/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.15253694]

how do we solve the death of God problem without resurrecting God in another form (political ideology, hedonistic lifestyle etc.) in the process?

[Anonymous No.15253704]

>>15253694
There is zero evidence of supernatural entities.

[Anonymous No.15253709]

>>15253694
the god-image must evolve to accommodate for our new state of consciousness.

[Anonymous No.15253715]

>>15253704
that is the problem, anon
>>15253709
sounds based, can you give an example of how this would work?

[Anonymous No.15253756]

>>15253694
>monetary metaphysics
Usury finance deferring capital production and borrowing on its future creation for its avaricious consumption in the present and its holistic effects on society and governance as a whole is so deleterious, that its removal would spark an immediate renaissance (Black Plague and labor market led to this) -- Nietzsche speaks in the early writings of specifically this fear -- that an oligarchy of post-nationals bribing their way into a global democracy despotism would be the most dangerous conceivable path for humanity's stewardship.

[Anonymous No.15253760]

>>15253704
The big bang is unironic proof of creation

[Anonymous No.15253841]

>>15253760
But what came before it tho?

[Anonymous No.15253956]

>>15253760
Nah

[Anonymous No.15253988]

>>15253715
>that is the problem, anon
Why is that a problem?

[Anonymous No.15254022]

>>15253694
U read more Nietz and u stop being a bitch

[Anonymous No.15254033]

>>15253715
I'm not a big brain but I can try to explain how Jung thought this would/could happen: human consciousness is right now entering a new era (or aion as Jung called it). It is leaving the era of the Christian myth, which has been the defining myth of the West for about 2000 years. Leaving Christianity means, as you pointed out, the death of God. The problem is that the god-image is an essential archetype of the human mind. Simply put, if we do not consciously acknowledge God, something else will take its place, which is what happens in Communist, Fascism, consumerism.

The solution to this would obviously be to make the god image conscience as is done in traditional religion, except we can't because God is dead. Science has advanced to the point where basically no one literally believes the metaphysical claims of the Bible, except for a small minority of fundamentalists. So how does the god-image evolve so that it may exist in this new era?

I don't have the full answer, but I think that a good start is for the god-image to be recognized as an integral part of man's psyche. In traditional religion people will project these inner archetypes onto the external world, hence the gods of ancient Greece who personify human emotions. We must search for the meta narratives of all the worlds religions, and distill them to their fundamental truths about the inner psyche. Western man must become far more introspective than he has been for the last few hundred years. Just because the God of the bible may not "exist" in the cosmos does not mean he does not "exist" in the psyche in a significant way. It is important to remember that Nietzsche wasn't the first to posit the death of God. In fact the bible itself describes the crucifixion and death of Jesus, who is himself God incarnate. Jesus was killed and then rose from the dead. God must die so that he can be reborn in a new light, so that the unconscious instincts that guide human beings can be reconciled with a changing world.

Id recommend Jung's Aion or the works of Edward Edinger for more on this topic. Like I said I'm just a brainlet who likes interesting ideas; I'm no expert.

[Anonymous No.15254040]

>>15253760
There is no creator if there are no subjects.

>That a sort of adequate relationship subsists between subject and object, that the object is something that if seen from within would be a subject, is a well-meant invention which, I think, has had its day. The measure of that of which we are in any way conscious is totally dependent upon the coarse utility of its becoming-conscious: how could this nook-perspective of consciousness permit us to assert anything of "subject" and "object" that touched reality!

>The "subject" is only a fiction: the ego of which one speaks when one censures egoism does not exist at all.

