lol but I thought that since you don't want to bring children into the world, and you consider non-existence to entail an end to suffering, therefore the sodium killing you would actually be doing you a favor no? :-O

Who are you asking?

Anyhoo, a new challenger has approached, so perhaps let me argue with them, then maybe you'll understand better what I'm trying to say, if read at a distance. — Heister Eggcart

*grabs popcorn*

You are fond of the strongman oppression because it's that which you miss in Western values-- the ability to assign superiority over other people. When I say "The Conquer," I don't just mean it literally. I'm referring to your desire to say someone has the authority over everyone else-- be it in sainthood, philosophy, music or poetry. In Western culture, what you miss is the ability of the individual to proclaim they are better than anyone else. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Yes you will see me riding on my horse Bucephalus in a sign of superiority over everyone else >:O

Ok let me stop with the jokes now. In all seriousness, what you're saying is comical. It seems you're under the impression that current society doesn't assign superiority over other people. Yes it does. The lesbian black female is superior to the heterosexual white male. The problem I have is that skin color, sexual orientation and gender aren't or shouldn't play a role in superiority. Yes - I do believe in a philosophy of Inequality. I hate and despise the levelling effects of equality. And I have shown an equal hatred for a world which would try to make everyone into little Alexander the Greats riding their own Bucephalus as for a world trying to make everyone equally low. But now what makes for superiority certainly aren't things like gender, sexual orientation and so forth. Postmodern society is trying to make these things play a role in superiority. I dislike this. I think superiority should be about other matters. Such as ability of writting great poetry, ability of composing beautiful music, ability of managing a great many people and building societies, ability of thinking/feeling, and so forth. These are the criteria that should be used to judge superiority. Not fucking sexual orientation. Fucking gender. And other such nonsense. These things are, and should be, irrelevant to how great someone is.

the postmodern collapse of "low" and "high" art and culture, into something where more or less what the individual cares about matters — TheWillowOfDarkness

Yes I dislike this, because it's seeking to make all of us equally low. You seem to like to be made equally low with everyone else. I don't share such a sensibility, and my soul is revolted at such a totalitarian tendency of bringing down the greatness in some men, cutting their wings, and forcing them to live in the dirt, only because, as Nietzsche said, you yourself can't fly.

Where did I draw that conclusion? — Noble Dust

You didn't but you presumed I would be saying that - or at least that's the impression I got from your post, my apologies if I'm wrong.

But again, if the "worm" suffers all the more, are they not all the more deserving (not the right word) of Christ's compassion? Regardless of what scripture says. — Noble Dust

I agree.

As I'm saying repeatedly, they're manifestations of a spiritual poverty. That poverty is not deserving of punishment any more than economic poverty, nor is it deserving of disgusted disdain. It's never just to vilify the impoverished, in whatever state of poverty. As you said much earlier, if any of us had been born with a different set of difficulties than we have, things would not be better or worse, just a different set of dificiencies. So how are the marginalized any better or worse than the spiritually impoverished masses? — Noble Dust

Yes, again I can't really disagree with that on any grounds. I will only say that, together with seeking for a way to cure them of their poverty, it's important to protect them from spreading and imposing their poverty on everyone else as well.

Is community a betrayal of the person? Is Sobornost? This is actually a fascinating topic to me, as I find myself to be rigorously individualistic (I'm guessing most of us here are), and yet craving connection and community at the same time, and trying to understand the balance, if it exists. — Noble Dust

I think community is only worth it if the individual is respected and valued. I too crave for community, community that quite often I haven't been able to find, because it simply doesn't seem to exist. There are too few good people, and they are very far apart. So I think our desire for community is indeed, as you say, a spiritual desire. But - and here's my point - it's not worth seeking to satisfy this desire if it means betraying yourself. That price is too much to pay.

That's because I don't see any conflict between spirituality and science! — Wayfarer

No there aren't any conflicts, how could there be conflicts between two fields which have nothing to do with each other?

It's really important to understand that, otherwise the world will forever be divided into opposing camps, 'religious vs spiritual'. — Wayfarer

I don't think this divide exists. This divide was very short-lived, the science vs religion conflict. I don't think people are becoming irrelegious because they think there's a conflict between science and religion. I think rather that their spiritual poverty - to steal Noble Dust's metaphor - is causing them to affirm the existence of a conflict between science and religion merely as a justification for their actions.

Don't agree at all. Have you read anything about the debates about mysticism amongst the early quantum physicists? There are some physicists who are entirely materialist, but many have a deep connection to various forms of idealist philosophy. There's a good summary account here. Also see Bernard D'Espagnat What We Call Reality is Just a State of Mind, and Richard Conn Henry, The Mental Universe. — Wayfarer

I will have to read this before I can get back to you! Thanks for the links!

Epicurus, who I haven't studied in depth, still had a religious sensibility, compared to today's materialists, because he believed that happiness was only attainable through the regulation of one's conduct and maintaining equanimity. He was still part of the pre-modern sensibility, so was like a 'dissident renunciate' rather than a hedonist in the sense that any modern person would understand it. — Wayfarer

Yes but he believed it's all atoms and void. Nothing else. Atoms and void are all that exists, the rest is convention. Epicurus was a materialist - as materialist as anyone can be. The reason why he "had a religious sensibility" is because he was seeking after truth - he wasn't using materialism as a justification for a decadent lifestyle as people are doing today. He wasn't playing politics.

Scientific materialism is descendant of a current of thought that has always existed in cultures both Eastern and Western. But the 'philosophy of materiallism', when applied to problems that are amenable to technological solution, is extremely important. The internet only exists as a by-product of the Cold War, and it does indeed serve as a medium for all kinds of absolute depravity and evil, but it's also the medium for this conversation. Materialism becomes a problem precisely at the point where it is treated as a replacement for religion - the 'religion of scientism'. That is the problem - neither religion, per se, or science, per se, but that. — Wayfarer

Nowhere here though have you addressed my main point. My main point is precisely that people make a big deal out of materialism and believe in it not because they really think it's a religion - not because they really think it's true, or could replace the religions. They aren't depraved because they believe materialism is true and it's all atoms and void. Rather the causality is the other way - they believe materialism is true and it's all atoms and void BECAUSE they are depraved. Now what do you think about that? Do you really think materialism makes them be depraved, or is it rather because they are first of all depraved, and only secondarily use materialism as a justification for their depravity - contrary to the way Epicurus used materialism for example?

