Gravity and Grace is wonderful, even though Perhaps Waiting on God proves her great moral sense even more. Because Gravity and Grace is basically her written down notes of her thoughts. Regarding Kierkegaard again; he for example suggests in Sickness Unto Death that Socrates despaired over his sin. And despair according to many Christians is a very bad thing right?

I know Kierkegaard admired Socrates and tried to imitate him. So? He also had some reflections regarding his possible defects from a Christian perspective. He seems almost sinless for example. Which from a Christian perspective would be impossible

We only know Socrates from a text. The rest we can only fantasize about. But for some thoughts and opinions about what might have been some of Socrates "defects", you can Perhaps read someone like Kierkegaard or Nietzsche. If I agree with them personally here Though is Another thing. But surely they knew more about Socrates than I do.

Thanks I Will take a look!

Who is Pierre Hadot?

I dont remember if you have answered to this before but: Are you Christian? Then you wouldnt like much of my conversations with Agustino, since I have mostly criticized Christianity in our conversations. I am not ready to convert yet, because I find so many problems with Christian traditions that are hard for me to yet accept; I dont like protestantism for the reason I just said(and other reasons) and I find it hard to join the catholic Church for its authority claims that has at many times in history been devastating to human beings. The Eastern Orthodox Church is probably the one I would feel is the best one, but even that one has its problems that I find hard to accept... And I am supicious of priests etc and find it hard to not fear to be controlled by them. I still Believe that christianity has in history missed something VERY important in Christ's teachings. They first of all havent found his teachings to be as important as his crucifixion, but Most of all: Jesus said man should become like a Child again... Remember how a child is? Curious, loving, innocent, spontaneous, etc... But you are right regarding the difference between christianity and the indian religions. But I believe that christianity has more often than not betrayed "salvation of the world" for either "damnation and condemnation of the world" and "salvation from the world"...

Yes, I know. I find it troubling... I understand Luther's reaction against the Church in his times. I also understand how one can criticize the idea of Only trusting a Church and its Sacraments as if that was ALL to it. But still, when observing the different branches of christianity today that call themselves orthodox, I find protestantism in general (especially calvinism, evangelicalism etc) to be the most troubling and false and spiritless one... I despise the protestant distortion of things that seems to have led to a very selfish obsession with individual salvation, as if the rest of the world didnt matter, combined with a deluded idea that one is supposed to be saved FROM the world. As if it is salvation FROM the world rather than salvation OF the world that is important.

Well, Chesterton is another one (I expect objection here from Agustino) who not only hoped for universal salvation, but thought it to perhaps even be inevitable. “To hope for all souls is imperative, and it is quite tenable that their salvation is inevitable.” - Chesterton

"I like the God they talk about. He's kind, and just, and even has a sense of humor."

Well if God had no sense of humor things would be quite sad

I will soon reply to your last posts, but may I first say: You MUST read Simone Weil. She should be the number one priority on your list. And you should read all her books: First of all Waiting on God(a Collection of essays, allthogether perhaps 250 pages), On The Abolishment of All Political Parties (this one is Only 40 pages or so), The Need for Roots and Gravity and Grace.
I honestly cant come up with any western philosopher in history who is as moral, righteous and honest as her.

That is my point. So, should the pharisees despise the woman because she was an adulterer?

"Because a man cannot know if he will be in Heaven? :s And because by "are you saved?" they really mean to ask if I'm a Christian?"

I see. Agree. (If there even is a heaven)Though when I read St Paul, I find a man who seems so certain one can possibly be that he Will go to heaven and that he is saved etc.

"I'm not sure. That's what you read into the Bible due to your modern sensibilities. What Jesus actually meant was relating to the Old Testament Law. If you remember, in all other parables and encounters with the Pharisees, they Pharisees try to trick Jesus in order to show that he doesn't know the Law, while it is actually them who don't know the Law."

That is part of it. But what was the meaning of the law is something you must take in to consideration here. Love towards God and neighbour right?

That is the typically American obsession. "When were you saved? Ser you saved?" Etc. Despicable questions often. Why would you avoid the question though?

Yes Jesus said so to the pharisees mainly to demonstrate a universal point: We have no right to condemn others because we are not morally perfect, etc

Have you heard the typically evangelical question "Are you saved?"? Have you been asked that? What would you, as an orthodox answer them?

"What if he refuses, and says that it's right for him to keep the money?"

