/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.14117904]

>Curb stomps Nietzsche
>Curb stomps Epictetus
>Curb stomps Epicurus
>Curb stomps Stoicism
>Curb stomps Buddhism
>Curb stomps Muslims
>Curb stomps Jews
>Praises Jews also
>Curb stomps Schopenhauer
>Curb stomps Plato
>Does it all in a few short collected notes
It hurts that he couldn't do this all in a proper book, bros. His notes alone are convincing enough.

[Anonymous No.14117910]

>>14117904
>>Praises Jews also
Dropped.

[Anonymous No.14118041]

>>14117910
When will you hypersensitive neo-nazis who get triggered so easily finally realize you're not welcome on a board that discusses literature?

[Anonymous No.14118054]

Out with Pascal's wager; in with Talebian Fideism
https://unherd.com/2019/03/why-god-needs-skin-in-the-game/
https://medium.com/incerto/we-dont-know-what-we-are-talking-about-when-we-talk-about-religion-3e65e6a3c44e
https://medium.com/incerto/how-to-be-rational-about-rationality-432e96dd4d1a

[Anonymous No.14118064]

>>14117904
Based

Atheists deliberately avoid reading this book, despite being recommended it many times, because they're afraid it would expose their worldview for the dust it is

Gentle reminder that you can't say you weren't warned on the day of judgment

[Anonymous No.14118066]

You forgot

>curb stomps the binomial theorem

[Anonymous No.14118080]

>>14118064
gtfo christcuck

[Anonymous No.14118084]

>>14117904
anti-rationalism is epic
>All the human beings through the story, and Job especially, have been asking questions of God. A more trivial poet would have made God enter in some sense or other in order to answer the questions. By a touch truly to be called inspired, when God enters, it is to ask a number of questions on His own account. In this drama of skepticism God Himself takes up the role of skeptic. He does what all the great voices defending religion have always done. He does, for instance, what Socrates did. He turns rationalism against itself. He seems to say that if it comes to asking questions, He can ask some question which will fling down and flatten out all conceivable human questioners. The poet by an exquisite intuition has made God ironically accept a kind of controversial equality with His accusers. He is willing to regard it as if it were a fair intellectual duel: “Gird up now thy loins like man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me” (38:3). The everlasting adopts an enormous and sardonic humility. He is quite willing to be prosecuted. He only asks for the right which every prosecuted person possesses; he asks to be allowed to cross-examine the witness for the prosecution.

>It [God's speech in Job] represents all human skeptics routed by a higher skepticism. It is this method, used sometimes by supreme and sometimes by mediocre minds, that has ever since been the logical weapon of the true mystic. Socrates, as I have said, used it when he showed that if you only allowed him enough sophistry he could destroy all sophists. Jesus Christ used it when he reminded the Sadducees, who could not imagine the nature of marriage in heaven, that if it came to that they had not really imagined the nature of marriage at all. In the break up of Christian theology in the eighteenth century, [Joseph] Butler used it, when he pointed out that rationalistic arguments could be used as much against vague religions as against doctrinal religion, as much against rationalist ethics as against Christian ethics. It is the root and reason of the fact that men who have religious faith have also philosophic doubt. These are the small streams of the delta; the book of Job is the first great cataract that creates the river. In dealing with the arrogant asserter of doubt, it is not the right method to tell him to stop doubting. It is rather the right method to tell him to go on doubting , to doubt a little more, to doubt every day newer and wilder things in the universe, until at last, by some strange enlightenment, he may begin to doubt himself.

[Anonymous No.14118086]

>>14117910
Pol retard

[Anonymous No.14118087]

>>14118080
Seething. Don't say I didn't tell you

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE No.14118090]

>>14117904
Except no.

[Anonymous No.14118092]

>praises jews

[Anonymous No.14118107]

>>14118054
based, pascalcucks can't respond to this

NO FAITH WITHOUT SACRIFICE

[Anonymous No.14118118]

>>14118084
Where is the excerpt from? You've got me intrigued.

[Anonymous No.14118119]

>>14118107
>>14118090
>>14118054
Read the work. It's not just the wager.

[Anonymous No.14118134]

>>14118119
I'm not even against Pascal's wager; I just feel that Taleb's argument for faith is much more convincing.

[Anonymous No.14118141]

>>14117910
Based

[Anonymous No.14118144]

>>14118134

[Anonymous No.14118148]

>>14118041
>>14118086
Condemning Jews has been a thing in Christianity since its very beginning though. Unless you want to call Chrysostom a /pol/tard, you obsessed freaks.

[Anonymous No.14118155]

>>14117904
does he curb stomp hindus? advaita?

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE No.14118161]

>>14118119
Give us a line for each accusation

[Anonymous No.14118164]

it's this thread again. please stop.

[Anonymous No.14118182]

>>14118144
>Faith is irrationa-

[Anonymous No.14118187]

>>14118118
Not him but GK Chesterson, one of the best Christian apologists. You can start with Orthodoxy, an easy 100 pages.

[Anonymous No.14118191]

>>14118080
You'll never be rid of us. The pharisees couldn't even get rid of us with Rome's help.

[Anonymous No.14118194]

>>14118182
It’s the definition of irrational. Believing something when there is no good reason to believe it.

[Anonymous No.14118198]

>>14118161
>God is dead
God cannot die, so this is a fallacy
>God remainds dead
God cannot die
>We have killed him
Wir können nicht das töten, wozu es unmöglich ist .

[Anonymous No.14118202]

he was retroactively curb stomped by Parmenides though

[Anonymous No.14118204]

>>14118194
https://medium.com/incerto/how-to-be-rational-about-rationality-432e96dd4d1a

[Anonymous No.14118208]

>>14118182
I have read Pascal and Kierkegaard, redpill me on Taleb.