But I can make perfect sense out of an episode of Star Trek where the crew ends up stuck inside a Holodeck program that goes wrong, where the program makes it look they exited the holodeck back to the ship, but are actually still inside the program, since the Holodeck is capable of fully fooling the senses.

I believe this was the plot of at least one episode. — Marchesk

But ultimately they found out no? So that defeats the whole point you're trying to make

All lies my friend. Let's see.

Agustino is most fond of oppression. — TheWillowOfDarkness

So because I'm annoyed by the permissiveness of today's culture I'm fond of oppression - right.

What annoys him about modern culture is, above all, it's permissiveness. People get to act how they want without sanction or risk of sanction from others-- no outright protection from others expressing power over them. — TheWillowOfDarkness

And according to you it is right that folks can behave in ways which are injurious to others without being sanctioned no?

For Agustino, the "great man" is the one who takes what, who expresses his authority over the world or in opposition to someone else-- The Conquer. — TheWillowOfDarkness

That's only ONE of the great men. There are others - like The Saint, The Poet, The Musician, The Philosopher, etc.

What irks him the most about modern culture is it's rejection of the strongman and respect for his authority. — TheWillowOfDarkness

No, it's modern society's rejection of passion and strength of spirit in favour of deadened uniformity and monotony.

Notice the ever-present threads on forums of people asking why they should believe that life is worth living. They're patient, articulate, well-argued and earnest - and nihilistic. — Wayfarer

This is an interesting observation.

That's because their materialist beliefs are inherently de-humanising. Whereas the spiritual ethos is looking upwards towards the fullfilment of a glorious destiny, the best homo faber can hope for is leaving the planet and colonizing space. — Wayfarer

I'm not convinced by your position. I would want to be, but I'm not. This is a peculiar thing about you - you decry materialism, but yet are keenly interested in science. You think science is important to spirituality, you think science is related to spirituality, you think it can help. Your favorite book even goes along the same lines, showing the parallels between Western science and Eastern spirituality. I don't really buy that narrative as of yet though.

For one thing - I think that physics and religion have nothing to do with each other. The laws of physics and the scientific theories could be totally different, and yet the spiritual truths we know would be the same.

For another - I don't think that the root cause of today's decadence is materialism. Nope. The root cause is spiritual - materialism is merely the coverup, the justification, the sacrificial pawn put forward. Epicurus was a materialist. And yet his ethics was very much ascetic. Materialism didn't have any negative effect on him. So the root cause for decadence today lies in man's heart, materialism, consumerism, etc. are merely outward manifestations of it, that's becoming my conclusion at least, so if you think it's false and disagree I'd be curious to know why.

For example - the corrupt Wall-street speculator who does nothing productive but earns large sums of money, and then spends them on prostitutes, expensive cars, and so forth - he's not an atheist because he has read the arguments for materialism and he thinks materialism is true. No no no... he's an atheist and believer in materialism because he NEEDS materialism and atheism to be true to justify his way of life. Materialism and atheism are nothing worth ever arguing about for me. It's not worth showing materialism is false, or atheism is false. That's losing your time. That's the sacrificial pawn. Don't bite it. Let it go. Atheism and materialism is a waste of time - it's all politics. Atheism and materialism are merely the justifications for a certain type of politics. Oh I wanna make money doing nothing, spend them on millions of prostitutes, fast cars, expensive and exotic holidays and so forth - therefore I believe in atheism and materialism - it would be absurd and stupid for me to believe in God no? It would be a joke. And who would be my prostitute if I believed in God? No I have to tell her there's no God, that way she'll accept she's just an animal and follow along.

I think the problem here is you're painting in too broad of strokes — Noble Dust

I like painting in broad strokes — Noble Dust

Yeah me too!

And the fact that legalism decays into decadence highlights what I keep saying about this process being necessary in history — Noble Dust

To me, it shows merely the thirst for freedom of a few. It's not many who rebel against legalism within societies/places where legalism still holds sway.

I disagree, I think any godforsaken culture is always in a state of suffering; how could God be who we believe him to be if it was otherwise? Suffering is not always fully conscious. The poverty of the spirit is a form of suffering; it's not always conscious. — Noble Dust

Indeed, and those who suffer unconsciously suffer all the more, which is the state of the present Western world, by and large.

Describing this suffering as the suffering of a worm dehumanizes the subject. — Noble Dust

But the subject has already dehumanised itself. The issue with the Western world - the Western world's great suffering - is precisely its lack of passion, it's lack of vigor, of health. When I say they are worms - obviously their suffering, relative to the human level, is infinitely greater. To be born a human, and yet live like a worm must certainly be a great suffering no?

Also you're drawing an unwarranted conclusion. Just because they are worms, doesn't mean we should neglect them. They are worms but they really could be humans.

I'm always wary of a view that allows for the dehumanization of the subject, because it allows for the possibility of oppression, the continuation of the cycle of The Other. — Noble Dust

And you are right in that, we always have to watch that we don't become inhuman to those towards whom it is easy being inhuman.

sn't Christ's compassion precisely an interfacing with those who have been dehumanized, with the "worms" as you call them? — Noble Dust

No. Christ's compassion wasn't with the worms, it was with the outcasts, with the rebels, with those who did not fit in their society - with the oppressed. Christ took the whip out on the worms in the temple if you remember... He drove them out.

And Christ went to the prostitutes, the drunkards, the demon-possessed. And the culture at the time was one of decadence, and yet Phariseeical legalism at the same time. — Noble Dust

No, the culture was one of legalism - not decadence. The Pharisees ruled and controlled the culture of the day, and they oppressed the prostitutes for example. The prostitutes were on the outskirts of society, they were the hated and abused. And you are right legalism is a form of decadence, but it's a form of decadence in the opposite end - too much emphasis on outward virtue, whereas what I have called decadence until now has been too little emphasis on outward virtue.

Think of the money-changers in the temple, think of the aspects of the Catholic church you were just describing. — Noble Dust

Yes, the money-changers they, along with the Pharisees were the powerful and the oppressors. They were the ones who were complacent, who had no passion left, who were petty, who peddled their petty virtues, reciting this and that scripture, drinking from outwardly clean but inwardly dirty cups. They ruled the culture of that society, to be "cool" to be "accepted" meant to be like them. They too had reached a point of exhaustion, like Western culture today. That's why Jesus said take care that ye be not like the Pharisees. In today's world it's take care that ye be not like the decadent, who are the rulers of society.

