
>I think that is ok, but if you can't see someone and instantly like them at an airport,

Once more that is just attraction, just Lust, speaking about such nervousness youre speaking not of Love at all, if you truly loved a person you would consider them one with yourself and hide nothing and divide nothing between yourself.

>Also, he was very crude. I didn't know he was Christian at first, because he was very vulgar.

There’s much value in bluntness, you understood what I meant easily.

>I think that he doesn't understand that you can feel tenderness for a stranger without an erection

I think you don’t understand true tenderness and compassion for strangers if it requires physical attraction. You want to feel tenderness for a stranger, look upon someone suffering in starvation and cold on the street, that is tenderness, you only care about these women because they are attractive physically and nothing more. Again, this is the most sober and clear and honest opinion on the matter.

>>18758774
whatever. you're just arguing for the sake of it now. I am a person, not a straw man.

>>18758394
>I agree that God is perfect, but we do not know what perfection is.

But we do, as given to us by the Bible and as you are an orthodox, also in accordance with church doctrine.

> but as a man judging other men's conception of God.

Once more, all that I say is stained by the words spoken from eternity, you have read the same books as I, I imagine.


>He died on a cross, indeed. But we died alone, without meaning, and were given over to our own sins and Hell, forever. Most will go there, although I do not see a world populated mostly with monsters who would reject the living God, if they knew Him.

I need not imagine it, I see it and so do you, people know what is wrong and they continue in it.


As for direct signs, what do you want more than the prophets, than Christ himself, than the Bible and the church? Than the spirit of God coming upon us?

If we obey the Bible we can do no wrong.

>>18757003
im still going to do it because it feels good

>>18756960
ugly roastie
bad taste

I'll don the hated trip to make this easier

>>18758774
It may be lust, but there may be a deeper attraction (the two being "made for each other," an idea which cannot be refuted by pointing, possibly spuriously, to this idea causing our modern relational ills). If you truly loved a person, you would do many more things than simply what you say; don't be like a Lovecraft in love-making, there is more to love than this immaterial dimension.

It is fallacious to say "If you truly loved a person, then X and ONLY X." You clearly do not know the idiosyncrasies of love. You are being reductionist here;

>>18758842
I am an Orthodox in hiatus. I find it hard to swallow all of these pills I'm being given, and not just for want of hardiness or dominion of the passions over me.

>stained by the words spoken from eternity
One must first interpret these words, and the interpretations are multitudinous.

People know what is wrong and they continue in it? But do they really know? And do they really not struggle with what is wrong? They will go to Hell, the lot of them, either way, so it is really a fruitless thought. Once again, I insist that this world is not a reality. But perhaps the gauntness of your optimism is what allows you to also carry your grave belief in their culpability. I do not see a world of God-deniers, I see a world of weak and sleeping people.

>as for direct signs, what do you want more than...
To these people, about whom you talk as if they were the rich man, the Bible is just another book, cobbled post hoc and riddled with errors, scribal interpolations, arbitrary additions of books and removals of Apocrypha, and so on. To them, what are the prophets? Every religion has had such. There have been far more ancient religions, with their own Christ figures and Bibles. We can speak about these things as if they constitute the axis mundi, being Christians, but for these people, Christianity may as well be another drop in the dark lake of religions. And who can blame them? We are only one third of the world's population, and the divisions only continue from there. From this great mass, only a single-file line enters Heaven. Pharisaical.

We have nothing in our Christianity that they might desire it. A completely alien beauty, a gnostic majesty. Drained of humanity and causing them despair. Of course they barely apply its tenets; they can hardly deal with the daily hardships of life. And if all would go to Hell, we would stupidly accept this, too; though Abraham questioned God about righteous men in Sodom and Gomorrah, we don't dare question God today, because we are not sons of Abraham.

the fault in our stars by john green

>>18758757
No mate, the justification of suffering and Satan's ultimate victory over God- namely, that he is able to drag the majority of his men and a third of his angels to Hell, irreparably.

Conquering the world? You conquer nothing, you only conquer "the world" in yourself, like the transhumanists: by trying to purge imperfection, you also purge humanity, or at least this is how I see you. Perhaps I missed the mark.