From WTP

[Anonymous No.15254054]

>>15253841
Who knows
>>15253956
Undeniably yes
>>15254040
God is a subject who created the universe

[Anonymous No.15254107]

>>15254054
>God is a subject who created the universe

>Against determinism and teleology.—From the fact that something ensues regularly and ensues calculably, it does not follow that it ensues necessarily. That a quantum of force determines and conducts itself in every particular case in one way and manner does not make it into an "unfree will." "Mechanical necessity" is not a fact: it is we who first interpreted it into events. We have interpreted the formulatable character of events as the consequence of a necessity that rules over events. But from the fact that I do a certain thing, it by no means follows that I am compelled to do it. Compulsion in things certainly cannot be demonstrated: the rule proves only that one and the same event is not another event as well. Only because we have introduced subjects, "doers," into things does it appear that all events are the consequences of compulsions exerted upon subjects—exerted by whom? again by a "doer." Cause and effect—a dangerous concept so long as one thinks of something that causes and something upon which an effect is produced. [...] It is only after the model of the subject that we have invented the reality of things and projected them into the medley of sensations. If we no longer believe in the effective subject, then belief also disappears in effective things, in reciprocation, cause and effect between those phenomena that we call things. There also disappears, of course, the world of effective atoms: the assumption of which always depended on the supposition that one needed subjects. At last, the "thing-in-itself" also disappears, because this is fundamentally the conception of a "subject-in-itself." But we have grasped that the subject is a fiction. The antithesis "thing-in-itself" and "appearance" is untenable; with that, however, the concept "appearance" also disappears. If we give up the effective subject, we also give up the object upon which effects are produced. Duration, identity with itself, being are inherent neither in that which is called subject nor in that which is called object: they are complexes of events apparently durable in comparison with other complexes—e.g., through the difference in tempo of the event (rest—motion, firm—loose: opposites that do not exist in themselves and that actually express only variations in degree from a certain perspective appear to be opposites. There are no opposites: only from those of logic do we derive the concept of opposites—and falsely transfer it to things). If we give up the concept "subject" and "object," then also the concept "substance"—and as a consequence also the various modifications of it, e.g., "matter," "spirit," and other hypothetical entities, "the eternity and immutability of matter," etc. We have got rid of materiality.

Also from WTP

[Anonymous No.15254224]

>>15254033
Where does he discuss this most?

[Anonymous No.15254250]

>>15254224

[Anonymous No.15254301]

>>15254054
Undeniably nah

[Anonymous No.15254472]

>>15254107
There is nothing in QM that violates causality, only determinism
>>15254301
Yes, the big bang is a creation event. Denying this is low IQ cope

[Anonymous No.15254643]

>>15253694

N wrote God is dead but he didn't say this triumphantly, rather he went on to say, "and there won't be enough water to wash away the blood."

What this meant was that the people will stop believing in God and replace God with totalitarianism and it will lead them to bloodshed.

He wasn't saying it with pride or happiness but horror and sadness. He saw it as a nightmare to be avoided.

[Anonymous No.15254719]

>>15253760
>>15253956

All atheists thought that the universe was steady state originally. Einstein even edited out part of his equations because they predicted a big bang and every atheist agreed that if the universe had a starting point that implied there was a God who started. It was only after the big bang became accepted fact that the narrative changed to the big bang being evidence against God.

It was actually a Catholic priest (George Lemâitre, Belgian Jesuit) who originally proposed the big bang, because such a thing is only logical if you believe in God.

[Anonymous No.15254810]

>>15254472
>There is nothing in QM that violates causality, only determinism
How is that related to the quote?

[Anonymous No.15254819]

>>15253704
Who said God is supernatural?

[Anonymous No.15254833]

>>15254719
>Einstein even edited out part of his equations because they predicted a big bang and every atheist agreed that if the universe had a starting point that implied there was a God who started
>>>/x/

[Anonymous No.15254839]

>>15254472
>Yes, the big bang is a creation event
Nope.

[Anonymous No.15254862]

>>15253704
science is kinda agnostic by definition on the problem of supernatural stuff
you can really make testable, falsifiable hypotheses about anything that violates natural law


>>15253694
make a new society completely cut off from the old ones
give it access to extensive knowledge of math and science, but nothing about any kind of magic or mystical beliefs
see what happens

[Anonymous No.15254878]

>>15254719
but what about the little pixies that make fire burn and water wet, anon? what does physics have to say about them?