The desire to fit in is a spiritual longing — Noble Dust

Maybe but it's also a betrayal of one's own self, of one's own uniqueness, of one's own person.

Thinking less of that person devolves into another form of oppression; the thinkers begin leading the sheep, eventually off the cliff. — Noble Dust

In a way I agree. There is an inherent danger in there - if you think of them like scum, you will treat them like scum. But at the same time, one has to recognise the truth of the situation - or the gravity of it.

The trouble is it's misleading. You make it sound like the child has acted to avoid suffering while also living. In truth, it's not that the child avoided suffering, but that a suffering child was prevented by denying them existence.

What you are saying here is more an excuse to deny the responsibility for this act. If love makes life worth living, then we ought to give thus child existence so they can experience. Non-existence cannot be used to deny others what they deserve. It's a path which lets the powerful get away with anything and then calls it moral-- "That poor man, he doesn't exist with money or resources, so no-one needs to help him out." The absence of moral outcome cannot be used to deny a moral outcome someone else deserves. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Willow, it's time for us two to each open our calendars, and make note of this great day when we finally agreed on something!

Because it does not follow that what redeems existence necessarily redeems nonexistence. Love may make life worth living, but only because I am, because I exist. Were I not to exist, which is to suffer, then I would have no need of love, as there would be no suffering to define love's antithesis. — Heister Eggcart

This is incoherent. If something redeems existence, say Love, then it follows that existence isn't ultimately an evil, because it can be redeemed. But if existence can be redeemed, and is not ultimately an evil, then your whole antinatalist position falls apart, because you can no longer claim that life is necessarily a tragedy, and thus birth is necessarily to be avoided if possible.

I believe that the experience machine thought experience is subject to a kind of logical fallacy that is common in many thought experiments. The problem is something like this: we want to construct a thought experiment which, by stipulation, involves a situation in which we can't distinguish between two things (being hooked up to a machine and real life). But also by stipulation, the thought experiment itself asks us to distinguish these two things. So it is that the experiment only remains coherent so long as we slide from one to the other in our reasoning.

The reason being hooked up to a machine horrifies some people is because there is a detectable difference between the two (which is why movies like the Matrix, in which Neo comes to find out about this situation, are coherent to us). But then, the experiment falls through because this detectable difference will allow us to coherently prefer being outside the machine rather than in, whether on hedonistic grounds or not.

If on the other hand we take the thought experiment seriously in claiming that we cannot tell the difference even in principle between these two situations, then we lose our ability to coherently imagine the situation that the thought experiment asks us to, and so we cannot claim that such an imagined situation would be bad, because we cannot imagine it ex hypothesi. — The Great Whatever

YES! Indeed, great spot. This is very close to what I have been saying about Descartes' evil demon hypothesis (and other global skepticism matters) for a long time. The very meaning our words have are conditioned by the context, and what such hypothetical situations do, is that they remove the context in which the words used to phrase the question have meaning, and then proceed to ask anyways - thus even their question, in truth, become meaningless.

No, it's just a fact of the matter. — Heister Eggcart

No, facts are not tautologies, simply because facts represent things which could be otherwise. Nonexistence couldn't possibly be existence, and thus it can't be a fact.

Maybe, perhaps, idunnowhynotsure? Really? — Heister Eggcart

Possibly.

Well, I am, in this discussion. And you should, too. — Heister Eggcart

Yes I can see that much, but I don't understand why you consider your option superior. I for one don't consider your option inferior, but I simply think you don't have anymore justification than I do.

How is not having a child a risk? The child doesn't exist. It cares not for whether it may exist or not because it necessarily can't care. — Heister Eggcart

Because who knows whether the child should or shouldn't exist?

This is completely secondary. Greatness, love, happiness, whatever else doesn't warrant one to will another into existence through procreation. — Heister Eggcart

Why do you think it doesn't warrant one to will another into existence?

Maybe? Why are you backing down? You acknowledged that suffering is a truth, there's no ands, ifs, or buts about it. If you procreate, your child will suffer. Period. End of story. — Heister Eggcart

I'm not backing down, I'm acknowledging your position as possible, but not justified.

So, fuck a woman and make a child? You've not shown me why I'm wrong, so c'mon, Agustino. Let's go, bro. — Heister Eggcart

Yes I actually believe I have. I've explained to you that in no way can you say the child will avoid suffering if you don't have him. And thus the whole justification you had to say that your position is superior to mine is gone. I'm not trying to say my position is justified and yours isn't - I'm saying that NEITHER yours nor mine is justified.

It is in the nature of opposites to passively avoid their antitheses. Because nonexistence does not exist, nonexistence passively avoids being what it isn't. — Heister Eggcart

This is a tautology. Tautologies are empty of meaning, they don't say anything about their subject matter, except that they don't say anything. What you're saying is like me telling you
"A hand is a hand". Nonexistence doesn't exist. Non-existence avoids existence... dsdjasdh is dsdjasdh

Your unborn child already doesn't exist. It doesn't need to choose whether it wants to exist because it only knows nonexistence. You're not choosing it's nonexistence, you only choose whether to keep it there. — Heister Eggcart

It doesn't need to choose existence - but maybe it should have the option to exist. Who is it to say that I should choose not to have a child instead of choose to have one? Both are risks. Maybe I am depriving the child of something great. Maybe I'm sending him to suffer. Who knows? None of us - thus we live in fear and trembling.

Have you read the signs, Agustino? — Heister Eggcart

Interesting black folk music! I like it!

I think if we work with your definition (forced breeding practices and the like), this is a simple question, with NAZI Germany offering sufficient empirical evidence of its horrors. — Hanover

In other words, we should all listen to the black people's music, they got the shit right. Fuck the police (and the Nazis)! >:O

I do agree, I just consider the spiritual elements of this discussion to be the inner, foundational, primary aspect. The political is just the outer, secondary aspect, the "fruit". I'm sure you'd agree, we're pretty much talking about the same thing. — Noble Dust

Perhaps. Although I think that both levels need to be managed in concordance and harmony with each other. In other words it would be possible to have a great inner life and a terrible politics.