I would argue with him. Perhaps even calling the police if he keeps on. I would first ask him why he considers it a right thing, etc.

"Flourishing may involve some element of pain too."

It does indeed. And that is good.

No I would not congratulate this friend, nor would I agree. And having robbed the lady I would Tell him to give her the Money back. But Hate him? No. If I did, that would be my "sin".

I see, my bad then. In Swedish eudamonia has always been translated as what in English would mean happiness... Anyway; if you want People to florish, does that mean you then dislike them because they choose not to flourish, or why? I am now not saying that being moral is WRONG; but it depends on what you mean. The pharisees were considered moral; they followed the law but neglected the true spirit of the law (love, mercy etc). And this is what I mean when I say I am against "morality" in itself. I am also against seeking reward etc. Which I have encountered PLENTY of Christians doing. Heaven is a "reward" and they feel great that they will get this reward, that God elected them and saved them without them even acting. They just needed to believe. And now they enjoy life, arent particulary transformed from within but condemn immoral people to hell. Though, they themselves are not as I said transformed by feelings of love and mercy. Love and mercy they rather seem to consider "attributes". For example; they can show mercy when someone obeys and turns to think like them (but they still have no love), and "love" when somone do as they do and agrees with them. In such cases, being moral and following rules such as not having premartial sex seems empty. These people are true oppressors often.

I see. I just find the word moral/immoral to be Hard to use here, because Everything is about the human heart, and we cant judge others heart. The best way to change a person's behavior isnt to condemn and dislike them I believe.

So happiness is the purpose? What kind of happiness? Dont you run the risk now though of turning in to some sort of heavenly utilitarian or hedonist or something?

Much worse in what way? As in worthy of hatred? Or what?

"I agree with both those versions - they are in fact one and the same."

Perhaps I didnt formulate myself good enough, but I meant that it seems to me that you just hate immorality and immoral People because you hate it, rather than feeling sorrow about Everything that make people seperate themselves from each other and everything that prevents people from loving each other and meeting each other for real

You did understand that I said that fornication is bad NOT because you break a rule, but because you injure your soul and potentially therefore other souls too, right?

May I ask you; what is the purpose of "morality" according to you?

"Wait. So is she a prostitute, or is she someone who has been sexually abused by her father? The latter wouldn't be her sin. The fact she is a prostitute is sinful if it's something she chooses (if she could do something else, but refuses). However, she shouldn't be condemned if she repents and feels sorry for what she has done in her heart."

The fact that someone has been sexually abused as a child often leads to prostitution later in life? Understand?

First of all: I understand that you feel intellectually inferior here, but please try to come up with something of your own instead of constantly quoting Spinoza as if that would make me feel inferior.
Second: What do you then Think is the cause that makes People be sexually immoral?(something I by the way have never said I think is a good thing) Always just lust? Okay, that it is One component. But not the whole picture. Take a prostitute; perhaps her belief in love has betrayed her, Perhaps she was sexually abused by her father as a Child. Then comes a hell fire-preacher and condemns her. Is that your Christianity? Because that IS the impression you give me. Wasnt it Christ who ate with prostitutes because he loved them and wanted to cure them? And here is our difference : You seem to want Christ to Cure them for the SAKE of morality, because their behavior is "unjust", while I would want them cured so that they will not destroy themselves, so that they can finally trust that there are good things in life too, like love etc. You seem to consider morality almost to be an end in itself. You are a legalist. But I say : Fornication is bad NOT because you break a rule, but because you injure your soul and potentially therefore other souls too. But if they did, I would not condemn THEM. I would rather condemn those who condemn them. Like you seem to do.

"As I said, it's easy to love mankind from a distance. It's unbelievable that you can't even look at yourself."

Do you literally pretend that I AM Ivan Karamazov?

That it is a sick belief that has destroyed the life of many. As I said, now for the third time: This preaching has been used to mentally oppressing and tormenting people so that they become insane of all superstitions and lose hope and the ability to love. So the opposite effect of what christianity should actually intend to preach. As I said;

Your problem is perhaps not that you lack fantasy, but that you lack understanding and subtlety. Also, in opposition to what especially the Chruch have thought at least in the past but apparently still; it has always been the conscientious and NOT the conscienceless who have had to suffer so incredibly much from the oppression of Hellfire preachers and the fears of Hell, especially when they were at the same time people of imagination. As a consequence, life has been made most miserable precisely for those who had need of joy and cheerfulness etc. Not only cheerfulness for their own recovery from themselves, but so that mankind might take pleasure in them and take joy in their gifts of imagination etc. In other words, the Church has caused more lost souls than saved ones, to use christian language. They have more often been an arc of damnation and destruction than the opposite, destroying sensitive people's lives. And those people who desired by means of these evil condemnations to gain the highest enjoyment of their oppresion because they hate what they call "the immoral" are among those that have caused the most harm to people in history.