[Anonymous No.14118214]

>>14118187
I've been meaning to read Chesterton for some time. I've heard good things about him and I thoroughly enjoyed that except.

[Anonymous No.14118314]

>>14118208
His arguments in the links below (it's better of you read Antifragile and Skin in the Game, though). He says that atheism is bad because the mind abhors vacuum and that there is nothing to replace religion. He also says that the current attack is religion is terrible because everytime people have attempted to destroy religion, it has always come back with a vengeance. His main argument is that religion isn't making any epistemic statements (literal and scientific statements), it's more like a heuristic to help us survive and stay out of trouble (see the example below):
>“Consider: If you’re a New Guinean living in the forest, and if you adopt the bad habit of sleeping under dead trees whose odds of falling on you that particular night are only 1 in 1,000, you’ll be dead within a few years. In fact, my wife was nearly killed by a falling tree last year, and I’ve survived numerous nearly fatal situations in New Guinea.”
There is/was a superstition in New Guinea where they don't sleep under dead trees. The religious ritual of not sleeping under dead trees helps people survive. Taleb says that it is incoherent to criticize someone's beliefs if they help them survive. That's just the jist of his (long) argument. I recommend you read up on his argument more in depth.
https://medium.com/incerto/we-dont-know-what-we-are-talking-about-when-we-talk-about-religion-3e65e6a3c44e
https://medium.com/incerto/how-to-be-rational-about-rationality-432e96dd4d1a
https://youtu.be/VuJD5Zfqti8
https://youtu.be/XAbSmTGJhEA

[Anonymous No.14118345]

>>14118314
>Taleb says that it is incoherent to criticize someone's beliefs if they help them survive.
based and faithpilled

[Anonymous No.14118863]

>>14118204
based

[Anonymous No.14119192]

>>14118194
What is a good reason to believe something?

[Anonymous No.14119356]

>>14118345
It’s the opposite, it’s utilitarian atheism.

[Anonymous No.14119411]

>curb stomps all those gay kids
>doesnt lay a finger on Kant, Hegel, Marx, nor Heidegger.

So long gay retard

[Anonymous No.14119543]

>>14118118
Chesterton's Introduction to Job

[Anonymous No.14119561]

>>14117904
Hey, look, it’s great that you found a new thinker congenial to your lifestyle, but please stop beating the board to death with it. It’s painfully obvious that you’re an undergrad (at best) and this is the first time in a long time you’ve actually read a full book. If you actually care about Pascal, go back to reading him or look into secondary literature. You won’t find stimulating engagement here.

[Anonymous No.14119571]

>>14118041
>hypersensitive neo-nazis
there's nothing that screams fool more than browsing 4chan all day and STILL not think that the JQ has any merit. The JQ has been a topic of dissuasion for at least 2500 years, I think I speak for all of us when I say that the onus of proof is on PEOPLE LIKE YOU to prove otherwise

[Anonymous No.14119574]

>>14117904
Being a pretentious cunt isn’t going to make me read your shitty author.

[Anonymous No.14119885]

>>14118182
Whos bottom right?

[Anonymous No.14120297]

>>14119885
william james

[Anonymous No.14120330]

>>14118182
Faith in something not possible is irrational. Reductionist faggots get fucked.

[Anonymous No.14120544]

Oh look, Pascalboy is back. Are you now finally going to actually explain your point of view or are you still just going to endlessly yell 'm-muh Pensees!!1' when your dumb Wager is criticized into oblivion?

As if I don't know the answer already.

[Anonymous No.14121012]

>>14118134
What is his argument for faith

[Anonymous No.14121020]

>>14117904
I think pascal has curb-stomped your brain

[Anonymous No.14121043]

>>14118314
>His main argument is that religion isn't making any epistemic statements

This is demonstrably false, if you ask every single religious person (besides Taleb and Wittgenstein I guess) they will tell you that religion gives them answers to extremely serious existential questions. Do you think people will continue to pray if they are convinced that it has no causal effect on anything?

Sorry pal but this line of defense is worthless, at least William Lane Craig is trying with his kalam shit

[Anonymous No.14121058]

>>14119571
Whatever you say shill

[Anonymous No.14121066]

>>14119411
Well he lived and died at least a century before any of them published. What he wrote about Epictetus and the Stoics is applicable to Hegel and Marx, and what he wrote about Montaigne and reason is applicable to Kant. Heidegger probably liked Pascal.
>>14120544
not OP, but the Wager really isn't as internet memes would make you think it is. It argues for ignoring your doubts and driving ahead in a sort of proto-leap of faith, not that probability is a good basis for becoming a Christian.

[Anonymous No.14121068]

>Hume annihilates all the theological arguments referenced in this very thread
and he wasn't even an atheist!

[Anonymous No.14121083]

>>14118090
god is not dead...
>unsheathe my 6 foot katana
>teleport behind you
>hayaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
>swish
but the tranny is.
nothing personnel

[Anonymous No.14121130]

>>14117904
>pensees
more like penis
opinion disregarded.

[Anonymous No.14121228]

>>14118066
>Implying /lit/ fags who cope with the fact that they are unable to solve a simple quadratic equation by hating on mathematics and the """philosophy""" of it would know about that

[Anonymous No.14121366]

>>14118041
You brought it up, retard

[Anonymous No.14121406]

>>14118054
Taleb doesn't understand a thing of Pascal or jansenist views in general.
Strange considering it's the non retarded version of Taleb's philosophy.

[Anonymous No.14121413]

>>14118194
T. Hasn't read the Grammar of Assent.
Also answer other anon >>14119192