Pretty much all of it? My perennial problem with my interest in this stuff is that I like painting in broad strokes, so something general with a wide view would be nice, at least to start. — Noble Dust

It's hard to recommend like this, because the field is so vast. I'd say read the following to get an idea:

1. The Orthodox Church by Kallistos Ware (this is basically the most detailed that's about everything and nothing :-O )
2. The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church by Vladimir Lossky
3. The Gospel in Brief by Leo Tolstoy
4. Brothers Karamzov by Leo Tolstoy, with special attention paid to the beginning-middle of the book at the encounters and discussions with Father Zossima
5. Book yourself a visit to Mount Athos in the greatest country on Earth, Greece, and spend some time with the monks, which is ultimately the best

I would recommend some other sources but they're not translated in English, so that's all I have for the specifics (or rather general level) that you have requested.

I'm confused why you were so critical of my original comments about legalism right out of the gate, then. — Noble Dust

Because I was doing politics ;) .

Compare with: — Noble Dust

Well I still disagree with you about the equality. Have you read Philosophy of Inequality by Berdyaev?

Decadence itself has a hint of the divine in it; giving in to decadent passions screams of the longing for the divine; the drunkard and the prostitute are indeed so much closer to God than the Protestant pastor who has no inner spiritual life. — Noble Dust

And here I disagree as I mentioned before. The prostitute and the drunkard are closer to God in an age of legalism, not in an age of decadence. In an age of decadence the Protestant pastor is still closer. In this day and age it's not difficult to be a prostitute - talking now in the large sense of prostitute, where it doesn't mean just a woman having sex in exchange for money - but any loose sexual behaviour from both sexes. It's not difficult to be a drunk - everyone is a drunk, just go to any of the clubs. There is no "freedom" in drunkeness and sexual misbehaviour nowadays - nor is there any passion. There is just being a sheep. These folks no longer are the ones who think differently. Back in the day of Casanova, yes! Casanova was indeed closer to God than his priest. That is the great pettiness of this age, that in their immorality they aren't even one inch closer to God.

Let other complain that the age is wicked; my complaint is that it is paltry; for it lacks passion. Men's thoughts are thin and flimsy like lace, they are themselves pitiable like the lacemakers. The thoughts of their hearts are too paltry to be sinful. For a worm it might be regarded as a sin to harbor such thoughts, but not for a being made in the image of God. Their lusts are dull and sluggish, their passions sleepy...This is the reason my soul always turns back to the Old Testament and to Shakespeare. I feel that those who speak there are at least human beings: they hate, they love, they murder their enemies, and curse their descendants throughout all generations, they sin. — Soren Kierkegaard

This age isn't an age of passion. The West has no passion left, it is dead. You are making a terrible mistake here. The modern day slut who fucks the cab driver, who vomits in the club's toilet and so forth - she's not committing a great sin... she's living like vermin. That may, as Kierkegaard says, be sinful - if you are a worm. She's following the dictates of her society. This is what her society is commanding her to do today, she's just as bad as the 50 year old virgin 200 years ago - in fact, even worse! She does this purely to fit in, she doesn't do this because of a spiritual longing, because of a great passion, because of anything of that sort. If when she was expected to be a virgin up until marriage, she did this, then you could say she had a great passion driving her. Then at least she would commend some degree of respect. But now, it's just so petty.

The depths of human suffering are being revealed through this freedom, and the tragic creative urge, born of this freedom, is an important element in revealing that suffering. — Noble Dust

Except that this isn't the suffering of a Casanova. This is the suffering of a worm, petty and insignificant. Today greatness is stopped in its tracks. Where are men like Alexander the Great, with sufficient passion to conquer the whole world? They sinned, at least they sinned properly. Where are men like Beethoven? They are nowhere in sight! The West is a desert - all passion and life has departed, and only death remains. There's a few small islands, a handful of people who are different, and who still have a sparkle of life, and of intelligence left in them. The rest has been drowned in the mass-amnesia, forgetfulness and sheepishness of mass consumerism.

X is avoiding everything, which necessarily includes suffering. Nonexistence is passive avoidance, not active. — Heister Eggcart

Our disagreement revolves around this. How is it possible for something that doesn't exist to avoid, passively? Do you say non-existent pink elephants are avoiding the hungry lions? Do you say nonexistant thiefs are avoiding jail? To me, because I'm a follower of the Great Ludwig Wittgenstein (who is listed up there as my favorite philosopher, just as I am listed as your favorite :P ) - meaning always occurs in a context. In this case, for the word avoid to have any meaning, it must occur in the context of existence. If I tell you that non-existent doors avoid being closed, you'll tell me I'm fucking nuts, and I need to see the shrink. And this says something about the meaning of my words - namely that you'll treat my sentence as having no meaning, because it doesn't!

Why should he? Who decides that he should? Oh yeah, you, not him. Your potential child also has to decide whether he wants the choice of choosing whether to be or not to be, so how might it do that, logically? — Heister Eggcart

But who decides that he shouldn't? Isn't THAT also me? There's no sitting on the fence. One has to risk, one has to make the jump. Both positions entail risks. One the one hand you decide for the child that he shouldn't have the choice - you never ask him. On the other hand I decide he should have the choice - I haven't asked him either. That's the nature of life - this is inescapable.

Did you just ask me this? Really? — Heister Eggcart

I mean, what's so bad about suffering that makes all of life not worth having? Would you choose not to attend a great dinner just because you'll have a headache if you attend?

No, it's not unavoidable. Guess what, Agustino? If you don't have the child, the child won't suffer, thus it's avoided suffering, :o — Heister Eggcart

So... that's like preventing a village from the uncertain possibility of getting flooded by not building it in the first place. But this is a trick of language - you say "the suffering is avoided" - and I ask you, who is avoiding the suffering? The child can't be avoiding anything, because only beings who are alive can avoid. So the whole assertion that "X is avoiding suffering" in the circumstance where "X doesn't exist" is nonsense.

So, because you think life is worth living, your child will also agree, amirite? — Heister Eggcart

Not necessarily, but he should at least have the chance of agreeing. Why are you so sure he won't agree?

None of this matters were you and I and your potential child not to exist. — Heister Eggcart

But that's purely hypothetical.

