/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.14228241]

What is the protestant ethic? Is it a book worth reading? Weber apparently propounds that protestantism is inherantly capitalist in nature and, not that I am a commie, but I don't know if I'd support a denomination in support of capital, when the bible is explicitly anti-capital. I am not saying Id become a catholicuck, but perhaps orthodox. Has anyone read it? Is it viable. Also when people trash talk protties, are you referring to the german protestant reformation, which spawned calvinism and lutheranism (my denomination), or the american protestant reformation, which spawned presbyterianisn and the baptist church, which I agree are cancer. Are they the same reformation? Or different, as they were separated by over 200 years and had completely different stimuli, one being legitimate acknowledged issues with the catholic church at the time, and the other being, from what I can gather, screw le british church, just because americans then were kinda fucktards who didnt know wtf was going on.

[Anonymous No.14228252]

>>14228241
A marxist meme, historically unsound (But i repeat myself).

[Anonymous No.14228263]

>>14228252
so it was spawned by marxists or what? I don't really know that that entails as, since the marxists of history have proven in practice and in theory to be pure cringe, I haven't read anything written by them. Would you mind expanding on that?

[a_poor_sinner !!eiHxl4pZe1i No.14228300]

>>14228241
>the bible is explicitly anti-capital
Not exactly.

>What is the protestant ethic? Is it a book worth reading?
You tell me.

>when people trash talk protties, are you referring to the german protestant reformation
I don't but I assume yeah that's what people are talking about.

To answer your first question the Protestant work ethic is real, and a cultural feature. Ethnic groups, their culture, and their religion are extremely closely related, and this is one of those times when the wrong label got applied. There is no particular drive to generate capital in Protestant theology afaik. It's a cultural feature that survived in a people who moved out of Europe to the American colonies and frontier.

[Anonymous No.14228317]

>>14228300
how is jesus saying, it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man reach the kingdom of heavan(paraphjrased) it isnt enough to be rich and charitable, you must be charitable enough to the extent that you are made poor by it, and have less to turn you from your faith. Also I think assuming that ones faith is strong enough to resist the temptations inherent with earthly wealth is foolish, so then how is this not anti capital?

[a_poor_sinner !!eiHxl4pZe1i No.14228387]

>>14228317
https://w2.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_15051891_rerum-novarum.html

Para. 46 & 47

>The right to possess private property is derived from nature, not from man; and the State has the right to control its use in the interests of the public good alone, but by no means to absorb it altogether. The State would therefore be unjust and cruel if under the name of taxation it were to deprive the private owner of more than is fair.

tldr: Man needs some kind of capital because he exists in a capitalist system. Loans existed even in Jesus' day. Without private property there can be no charity. Etc etc.

>it isnt enough to be rich and charitable, you must be charitable enough to the extent that you are made poor by it, and have less to turn you from your faith
Right.

>Also I think assuming that ones faith is strong enough to resist the temptations inherent with earthly wealth is foolish
Well that's your opinion.

[Anonymous No.14228406]

>>14228263
Weber is not a Marxist

[Anonymous No.14228409]

>>14228317
https://youtu.be/i9EXnVitkmo

[Anonymous No.14228412]

>>14228387
i dont think its a unpopular opinion amoungst learned folks, or at least people who have read the bible. He says if you had the grain of a mustard seed you could cast mountains into the seas. We dont have faith, and we need faith to resist temptations. Most rich people are unpious, and I don't think you could find one 'pious' wealthy person who is as pious as a saint.

[Anonymous No.14228416]

>>14228252
>a marxist meme

Weber undoes marxist economic materialism.

[Anonymous No.14228430]

>>14228406
>>14228409
guys literally chill, im not talking about socialism at all. Im saying that capitalism doesn't always lead to the most ethical situation. Wageslavery is pretty real, I know a few real wageslaves and their dead inside. Just remember if your celebrating thanksgiving at all this year, your blessed. Im not saying that socialism is a viable alternative, but rather that if capitalism is the best economic system we have, we may be better off without one altogether.

[Anonymous No.14228431]

>>14228416
How does he undo it?

[Anonymous No.14228441]

>>14228416
That's also a meme. Weber never states just the opposite of materialism. He simply sees a correspondence, but not a genetic causality between protestant ethics and capitalism.

[Anonymous No.14228446]

>>14228263
>so it was spawned by marxists or what?

no. it supports idealism over materialism and makes the marxist class system vastly more believable and dynamic by introducing things like "party"


weber is vastly underated, I assume beause he only gets a passing mention in contemporary humnties departments

[Anonymous No.14228449]

>>14228241
I'M SO LONELY AND HORNY AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

[a_poor_sinner !!eiHxl4pZe1i No.14228456]

>>14228412
>We dont have faith, and we need faith to resist temptations.
Precisely.