Conquering the self? Yes, we must practice discipline.

Others consider you insane? Very well, you consider THEM insane, and so you do not make any sacrifice here, save for their companionship (which you did not desire either way, so there was no sacrifice). You want to view yourself as a "fool for Christ," but there was at least a lightness and naturality about them.

Why even pit the "aesthetic" and the "eternal truth" against each other? It is like pitting one person of the trinity over another, in my estimation.

And:

>>18758757
How can beauty be "nothing but" (the enormity of your starting words are enough to find fault with) harmonization of data points? Beauty is a reflection of truth, because truth is the substrate that allows for us to even speak of these things, but there is a phenomenal dimension to beauty where truth cannot walk.

>>18759023
should I read it even if I watched the movie?

>>18757062
googled it and its very interesting, thanks

>>18757710
i dont hear an argument.

>>18757003
books about how to stop obsessing over an individual woman?

>>18757003
Love doesn't have to mean obsession, though I'll admit the two often go hand in hand. Kind of sucks that the most beautiful and intense thing human beings can experience--love, the energizing force behind, and subject of, so much great art and human achievement--is so scary to us in this postmodern hyper individualist hellscape. The idea that I might lose control of myself for the sake of some other. The idea that I have to risk. Couple that with all the mental health discourses that tacitly stress that anything beyond being an emotionally dead zombie is a symptom of "mental illness" and "anxiety" (rather than an exuberant overflowing of passion), the brutal commodification of sex and relationships, and the huge chasm that's been wedged between the sexes. . .Falling in love takes a real principled commitment these days. Yet doesn't making a principled commitment to it also turn it in to something tamed, overcivilized and unspontaneous?
Modernity is gay.

>>18756960
>books about falling in love?
Let The Right One In, its gothic and about a young vampire girl

>>18758984
>It may be lust, but there may be a deeper attraction (the two being "made for each other," an idea which cannot be refuted by pointing, possibly spuriously, to this idea causing our modern relational ills).

It’s easily refuted by arguing that it assumes ontological commitments which the person has no positive proof for neither from faith as most religions do not have this doctrine nor from empirical data.

>If you truly loved a person, you would do many more things than simply what you say; don't be like a Lovecraft in love-making, there is more to love than this immaterial dimension.

Once more, Love is founded upon relation to the self, if it was not, it wouldn’t be.

> People know what is wrong and they continue in it? But do they really know?

Yes, many know they commit evil and continue, many hide and despise, how many people speak of hate for a God they do not believe in? How many are flooded with melancholy and depression and hunger? This is all perception of their own evil.

>And do they really not struggle with what is wrong?

Even Paul speaks of how he himself knows he is wrong but the law of sin in him forces him to commit evil against his right reason, his soul, his desire.

>They will go to Hell, the lot of them, either way, so it is really a fruitless thought. Once again, I insist that this world is not a reality.

We need not do more than look at the world as it is to see this in my opinion.

>I do not see a world of God-deniers, I see a world of weak and sleeping people.

From the beginning they have been god deniers and their fathers have been and the fathers of their minds also, it is easier to think people are good, that we are good and if we just saw the light we would cleave to it, but our hearts are the origins of all evil and we love vanity for itself, the first evils were committed in the presence of God and his glory, not with closed eyes.

Cont

>>18759390
> Christianity may as well be another drop in the dark lake of religions. And who can blame them?

It is such because their reason is corrupted by sin, for the image of God is reason and the imperfection of disobedience obscures this image as if a mirror being darkened by filth, thus it is their own fault and the fault of their fathers and their father’s fathers. Their reasons are corrupt because they do not cleave to God. God himself is justified and not man.

>>18759061
>No mate, the justification of suffering and Satan's ultimate victory over God- namely, that he is able to drag the majority of his men and a third of his angels to Hell, irreparably.

Suffering needs no justification and I hold no moral qualms with it, it is from the hand of god, all disaster and suffering.

>Conquering the world? You conquer nothing,

I conquer the spirit of the world and of the sin of my father and fathers father and my self by sacrifice, you conquer the morality of the world and this worlds spirit by sacrifing it to the alien divinity, the alien majesty of God which you desire.