If you don't have a child, then they won't suffer. If you choose to procreate, and the child wonders why it is suffering, are you blameless? Is it merely God's will that the child exists to suffer because you didn't need to have the child in the first place? — Heister Eggcart

What's so bad about suffering? It's part of life, I fully acknowledge that the child will suffer, that's unavoidable. But life is worth living, at least for me, despite the possibility - certainty - of suffering. Sure there is suffering in life, but why get fixated on it? Why not focus on the undying spirit in man? Man learns from his suffering about his own greatness - about his own spirit. The fires of the world can burn the flesh, but not the spirit.

Oh I see your point. I misunderstood. It's choosing to gamble only if I have any reason to think that a genetic defect is a realistic possibility in the specific case. If I don't, then it's just life. Life is full of suffering which can occur gratuitously, and I accept that - that's up to God to decide on.

But you would in fact be deciding, but you don't need to have a child. — Heister Eggcart

What does the fact that I would be deciding have to do with whether or not I need to have a child?

But you would want to avoid severe genetic defects that might upend your family's future well being, right? So you don't really mean what you just said. — Nils Loc

If I know the severe genetic defect is certain, then yes I will want to avoid it. But if it's just a possibility with nothing to suggest it's actually going to happen, then I would leave it up to fate, not for me to decide.

Eugenics isn't about what "you" want, it's about what the authorities have decreed. Eugenics is a plan for improvement which has nothing to do with your personal preferences. Of necessity, it has been, is, or would be decreed and enforced by centralized authority with enough power to coerce "you" into breeding or not breeding as directed. — Bitter Crank

You know what BC...

Also Noble Dust I want to ask you a question as well. How should we deal with decadence as a society? It seems to me that if we get rid of cruelty we fall into decadence (like now in the West), and if we get rid of decadence we fall into cruelty (like during the Inquisition for example)

No, this is not about politics to me. Why do you insist to know what this is about for me? I have almost no political leanings. — Noble Dust

The point I'm making is that politics is inherent in the subjects that we are discussing. We cannot discuss them without our discussion having political repercussions. Sure, you and I may not be interested in the politics, but that doesn't mean that our discourse isn't saying anything about politics. Whether we like it or not, when we're discussing such subjects we are always also discussing politics, so we should be aware of that. That's the point Plato has been trying to make from the very beginning - philosophy, life and politics are intertwined, they are not divorced, and they have to be discussed together.

I'm not sure why you're making fun of liberals, it doesn't mean anything to me; I'm not one. — Noble Dust

I don't make fun of liberals in order to make fun of you - that would be petty indeed. Why would I spend my time putting someone else down? My point isn't to make you feel down. Instead I make fun of liberals as a way to counteract a problem that exists in modern society. The liberal pretty much has hegemony over culture, and that has to be countered, and I'm simply using this as an opportunity to do that.

I apologize for assuming you were part of some other tradition other than Eastern Orthodox. Apparently I misread some of your thoughts. — Noble Dust

Eastern Orthodoxy isn't focused on what you say or your outward discourse so much as it is focused on your practice and inner life. That's why you'll find Eastern Orthodox Christians holding many different positions in thought - it's not as regimented as Catholicism. Furthermore, it's not a Western religion - it's not like Catholicism, Protestantism and so forth. It's closer to the Indian religions than to the West in several ways.

Do you have any recommendations for reading materials on your faith? — Noble Dust

What kind of material about the Orthodox faith are you interested in? Philosophy? Theology? History? Novels? General information?

Walking On Water by Madeliene L'Engle — Noble Dust

I haven't read this.

I had in my mind from reading some stuff that the courtroom idea wasn't prevelant in Eastern Orthodoxy, so I must have been mistaken. — Noble Dust

Well you're not mistaken, it isn't prevalent. Eastern Orthodoxy isn't legalistic by and large. This doesn't mean though that there aren't moral rules of conduct that the believers strive to hold and affirm. Just that this doesn't become an obsession or the whole of the religion as it is for many other Christians. It seems to me that in the West people only have two positions: fully authoritarian, you have to follow all the rules or else to Hell you go - or fully liberal - doesn't matter what the rules are, just do your own thing. But this distorts the Eastern Orthodox position, because it doesn't fit. Yes, you have to respect the Commandments of the Lord - but if you respect them as a way to buy your way to Heaven (out of fear), then that's not real communion with God. If you respect them angrily (as in why would God ever ask me to do such a stupid thing), then again that's not real communion. You have to respect them due to the relationship and communion you have with God - because of your faith, love and understanding that they are good for you.

So your assertion that self-worth shouldn't be important sounds nice in theory, but not in practice for anyone actually struggling with those problems. — Noble Dust

No but I'm making an important point. To be worried about your self-worth is precisely not to have any, because someone who does have self-worth doesn't worry about it, isn't concerned about it, doesn't care if it exists or not. You will have self-worth the day you drop it and stop worrying about it, because then you will behave and act like someone who does have self-worth. You have an image of yourself with no self-worth in your mind, and you are fighting to get rid of it. But the very fighting is what keeps it there, because that's precisely what someone who doesn't have any self-worth does - they fight to get rid of their lack of self-worth and replace it with the authentic thing.

And Western society does cause this because they set a standard for you to meet. You have to do this and that, otherwise you're not sinful, but you're sick. What's your disease? Oh you have low self esteem! You are psychologically ill, there's something wrong with you. That's what they tell you. There are young girls in schools who are being bullied, because, for example, they don't engage in sexting, they don't wear makeup and so forth. They are told they are unworthy because of this. Unless they engage in that, there's something wrong with them, they have no self-esteem. The progressives have, using psychologists and psychiatrists, developed entire theories to justify why someone who doesn't behave a certain way is sick, and requires treatment. And so they literarily make people sick - they literarily make people suffer of low self-esteem, by telling them, insinuating the idea, that if you don't do X, Y, Z it's probably because you have low self-esteem.

Just imagine for example, a young man going to a psychologist/psychiatrist and saying that he wants to be celibate. There are some people here for example who live celibate lives. I swear that if these people went to the psychiatrist, they'd tell them they have a disease, there's something wrong with them, they're abnormal, and so forth. That's why I'm bashing the progressives - their hegemony has to be shaken up and taken down.