[Anonymous No.15254904]

I can't believe over half this thread didn't understand what 'God is dead' meant

It's just an appeal for people to re-check their lives, their values, their morality, as if there was no God. Or at least not the old God. Maybe you could make a new one?

If it simply was a part of atheistic rethoric, God wouldn't die, because there'd be no God at all

[Anonymous No.15255015]

Only great pain, that long, slow pain that takes its time and in which we are burned, as it were, over green wood, forces us philosophers to descend into our ultimate depths and put aside all trust, everything good-natured, veiling, mild, average - things in which formerly we may have found our humanity. I doubt that such pain makes us 'better' - but I know that it makes us deeper. Whether we learn to pit our pride, our scorn, our willpower against it, like the savage who, however badly tormented, repays his tormentor with the malice of his tongue; or whether we withdraw before pain into the Oriental Nothingness - called Nirvana - into mute, rigid, deaf self-surrender, self-forgetting, self-extinction: one emerges from such dangerous exercises in self-mastery as a different person, with a few more question marks, above all with the will henceforth to question further, more deeply, severely, harshly, evilly, and quietly than one had previously questioned. The trust in life is gone: life itself has become a problem. Yet one should not jump to the conclusion that this necessarily makes one sullen. Even love of life is still possible - only one loves differently. It is like the love for a woman who gives us doubts ... But the attraction of everything problematic, the delight in an X, is so great in highly spiritual, spiritualized people such as these that this delight flares up like bright embers again and again over all the distress of what is problematic, over all the danger of uncertainty, and even over the jealousy of the lover. We know a new happiness. . .

[Anonymous No.15255030]

>>15255015
4
Finally, lest what is most important remain unsaid: from such abysses, from such severe illness, also from the illness of severe suspicion, one returns newborn, having shed one's skin, more ticklish and malicious, with a more delicate taste for joy, with a more tender tongue for all good things, with merrier senses, joyful with a more dangerous second innocence, more childlike, and at the same time a hundred times subtler than one had ever been before. How repulsive enjoyment is to us now, that crude, muggy, brown enjoyment as understood by those who enjoy it, our 'educated', our rich, and our rulers! How maliciously we nowadays listen to the great fairground boom-boom with which the 'educated person' and urbanite today allows art, books and music - aided by spirituous beverages - to rape him for 'forms of spiritual enjoyment'! How the theatrical cry of passion now hurts our ears; that whole romantic uproar and tumult of the senses that is loved by the educated mob together with its aspirations towards the sublime, the elevated, the distorted, how foreign it has become to our taste! No, if we convalescents still need art, it is another kind of art - a mocking, light, fleeting, divinely untroubled, divinely artificial art that, like a bright flame. blazes into an unclouded sky!

[Anonymous No.15255045]

>>15255030
Above all: an art for artists, only for artists! In addition we will know better what is first and foremost needed for that: cheerfulness - any cheerfulness, my friendsl As artists, too, we will know this - I would like to prove it. There are some things we now know too well, we knowing ones: oh, how we nowadays learn as artists to forget well, to be good at not knowing! And as for our future, one will hardly find us again on the paths of those Egyptian youths who make temples unsafe at night, embrace statues, and want by all means to unveil, uncover, and put into a bright light whatever is kept concealed for good reasons. No, we have grown sick of this bad taste, this will to truth, to 'truth at any price', this youthful madness in the love of truth: we are too experienced, too serious, too jovial, too burned, too deep for that ... We no longer believe that truth remains truth when one pulls off the veil; we have lived too much to believe this. Today we consider it a matter of decency not to wish to see everything naked, to be present everywhere, to understand and 'know' everything. 'Is it true that God is everywhere?' a little girl asked her mother; 'I find that indecent!' - a hint for philosophers! One should have more respect for the bashfulness with which nature has hidden behind riddles and iridescent uncertainties. Perhaps truth is a woman who has grounds for not showing her grounds? Perhaps her name is - to speak Greek - Baubo? . . .