>you only conquer "the world" in yourself, like the transhumanists: by trying to purge imperfection, you also purge humanity

If our humanity is what separates us from God our humanity should be destroyed full.
>Why even pit the "aesthetic" and the "eternal truth" against each other?


I do not pit the beautiful in itself against truth, I pit what man considers beautiful and lovely against what is the most beautiful which is the whole truth, man does not comprehend the fullness of the beautiful and does not appreciate it, as beauty.

> , but there is a phenomenal dimension to beauty where truth cannot walk

No such thing, the phenomenal is just the aesthetic perception of the sensual laced with the formal through eidetic intuition, Truth is the unity and all beauty and are of man is but an idol of the truth, either formed from the stones of the earth or from the rocks of imagination and the dim reflection of god in Man’s corrupt reason.

Man has no right to question God’s intellect, his sovereignty nor his justice nor how supreme his majesty and glory are. Tell me as a Christian that you do not see Jesus as the most beautiful of all things.

>>18756960
When so many white girls are tanned like that, especially when there's no beaches in the whole town, what are we to conclude? Is it spray tanning or tanning places they go to or what? Also holy crap this thread has a lot of tripcodes. Hi Frater you're always cool.

>>18759773
I dont know how girls do it but they always get a perfect homogenous caramel tan, when I go to the beach I typically get some odd gradient going from pale skin, to red sunburntish areas, to tanned areas, maybe its that they actively pursue a tan and plan for it using sprays/ laying in exact positions for precise ammounts of time, or maybe its just some gender difference on how our bodieskxs process melanin

>>18759390
>It’s easily refuted by arguing that it assumes ontological commitments which the person has no positive proof for neither from faith as most religions do not have this doctrine nor from empirical data.
There is evidence for this, as I have heard it propounded, but I'll drop the matter because I don't remember where (so I cannot show you the "positive proof"). Plus, this would not be a refutation, but rather cause for agnosticism.

>Once more, Love is founded upon relation to the self, if it was not, it wouldn’t be.
I do not see how this is relevant; perhaps I didn't understand the first time you said it, explain in further depth.

>many know they commit evil and continue, many hide and despise, how many people speak of hate for a God they do not believe in? How many are flooded with melancholy and depression and hunger? This is all perception of their own evil.

How can you speak about such intimate knowledge of the "many?" Perhaps you simply project, or subject the majority to your wishful thinking (although even if I were correct, you would still consider such a reality, given Hell, as good). They hate this God because they feel as if you have made a monster of Him; if you gave them hope with your God, they would either be indifferent or embrace you. But remember that we are blessed if we are despised, for that is how the prophets were treated. Only do not pretend as if the despisers are strawmen fit for your Procrustean bed, all sniveling, self-aware atheists suffering from pangs of consciousness like some Dostoevskian character on the cusp of turning to Christ. Even the blessed and joyful will enter Hell, not just these modernist scarecrows of yours. Even the peaceful, even the miracle-workers and visionaries. There will be no purgatory or perfection, for many will seek to enter, but few will manage.

>From the beginning they have been god deniers and their fathers have been and the fathers of their minds also
Then it is an abomination to reproduce, for most will not see heaven, and most will suffer from the sins of their parents. Speaking of "ontological commitments," can you prove that sin is genetic? Is there epigenetic evidence for this, or is it purely environmental, defeating your argument?

>the first evils were committed in the presence of God and his glory, not with closed eyes
God created us so that we would be vulnerable to Satan, and He created Satan so that He would be vulnerable to his own pride, not only knowing that this could happen, but knowing that it would happen. If I cannot judge these actions, and seek a better explanation to this, through the "law writ upon my own heart," how am I to respond to the number of execrable charges brought against my God.

Will someone tell me "Your God is a monster," and will I be forced to say "True, but you cannot judge His monstrosity as bad, for He is greater than you." God does His will, but what is there to stop me from accepting a monstrous interpretation?