Besides, isn't self worth an aspect of love? — Noble Dust

Love your neighbour as yourself. This means you first have to love yourself in order to love your neighbour, because you love your neighbour only as much as you love yourself, that is the commandment. But the person who loves themselves doesn't hammer over their own head "You're unworthy, you have low self-esteem, etc." - that person accepts themselves for who they are, they are not concerned with changing themselves. You literarily have to become who you are, once you become who you are the whole issue dissolves itself - the inner conflict you are having is the problem. The fact that there is this "you" who is inferior and unworthy, and then there's this other "you" who is upset with this inferior "you", and wants to get rid of it, wants to change it, wants to overcome it and so forth.

Kierkegaard's book "Works of Love" speaks best about all this. It's also quite possibly the best book on love there is.

Maybe it's more a western neuroses, descended from Evangelicalism... — Noble Dust

I think it's more like a Western neurosis descended from consumerism, materialism and selfishness. You have to be focused on your own self in order to worry about your sense of self-esteem no? Someone who doesn't have such focus on the self, in their mind, such concerns wouldn't even arise. The West is decaying not because of its history, but because of life becoming too easy, which allows the evil in men's hearts to show itself. Before, because men were concerned about earning their daily bread, there wasn't much freedom for the evil to show itself. But now there is freedom - now evil is free to run amock - the evil which existed even before, only that before it never got the chance to show itself.

Are you familiar with David Bentley Hart? I've only read bits, but understand that he's an Eastern Orthodox and universalist. I'd be curious for your thoughts. — Noble Dust

I've read just one book, The Experience of God. I think he has many good points to make, and attempts to rescue modern religious postmodern philosophy, but I'm left a bit cold in him. There's no "wow" factor. He is indeed a practicing Eastern Orthodox and draws on Orthodox tradition, but I'm not impressed by him. I don't think theology needs the postmodern detour via Heidegger. I don't think that's helpful. Berdyaev for that matter is a much better writer and more interesting to read.

The atheistic world we live in in the West is not a direct result of evil, rebelious people. — Noble Dust

If people have no freedom, then evil cannot show itself, because evil and good presuppose freedom. As people's freedom has expanded in the West, the nature of their heart showed itself more and more. They became more and more selfish, as they needed each other less. There were no mechanisms to restrain them, and by freedom they started to understand giving in to their lusts and passions, and they started to identify anything that could restrain them as evil and oppressive, and thus deserving to be taken down. And therefore the outcome is what it is today - chaos and decadence, which will, sooner or later, bring the whole of the Western world down unless it is stopped.

Again, I'm attracted to your faith, the Eastern Orthodox church, but what role does that church play in this picture of the modern world being a result of the failings of other branches of christendom? — Noble Dust

The Eastern Orthodox Church has never played much of a role in the outward world - unlike for example Catholicism - because it is a religion of the inner life. What the West needs is that it needs to teach the virtues in school as they are - including patience, chastity, courage, and so forth. That's what the Catholics teach. Then it needs to combine the virtues with an inner life such as the one offered by the Eastern Orthodox Church. What is happening now is that the West has been emptied of God - of the inner life - and only the virtues are left. And now the virtues are gone too. Now there is no restraint left.

Man’s creative activity was then at its fullest in Catholicism, and the whole of the great European civilization, Latin above all, was grounded on the culture of Catholic Christianity, it had its roots in the Christian religion. This itself was already soaked in antiquity — to what an extent it had taken over the ancient culture is now recognized. That culture still lived in mediaeval Catholicism and by it was carried on into modern times. It was because of this that a renaissance in our history was possible. The Renaissance was not, as the Reformation was, against Catholicism. A tremendous human activity was afoot in the Church, it showed itself in the papal sovereignty, the domination of the world by the Church, the making of a vast mediaeval culture. In this, Catholicism is to be distinguished from Eastern Orthodoxy. Catholicism not only showed men the way to Heaven, it also fostered beauty and splendour upon earth. Therein is its great secret. By seeking first for Heaven and life everlasting there, it adds beauty and power to mortal life on earth. The asceticism of that Catholic world was an excellent training for work; it safeguarded and concentrated man’s creative powers. Mediaeval ascesis was a most effective school: it tempered the human spirit superbly, and throughout all modern history European man has lived on what he gained in that schooling. No other way os spirituality could have so tested and trained him. Europe is spending her strength extravagantly, she is exhausted; and she keeps some spiritual life only because of the Christian foundation of her soul. Christianity has gone on living in man in a secularized form, and it is she who has kept him from disintegrating completely

[...]

The subsistence of human personality is impossible without the life-making stream of religious asceticism, which differentiates, which separates out, which puts first things first. And yet modern history has been built upon the illusion that personality can spread its wings without the help of these ascetic influences. — Berdyaev

Is it really just for you to simply stand by and critique the debaucherous state of a secular world born from the failings of 2/3rd's of the church, parts of the church you aren't affiliated with? — Noble Dust

But the decadent secular world is born precisely out of the West's tremendous success. It's the fact that life is so easy, combined with the dissolution of social restraints - the virtues and the inner life.

The way you go about it doesn't exactly welcome folks like myself in with open arms. — Noble Dust

Yes you are right, that is my mistake. However do consider that my responses to you don't occur in a vacuum. They occur within the framework of a certain society, which imposes a certain worldview on its people. That's why the way I speak sounds legalistic - it's merely countering the lawlessness of the progressives. If we didn't live in a progressive world, probably I wouldn't bother to mention the virtues, morality, and so forth. When the pendulum has swung so far to one side, a stronger antitode is required. Legalism isn't where we should end, but given where we are, it's good if we aim for it, and land instead in a free, but virtuous society.

Again, I think of Berdyaev's concept of a nessisary godforsakeness. — Noble Dust

The little known Max Picard book "The Flight From God" - I think you may find that interesting given this position.

How do you guys do the quotes? hahaha. Can't figure it out. — Noble Dust

Highlight/select the text you want to quote. Once you highlight it, the quote button appears. Press it, and it will enter the text you highlighted in the write post feature at the bottom. If you then highlight another piece it will add it as well.

But then life wouldn't be like a box of chocolates anymore... ;)

No, I would want him/her to be the baby of me and my wife. Part of the joy of having a child is knowing, that despite all the bad traits he or she may have, he or she is the child of you and the woman you love.

I should add that I want the child I deserve, I don't want to pick.