[Anonymous No.15255055]

>>15255045
. . . Oh, those Greeks! They knew how to live: what is needed for that is to stop bravely at the surface, the fold, the skin; to worship appearance, to believe in shapes, tones, words - in the whole Olympus of appearance! Those Greeks were superficial - out of profundity! And is not this precisely what we are coming back to, we daredevils of the spirit who have climbed the highest and most dangerous peak of current thought and looked around from up there, looked down from up there? Are we not just in this respect - Greeks? Worshippers of shapes, tones, words? And therefore - artists?

[Anonymous No.15255090]

>>15254904
>It's just an appeal for people to re-check their lives, their values, their morality, as if there was no God
You’re one of the over half, it seems

[Anonymous No.15255108]

>>15253704
Why is every atheist afraid of entering haunted houses? makes my nerve atoms bounce

[Anonymous No.15255138]

>>15254904
I guess I'm leaning towards some kind of naturalist/utilitarian hybrid morality

because letting morality become atomized seems like it will inevitably cede power to the already powerful, because they have more well-defined interests than the average person

so in order to make a value-set that's applicable to everyone, you have to fall back on the stuff that everyone shares;
an origin in nature, which we have a complementary right to and duty to protect
"essential" rights and needs
we should also consider eugenics, because people who can't keep up with intellectual strain are dangerous in that they can be subverted by simplistic arguments, which threatens the notion of equality
some kind of nationalized public service would be good also, something that everyone would be required to spend a couple years doing
the shared experience would give a common knowledge base and reduce the market for manual labor, damaging the basis for a labor-based class system

[Anonymous No.15255269]

>>15254033
Sounds like spooks. Was Jung this cringe-pilled? There are no fundamental truths about the human psyche, man is not infinitely malleable, but man is free to an extent that psychologists universally refuse to recognize. It makes diagnosis difficult.

>>15253694
Western people don't need idols, this is true. The God archetype is not God. Consider that if there is a God, it is His will to not be found. It is His will that there is zero evidence of God. What does this fact explicate concerning God? That God's will is that mankind have freedom in abundance.

This freedom which is God's will is something we can accept with thanksgiving. God doesn't want to be God, thanks be to God.

[Anonymous No.15255383]

with love

[Anonymous No.15255423]

>>15255269
it sounds like "spooks" because you're a positivist (i.e. braindead bug-person incapable of thinking symbolically)

[Anonymous No.15255459]

>>15255423
>thinking symbolically
sounds like magical thinking to me, anon

[Anonymous No.15255529]

>>15255423
>Incapable of thinking symbolically
I'll have you know that I'm a Christian. There's a difference between symbolical thinking and idolatry. All that Jung does is make an idol out of Biblical themes, its a fantasia on what it is to be religious, not true worship of God. It is very true that God made us free; God is after all a free being and in His image we were made.

[Anonymous No.15255551]

>>15255459
then you must think that math is magic
>>15255529
That's all fine and good, but you must be aware that your conception of God is not mainstream and is going the way of the dodo. Worshiping God as an external, metaphysical being is not sufficient in a world of science.

[Anonymous No.15255660]

>>15255551
>You must be aware that your conception of God is not mainstream
On the contrary; secular society is pervaded by such strong Christian sentiments that pull in such contrary directions that we are continually fighting over them. Western politics is a matter of Biblical interpretation.

However I see what you mean, but I don't understand the point of replacing God. It was knowledge of God that led us stumbling towards atheism. We carefully -- generation after generation -- analyzed our beliefs, sifting idolatry from true worship, till the point that we don't even speak of God anymore. So why the discomfort? We didn't become atheist, we realized our inability to be Christian in a whole and complete sense, since the world is too fraught.

Therefore why replace our silence with a God? That's regression from the exalted spiritual state of humble silence. Regression may be comfortable, but comfort is to be despised.

[Anonymous No.15257208]

>>15253841
obviously bigger bang you fucking simpleton