Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Religion & Politics' started by GSTalbert1, Sep 14, 2012.
Rousseau - TL;DR
Rousseau was an overly optimistic spankfag. Now, Nietzche-there's a philosophy I could get behind.
You know Marquis de Sade actually wrote wrote a wall of pain in response to the "innate goodness of man." It's ironic that Sade gets the BDSM when Rousseau was the masochist.
As for Nietzche, he said nothing that kierkegaard hadn't, it was his skill at prose that made him make a mark. Sadly like Rand and Tolstoy, creates little drones if read during puberty.
Read Wittgenstein, much more sensible which is odd considering he's a gay christfag mystic and yet started the bullshit of logical positivism that he later rejected.
Well, it's all too easy to just throw your hands in the air and say "fuck it nothing matters"...
It's not easy, acknowledging the intrinsic futility of our lives is probably the hardest thing to do. That's why you've got more religious people than atheists on this planet. The hardest part about searching the point of your life is discovering that there is none.
Your looking at this from your narrow westernized point of view surrounded by belief systems that preach of a happy afterlife and positive meaning in our lives. Epicurus' teachings in ancient Greece were popular because they denied the horrifying and eternal afterlife in the house of shades and embraced meaninglessness as the alternative to the cruel petty amoral Gods that tortured humanity with no seeming rhyme or reason.
Dawkins and Hitchens will rot your brain with their nonsense.
I don't see how atheism as a theory and epicurism as a theory are that different when you put it like that. Being an atheist doesn't make you a nihilist. If you're an atheist and try to look on the positive side of life, you are intrinsically not that different from an epicurean.
That's not what I was saying.
This is false and entirely dependent on what is generally believed and there have been several "religions" in which the intrinsic futility of our lives is embraced with celebration as in ancient china and greece.
Well then... what were you saying?
Ofcourse this is entirely dependent on the religious culture of the last 1500 years. For the past 1500 years, all major religions have preached some sort of point to our lives, that if we behave properly we might reach a joyful afterlife or a great form of reincarnation. I do acknowledge that there were religions and modes of life in the past (albeit that their impact was limited compared to the current religions..) that preached no such thing but only to embrace the futility and mortality of our lives, but as the modern-day theories people might believe, they are still just theories about our lives and thus lack any kind of objective truth value. So to say that "This is false" means that you clearly do not grasp the concept of afterlife/life philosophies. There is no objective standard. Theism, atheism and agnosticism are just theories.
Rousseau was a hypocrital piece of shit, who talked endlessly about sensible education and virtue, while sending his five sons to the orphanage
My post in response to yours:
I was pointing out the flaws in your position by giving an example where it was easier and more pleasant for individuals to embrace meaninglessness and futility than the popular religious vein that provided meaning and order in peoples' lives.
I was saying that your previous position, and not the position you are now adopting, was empirically false according to the historical knowledge we currently possess.
I agree but this wasn't the point you made earlier and this isn't what I'm arguing with you about. This has nothing to do with your earlier statement.
I think you'll find it rather evident that I'm using the modern-day context to explain phenomena such as the meaning or point of life. It's not because a few Greek philosophers thought differently over 2000 years ago that this is in any way relevant to our conversation.
I'm not declaring that my opinion is some sort of universal and timeless truth. Irrelevant.
I actually was hoping to pologize before you posted but no matter but was afk before I could get back and eat my crow. Was admittedly being an irritable argumentative dick, which on these forums isn't exactly a vice but generally is to me. I realized that is what you were saying and you are correct that this is indeed the reality we live in mainly because of the success of Christianity in modernity and it's cotton candy-esque hyper-optomistic doctrine that's very hard to turn your back on to embrace a neutral stance on it. I usually see responses like that from atheists essentially claiming their experiences ARE universal and correct and my knee-jerk response is to kick them in the ass. Much apologies.
I do not believe there is one right or wrong theory about the meaning of our life and afterlife. However, that does not imply that every theory is as likely as another. And so being an atheist I do consider atheism to be more likely than Christianity, although I do not believe in an absolute or universal truth.
You can't own something that doesn't exist. Unless we're talking about the physical servers. But I doubt we are.
Always nice to find a gentleman