As for whether I'm allowing for such a right... I'd say no, because I don't see why anyone would have the intelligence to make the right choices... better to let nature do her thing.

Your objections apply to forced eugenics, but are you allowing for the right to personally choose the characteristics of your own designer baby? — Hanover

What do you mean? "Designer baby"?

If a womans pelvis shape is too narrow, then the likelihood of the baby's head fitting through the birth canal is much lower and the likelihood of the mother dying is much higher. — aequilibrium

I don't know - most men from what I see are attracted to women who are perceived, by society, to be worth being with. It's not really a rational affair. If that type of body is perceived as worth having, then they will be attracted by that. If you look through history, physical features that were found to be attractive have changed, many many times, and it's mostly a function of the prevailing culture. Now the prevailing culture is materialism - hence our society may be telling us that the best bodies are those that give the best children.

The reason why women are attracted to strong assertive men, is because this is the character trait that is the most likely to result in the baby having enough resources to maintain a healthy childhood. — aequilibrium

I very much doubt that women are - in their majority - attracted to strong assertive men. If that was true, Vladimir Putin would have all the women in the world head and heels over him. Young girls would be day-dreaming about being in bed with Putin. He's quite possibly the most assertive, and strongest leader there is in the world at the moment. And yet this is very very far from the truth. Most women would hate being with a man like Vladimir Putin - that's why he doesn't have a wife. In fact, I have noticed quite the opposite. Most women - there are exceptions of course - tend to prefer average men or if not, people like rock stars, musicians, artists, and so forth rather than the strong, bold, assertive leader. Instead look at Brad Pitt - fucking Brad Pitt - is that guy the strong, assertive man? >:O No, he's just a joker who plays pretend for a living. And yet most women day-dream to be in bed with him. Putin could probably order Brad Pitt arrested and thrown in the river - he can ensure the survival of his children over Pitt's. And yet Pitt gets the women >:O

Both men and women generally tend to have an aversion to greatness of any kind. If you look at the lives of strong and powerful men for example, many of them may have had many women over their lives, but no woman generally wants to remain with them - in the end they are always alone. It's lonely at the top.

I was gonna reply to something else, but I feared I might trigger you. — Heister Eggcart

Again, see this is what I was telling you in the other thread. Every time you come up with something like this as a way to avoid discussion and explaining your beliefs/positions. So it's getting annoying to interact with you because you simply never engage in discussion.

whether we eat spoiled food will impact our physical well being — Ciceronianus the White

Not only. Eating beef for example raises the chances of colon cancer - that's why for example I never eat it. And there's many other foods that should be avoided, and that are harmful to the body.

Some religious proscriptions relating to such things may once have derived from observation of the ill effects of certain conduct, but others have nothing to do with well being, physical or otherwise. — Ciceronianus the White

Yes - but include in the ill effects not only physical ones, but also psychological. For example, theft, assuming you're not caught, has no ill physical effects. And yet, psychologically, doing such a thing is harmful.

Regardless, I think the God of the universe would be unconcerned with such things even if they were connected with our well being; I don't think the human concept of "concern" would apply to such a God. — Ciceronianus the White

If the God is not personal, then this would be true. But if the God is personal - like a person - then this is likely to be false. I don't mean to convince you to change your beliefs, just to be aware that the belief is not as absurd as you (and some of the Stoics/Epicureans ;) ) want to make it seem like.

Do you not think that the traits, physical or otherwise, that people find attractive were shaped by evolution to cause us to subconsciously choose mates that are healthy and fit enough to raise the next generation? — aequilibrium

No - as far as I see most people aren't fit and capable to raise the next generation, and yet they still do. That's why we're organised in society and not otherwise.

I should add Noble Dust, that my favorite Christian alive today is this guy - the most powerful out of all:



If it wasn't for this guy I may possibly not have been a Christian anymore myself. But this guy - seriously the most powerful man on the planet. He is the very example - his own body, his own life. You have all those progressive gurus preaching this and that - but what do they have to show for it? Where are the fruits? I want to see the fruits, I'm doubting Thomas!

It is not your choice, it is not her choice, that's how that type of union works, you choose these things together. — Metaphysician Undercover

In my experience - not in a marriage - but in a relationship - she chooses some things, I choose others, depending on what each of us is best at. But each is free to make his/her choices in the realms that belong to him/her and the other can ask questions, make suggestions, etc. but they will follow in the end.

It's a good book on Buddhism. My favorite resource on Buddhism though is this blog:

https://essenceofbuddhism.wordpress.com/

The absolute best out of everything I have read. It actually makes sense, I could actually believe that.

As I said, it would be something you discuss, and choose together, as husband and wife. It is not your choice, it is not her choice, that's how that type of union works, you choose these things together. — Metaphysician Undercover

Okay so if I am opposed what happens? Because I can guarantee that I would be opposed. Furthermore, what happens if I want a child that another woman gives birth to (after being impregnated with my semen artificially), and I want me and my wife to raise it? I don't think she'd accept that either. I don't understand why you want to introduce these oppressive elements in a relationship.

I read that, the only interesting bit that I found in there was the discussion of the relationship between Freudian theory and the central nervous system. That was a very interesting example of Spinoza's Attribute parallelism ;) It led me to Karl Menninger's book - Whatever Became of Sin? That I also found interesting.

As I said, this isn't about politics. — Noble Dust

You did say it, but it obviously is about politics, so we shouldn't cover that up. We should admit to it. We play politics me and you when we discuss such subjects.

Seeing my liberal progressive NYC friends spouting anger and hatred towards Trump/Trump supporters, etc. — Noble Dust

Yes I have no doubt about that - your liberal progressive NYC friends probably went to see the psychiatrist because oh it was so terrible that Donald Trump got elected... I mean can you believe it? end of the world stuff :P

The metaphor of God as judge isn't part of the eastern orthodox tradition. Or it's at least marginal and not central. *shrug* — Noble Dust

I am an Eastern Orthodox, born and raised that way, so it's a bit funny to be told what is and isn't part of Orthodox tradition. I can however see the influence of Berdyaev here - or a peculiarly Western misunderstanding of Berdyaev to be more clear. I'll come back to this.