Also, you seem to preach love, yet you have stated that you have the right to HATE Nietzsche. Despicable...

"yet you hate people like me (by for example calling me stupid)"

I do Believe you are stupid, but I neither hate nor love you. I despise some of your "opinions" though

I dont preach encompassing love. I dont stand for anything particular but try to experiment. My problem is with People like you who preach justice and morality But are cold-hearted legalists. You are the one who claim to follow Christ, not I.

"No he wasn't that far actually. He lived quite an ascetic life considering the fact he was born as one of the richest people of his day."

Like when he made a Woman fall down from the stairs and then rejoiced when she died years later? Or when he committed fornication?

"In the afterlife for sure, but why would that be so in this life? It's such a crock of nonsense."

In this life too, stupid. It is the soul that suffers the most when someone has been raped. By the way, there is no soul seperate from the body I believe, but that is not the point now. You are almost a hopeless case when it comes to understanding.

"The fact that you may suffer in the afterlife in hell pales in terms of the suffering it causes in this life to the suffering of being raped, beaten, etc."

Or of mentally oppressing and tormenting people so that they become insane of all superstitions and lose hope and the ability to love. So the opposite effect of what christianity should actually intend to preach. As I said;

Your problem is perhaps not that you lack fantasy, but that you lack understanding and subtlety. Also, in opposition to what especially the Chruch have thought at least in the past but apparently still; it has always been the conscientious and NOT the conscienceless who have had to suffer so incredibly much from the oppression of Hellfire preachers and the fears of Hell, especially when they were at the same time people of imagination. As a consequence, life has been made most miserable precisely for those who had need of joy and cheerfulness etc. Not only cheerfulness for their own recovery from themselves, but so that mankind might take pleasure in them and take joy in their gifts of imagination etc. In other words, the Church has caused more lost souls than saved ones, to use christian language. They have more often been an arc of damnation and destruction than the opposite, destroying sensitive people's lives. And those people who desired by means of these evil condemnations to gain the highest enjoyment of their oppresion because they hate what they call "the immoral" are among those that have caused the most harm to people in history.

I Said AMONG the greatest suffering imaginable. You seem to be without a history? I mean your soul. Dont you see that the sufferings of the soul can be the most horrible of all?

"In certain regards, sure. However I have found his ideas to be significantly better than most other philosophers."

But you should be consequent here. He was far from living out his ideas. Far from it. So, according to your earlier statements, he should be taken with a grain of salt

"It is, however - it does show that Nietzsche was a hypocrite who didn't really believe what he wrote. Either that, or that he rejected his writings."

Or that you understand not even 0.1 percent of how complex human beings are

"What belongs to greatness. Who will attain anything great if he does not find in himself the strength and the will to inflict great suffering? Being able to suffer is the least thing; weak women and even slaves often achieve virtuosity in that. But not to perish of internal distress and uncertainty when one inflicts great suffering and hears the cry of the suffering -- that is great, that belongs to greatness"

I agree that this is a very troubling statement. Yet, those hell-preachers you admire inflict among the greatest suffering imaginable to people already in this life by telling then that they will suffer horribly forever. And they certainly dont even care; they believe that they do a good thing.

"I can't say the same about Bertrand Russell or Nietzsche for that matter."

You dont know their hearts. And if you value christian ethics, then Nietzsche's last act before insanity should be approved as great by you. And I agree if you think so. Him protecting that horse is deeply moving. You dont know what happened with him there.

"Oh, don't pander to who you think I like. I don't give a rat's ass about Berdy's morality. His ideas changed my life. That's all I need."

Finally someone here who understands something

You are a modern pharisee I believe. As Berdyaev used to day; The cruelest people arent the immoral sinners, but the moral monsters, who are moral but without a heart.

"Even Berdyaev, for that matter, was like that from what I know. Loyal to his thoughts."

You must really dislike and have no respect for Scopenhauer then?