>>18756960
Was she wearing pants? Either way she’s cute

>>18757045
redpilled
>>18757375
>>18757710
virgin alert

>>18757635
>The foundation of love is not sexual attraction but reproduction itself and the reproduced children.

False, roastie.
The foundation of love is trust. Nobody who would bring a child into this world can ever be worthy of it, so enjoy your menopause lmao

>>18759913

God is pettiness

>>18759394
Their reason is corrupted by sin, but ours is, too. And that does not answer the question- what separates Christianity from the rest? There is nothing new under the sun; it has been done before, and mere dogma, which is all I see you repeating, will not convince them. Each religion grapples the other, capturing the other in terms such as "maya" or "sin," but what makes ours true, above all? What do we appeal to, what Cartesian point (like the cogito) do we begin at?

Syllogisms will do little, but humility, patience, and forwardness will greatly help. A living example will convince them, and there are terribly few of these in our times, and the examples of the past are terribly easy to falsify. We, in our rotting edifice, give them no reason to desire Christianity; the times are to blame, but our church, too, shares blame in the great apostasy.

>Suffering needs no justification and I hold no moral qualms with it, it is from the hand of god, all disaster and suffering.
Then surely you will hold no moral qualms with God condemning all to Hell, for none are righteous in His eyes, and no man can be perfect on His own. God decides who enters His wedding, and who's to say He wants anyone inside? Don't even ponder this as a reality, if you want; think of it hypothetically. It can be done for any reason, for surely His reasons are unknown and ineffable to us.

>No such thing, the phenomenal is just the aesthetic perception of the sensual laced with the formal through eidetic intuition, Truth is the unity...
Perhaps I misunderstood what you meant by truth; I thought you were reducing experience of the beauty to appreciation of ideals, as if there was no conscious experience of beauty (while there is no conscious experience of truth, i.e., something being valid or sound).

Man cannot judge God's intellect, but it is also man, that is, you- Frater Asemien- who is imperfectly speaking for God, and who I am imperfectly arguing against. I cannot attack what is not understandable, nor can you "cleave to it." Remember the problem of interpretation before claiming you speak with the Bible's voice, and keep in mind that our discussion strays significantly from the scope of the Bible, so you cannot even claim to have His voice.

Is Jesus the most beautiful of all things? Aesthetically, not quite. What sort of beauty should I be looking for? I see you expound upon the significance of His sacrifice in your poems, but still, I cannot find beauty in something so distant to me. And if Jesus is alien, how much more alien is God, who makes a point of being obscured.

First, lay out what you think the varieties of beauties are, and how one appreciates them. Then I can answer the question in full. Otherwise we're speaking two different languages, each with his own internal philosophy and understanding.

>>18759989
>Man cannot judge God's intellect

What can Man do BUT judge God's intellect?

>>18759976
You can justify no shortage of things that would be considered human evils if it is God that does them. There are actions that cannot be denied (flood, creation of vulnerable creatures, etcetera), but there are also actions I believe are falsely imputed to God, such as eternal, infinite, and disproportionate torment of his weak and neglected sons (even if self-torment, it might as well be directly caused by God).

The people that say these things of God do not sound human to me. They have no compassion, they are like extraterrestrials. I do not see how the gnostics considered the "God of the OT" as a tyrant when the message imputed to the NT, one of hopelessness and futility, is the comparatively more fearsome one.

I cannot live with hope and peace in my heart when I know that my brothers will not see it with me. Telling me "I will not see the sufferings of those in Hell" neither allays this canker, nor can it be proven. Hell, nothing can be proven, everything can be explained as something else.

I'm looking for the root of the truth.

>>18759996
Man can cast judgements, but they mean nothing because God is an entirely different, uncreated entity. But He did not write a law upon our hearts, only to violate every tenet of that law.

If God is compared in the Bible to many things- a she-bear, a father, etcetera, why can I not do the same? Why can I not hold your ideas
of His conduct up to these models?

>>18760018
>The people that say these things of God do not sound human to me.

High praise indeed.

>>18760026

If God were indifferent to the judgement of Man, God would not have made Man in his image.

>>18757423
>>18757489
>>18757542
Yeah that was a mistake, still it's something everyone has to go through before correcting.