I can definitely entertain the idea of us being depraved. I grew up with this view. It's something I go back and forth on. For me, I think it was detrimental to my psyche and developement. I didn't grow up with a sense of my own value or worth, thanks to my Evengelical upbringing. — Noble Dust

Okay - what do you mean a sense of your own value or worth? I could blame my upbringing for a million things, but that seems to be the wrong way to go about it. There's nothing we deserve to begin with, and therefore why should we expect something, and then claim we've been hurt by not having it? For example - say you were bullied in school, or had no friends, people teased you, etc. Would your life really have been much better if such wasn't the case? Not really - you're just attached to the idea it would have. You'd just have had a different set of problems. But peace and understanding comes from the inside, not from the world.

Your life up to this point is your life - it wouldn't be yours if it was different. What makes you uniquely you is precisely this.

It sounds like you accept penal substituinary atonement, is that correct? — Noble Dust

No I don't.

How do you derive any sense of self worth from the idea that your entire eternal destiny rests on God throwing you a bone? — Noble Dust

Well I don't think it does depend on God throwing me a bone. It rests on me - but I must be accountable for what I do. I'm not obsessed about getting to Heaven. I should only get to Heaven if I deserve it. If I don't deserve it, then I should desire Hell. And to be entirely honest with you, I'm not so concerned with my sense of self worth. It's just not something that would matter to me. To have or not to have a sense of self-worth doesn't seem conducive to anything. Asking yourself whether you have a sense of your own worth - again, it's not conducive to anything. What is conducive is asking yourself what your goals are - and then working on ways to achieve them.

Original Depravity seems to view human nature as worthless, moving towards value only through a fear-of-hell based acceptance of Jesus' sacrifice. Fear based views are ALWAYS, always a form of enslavement. You are absolutely enslaved to fear if you hold this view. — Noble Dust

But I don't view that you should do something based on the fear of hell. You shouldn't fear hell. You should desire it if that's what you deserve. You shouldn't be afraid of it. I mean could you live in a world where injustice didn't get what it deserved? I couldn't - and therefore I freely accept hell, because I feel and sense that injustice is deserving of punishment (unless there is repentance).

Christ's impregnation of unconditional love (of which forgiveness is an essential aspect) into the world. — Noble Dust

Forgiveness upon repentance, not otherwise.

If you don't want equality, how do you concieve God's kingdom to be structured? — Noble Dust

Based on moral equality, not any other kind of equality. Furthermore I don't believe that we can even imagine - except analogically - what God's Kingdom is like because all we have as resources for imagining is this world. And this world is full of conflict and suffering, inherently so. Hence I conclude that Heaven is nothing like this world. I hope for it, but don't know what it is.

I don't believe in biblical innerancy, so your arguments through scripture are not convincing for me. — Noble Dust

Me neither ;)

What are your thoughts on oppression? — Noble Dust

Well let's see. I find many things oppressive including:

Globalisation - the fact that people move from place to place for work, and sever their relationships and never have any roots. Instead they wander aimlessly through the world, and condemn their loved ones to equally suffer due to their absence. The fact that globalisation means that, for example, a couple would break up because one of them wants to work in another country and the other doesn't - that to me is oppression.
Feminism - the fact that some women have turned their bodies into weapons used in order to humiliate men and enslave them as mere sexual objects. The fact that women are taught that it is freedom to have no respect for their bodies, or for any decency at all, but are instead encouraged to give in to the worst passions in mankind.
Racism - the fact that the blacks are purposefully kept poor by the encouragement of poverty producing behaviours such as gang activity, promiscuity, etc. and the fact that they are dumbed down to think "oh there's a black president, thus there's nothing wrong anymore"
Affirmative action - the fact that the white heterosexual male has become the number one public enemy, and a black female lesbian gets a university professor position merely because of her skin color, her gender, and her sexual orientation, not because she's more capable than her white male heterosexual competitor.
Religious intolerance - the fact that religious people are disrespected and seen to be oppressive and unworthy. The fact that, for example, Muslim people are told that they are oppressive because they ask their women to dress a certain way, that I find oppressive. Cultures should be allowed to manifest and be proud of themselves. There's no shame in that. But the progressives want you to think the opposite - they want you to think that you should be ashamed of who you are. If you think for example, that your wife should dress decently you should be ashamed of yourself, because you are an oppressor, you have no self-esteem, and so forth. If you are worried that the cultural milieu isn't adequate for you to instil the right values in your children, suddenly you are disgusting, you are immoral and have to be socially isolated for it. The fact that the progressives have turned labeling and social isolation into a means of enforcing their immoral agenda, and such has to come to a stop. If Aristotle, Plato, Descartes, you choose your philosopher. If any of them would have heard about what the progressives are doing today, they would have been outraged beyond belief! These folks are encouraging submissions to man's worst passions - greed, lust, selfishness, and so forth. This isn't the Bible. This isn't any religion. This is a false and miserable teaching.

And I could go on, but I'll stop for now.

And finally, regarding Berdyaev. The Orthodox do believe in tradition, but tradition isn't the focus for them. The Orthodox do believe in Hell. Only that Hell is in God, and Heaven also is in God. After death we all return to God. Only that the righteous who love God will perceive God's Love as blessedness, and the sinful will perceive it as a burning fire. And that's what's happening today. Look at the progressives. You think they can live in righteousness in God, when all they do in the world is smoke drugs, promiscuous sex, and so forth? They will perceive God as the greatest evil that can befall them.

Back to Berdyaev. Berdyaev does have a point that tradition isn't all there is. Religion isn't all about rule following. There is indeed something higher than mere rule following. The creative participation in Creation. There is much beauty in the world, and the virtues are hard and difficult, while sin and everything evil is easy. To create beauty - instead of evil and sin - is difficult. Not everyone can do it, narrow is the path, and many are those who shall perish. But Berdyaev is right, fundamentally. But the folks raised in Western cultures misinterpret him. He's not saying that Church rules aren't important. He's talking to the people who lived in a society where the Church was in power, and everyone was concerned merely with rule following. We don't live in such a world anymore. In this world, the Church has almost no power. Instead people have given over to what is much worse than Church rule - that is the rule of their own selfishness and the bondage of their own lusts. They haven't achieved freedom, they have achieved a stronger form of enslavement than ever before.

I'd dare speculate that your unhappiness about the present state of the world is the result of precisely the alienation that is the result of immorality. Your soul is more sensitive and thus more capable of perceiving it in the world. With such immorality around it's hard to be happy and content.