>Most rich people are unpious, and I don't think you could find one 'pious' wealthy person who is as pious as a saint.
But are they any less deserving of mercy? I think you're right here, but it's a bad assumption that wealth automatically equals misguidedness or a lack of faith. Some degree of wealth is necessary to fulfill God's command to be fruitful and multiply in the sacrament of marriage. What's important is a willingness to give up that wealth as you have said.

[Anonymous No.14228464]

>>14228431
idealism. the ideas of Protestantism take primacy over the material world it forms

[Anonymous No.14228471]

>>14228464
Again, this is not what Weber said. Read the actual book instead of a summary

[Anonymous No.14228478]

>>14228441
does he state this in The Protestant Ethic? I've been interested in Weber for a while and haven't really known where to start in his catalogue. Is there any material I should start with before reading it? Someone mentioned idealism should I read some of the idealists, like kant and such before?
>>14228456
it seems we have a similar understanding of the situation. I herald you based.
>>14228471
is this in the protestant ethic?
>>14228449
have fun with picrelated

[Anonymous No.14228485]

>>14228478

[Anonymous No.14228489]

Imagine being a christcuck in general

[Anonymous No.14228495]

>>14228449
>>14228485
at any rate based reaction images but i gotta do what i gotta yabadaba do

[Anonymous No.14228506]

>>14228478
Start with Economy and society. The book starts by giving all the necessary and elemental definitions. Don't need to read the whole book (as it has more than a thousand pages) but just pay attention to how he defines the object of study of sociology, social action, power and the tipology of actions. All this is in Economy and society. You don't need nothing else (some info on neo kantism would be good but it's not that necessary). Then you can read pretty much any other text you want

[Anonymous No.14228522]

>>14228506
have you read the whole thing? Has anyone? How can one man have so much to say on economy and society? What else is it about?

[Anonymous No.14228552]

>>14228495
>tfw no submissive elf qt gf

[Anonymous No.14228565]

>>14228522
I have only read some excerpts quite a few times (the ones where he defines power, and so on). I don't know of anyone who has read the whole thing. According to the book's summary, there's a lot to say about sociology of religion, of power, economic history and related topics.

[Anonymous No.14228568]

>>14228241
who's the semen demon?

[Anonymous No.14228587]

>>14228568
couldnt find the name. The more depressing part is im sure it was taken off some girl instagram. At least when I see beautiful women online I know they are thots or some porn actress, but when I can't find her insta thot page or the sauce, I realize that this is a pure woman. She exists only in this instant in this instance of time in this post, you will never find her outside of this place, and in that way she is free from the hatred and degeneracy of this place.

[Anonymous No.14228702]

>>14228587
She is not pure - she has the eyes of a keen manipulator. It's quite unsettling living amongst people who do not intuit immediately the personalities of others. Such a crucial aspect of socialization - yet the vast majority lack this capacity. We're on /lit/ too, you might think the people here are perceptive observers, but apparently even physiognomy - the vulgar, material application of direct intuition - is met with resistance.

[Anonymous No.14228807]

>>14228702
she has the keeness of those eyes that peer mischeviously into a dear lovers eyes, a lover that unabashedly takes her photograph in public, because he is overwhelmed with the prescence of her. And in this moment she is both contented, as her mate is showing interest and as her mate is showing care, and seemingly duplicitous, as it makes no real sense why one should take anothers photo when in their prescence, and not beginning to depart from it. She has the eyes of youth, a naive and innocent gaze that, though sometimes haphazard and disobedient, has nothing but foolish love at heart, love of attention, love of wanting, love of another. It is only in later years, or early years if one becomes distraught in this, that one begins to love wisdom, and then the eyes change into a full spectrum, a full color scheme that not even the most talented of impressionists could do justice. And, though not that transcendent color ideal, her eyes are beautiful in their simplicity, their misunderstanding, their myopic shortsightedness (yet not hateful shortseeing) and in their temporality, things forbidden in the eyes of the aged. You seem to see what you want to see. You seem too cynical of the female condition. It is the men of the past that effect the women of the present, those who raised them, and those who raised them, and those who razed them, and those who razed them. We should be more optimistic, not in a callow sort of way, in a transcendent sort of way, as Thoreau or Emerson would approve, and, although you perceptively saw that hte women of this generation are scum and full of envy and hate (things that ought to be foreign to women) we must rise above and raise a generation of women who are taught Love of Wisdom, through all this adversity of modern hellish living, and become great in out transcendence, a tale to tell our grandchildren, and their grandchildren twice four times over.