/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.8552087]

>tfw you realize Catholicism is the only religion that stands up to philosophical scrutiny
>its thinkers and tradition make some really compelling arguments
>every single day is spent juggling between belief and disbelief, can't commit to anything and don't want to abandon my hedonistic life for joyless abstinence
>start going to church, shift between genuinely enjoying mass and feeling like a retard

How do I deal with this? I'm sure some people here have been in a position where they feel extremely conflicted between pursuing a Christian life or continuing with agnostic apathy. Are there any books that provide serious criticism on Catholic philosophy instead of easily dismissing it?

[Anonymous No.8552088]

>>8552087
In what way does Islam not stand to philosophical scrutiny.

[Anonymous No.8552092]

That shit is dumb.

Even if you're going to commit intellectual suicide via God the Eastern Orthodox is way more patrician.

[Anonymous No.8552099]

>>8552092
The Orthodox are way too ethnically prejudiced, and their lack of a central authority means that every patriarch can do his own thing. I also dislike their insincere claims about being changeless when they've had various philosophical influences and schools just like western Christianity, but in a different direction.
Their mass is based, I'll say that, but it just seems really marginal in most of the world, an elitist's choice,

[Anonymous No.8552102]

I converted. I was living pretty ascetically before. Then I descended into a decadent lifestyle and am now living with a woman. Everyday I want to go back, but I don't. It's funny, before I converted I never understood how people could mean that they believed but kept on in their sin.

I suppose your problem is similar to one of mine, OP. You still care too much about the world. The world is stupid and its beliefs are stupid. Yet we grew up in them and were shaped by them and so we have a hard time actually giving them up. That's why we feel stupid when we pray and sometimes embarrassed around seculars.

[Anonymous No.8552103]

Just be a Neoplatonist or an Aristotelian, what do you even need the Jewish parent religion and the Sacraments for?

Now save yourself from that corrupt human institution nonsense that is the Church. You don't believe it's the Body of Christ you're eating anyway.

No wonder you feel like a retard.

[Anonymous No.8552115]

>>8552087
>not being a Protestant

Get a load of this guy!

[Anonymous No.8552116]

>>8552088
Islam believes people can become good through complete submission. Catholics believe most people are going to hell by being Protestant, or bad Catholics, since it's impossible to become a good one. Islam believes the rock stays at the top of the hill if you just push it right; Catholics believe nobody else should be allowed get crushed by the rock, which really rounds out the holes in Camus' proposition for the human condition.

[Anonymous No.8552117]

>>8552115
>monolingualism the meme raised to religion
I want America to leave

[Anonymous No.8552120]

>>8552117
>I want America to leave
I'm British living in Northern Ireland though :)

[Anonymous No.8552123]

>>8552120
Disgusting.

[Anonymous No.8552126]

>>8552123
we are the most hated group on the internet probably

[Anonymous No.8552128]

>>8552120
Oh, the only serious branch of the CoE. Still monolingualism, but you could have at least picked up the tea parties from the mainland branch. Monolingualism and violence is just unbecoming really; you need something to round it out and a nice church fete or two with some open house Masons could really make you more palatable as a social movement.

[Anonymous No.8552129]

>>8552115
>arbitrarily decide to remove Scripture which doesn't jive with your ideas
>1500 years of tradition got it wrong until one German stumbled upon the True Religion
>historically debunked claims about the arly Church not giving primacy to Rome and the sucessor of Peter
>sola fide guys, nevermind that most of Christ's message if explicitly about achieving virtue

Protestantism is absolute garbage tier. Just be an atheist, it's the logical conclusion of "pick your own church dogma" Christianity.

[Anonymous No.8552130]

>>8552087
anti-catholic:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Barth%27s_views_on_Mary

anti-religious:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_System_of_Nature
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Essence_of_Christianity

[Anonymous No.8552132]

>>8552087

I lapsed pretty bad but you should talk to an actual priest rather than the teenaged onanists that hang on on /lit/ these days. You'll learn to like other things over time probably, I did, or maybe you won't, look what happened to Job. Life's not about happiness. And Christianity's not all about avoiding personal sin, you have to love and help other people, especially poor people.

[Anonymous No.8552133]

>>8552087
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invincible_ignorance_(Catholic_theology)
read it and never go back, or accept
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_guilt

[Anonymous No.8552135]

I wish Friedrich, Immanuel, Albert or even Soren could slap the shit out of you. This is revolting OP. Fallenness ad infinitum.

[Anonymous No.8552136]

>>8552115
>protestant

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwBVcsWYJd8

[Anonymous No.8552140]

nah

[Anonymous No.8552141]

>>8552136
>not protestant

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHYKqQpJw2I

[Anonymous No.8552142]

>>8552087
>tfw you realize Catholicism is the only religion that stands up to philosophical scrutiny
sage

[Anonymous No.8552143]

>>8552141
Which catholic was it who said that protestants sing their way to hell?

[Anonymous No.8552144]

>>8552132
Fuck off with your liberal garbage. I can tell you're either a fedora-tipper or a Protestant, the leftists of Christianity.

[Anonymous No.8552148]

>>8552136
>town of yolo

[Anonymous No.8552149]

>>8552144

I'm Catholic. I've got uncles who are priests.

But sure, Jesus didn't really care about the poor, he wanted you to feel superior about yourself and make nasty comments on a racist imageboard.

[Anonymous No.8552153]

>>8552149
>Caring about the poor.
>Teaching poverty is a virtue.

[Anonymous No.8552155]

>>8552149
Your sentiment is that of the liberal Catholic.
Helping the poor is important, but so is avoiding sin and so is partaking in the sacraments. These things will go together.

[Anonymous No.8552156]

>>8552135
>Freidrich
>So, when he describes his hero, he does not dare to say ‘the purer man,’ or ‘the happier man,’ or ‘the sadder man,’ for all these are ideas; and ideas are alarming. He says, ‘the upper man,’ or ‘over man,’ a physical metaphor from acrobats or alpine climbers. Nietzsche is truly a very timid thinker.
>when you get bitchslapped by Chesterton
>for being Nietzsche

>Immanuel
>The Christian concept of a god—the god as the patron of the sick, the god as a spinner of cobwebs, the god as a spirit—is one of the most corrupt concepts that has ever been set up in the world: it probably touches low-water mark in the ebbing evolution of the god-type. God degenerated into the contradiction of life. Instead of being its transfiguration and eternal Yea! In him war is declared on life, on nature, on the will to live! God becomes the formula for every slander upon the “here and now,” and for every lie about the “beyond”! In him nothingness is deified, and the will to nothingness is made holy!...
>when you get bitschslapped by Nietzsche for being Schopenhauer's Jesus
>by calling Schopenhauer a good Christian

>Albert
>implying exCatholics exist
>even if you're atheist

>Soren
Soren slapping the shit out of someone I'd pay for t.b.h. No objection on this one.

[Anonymous No.8552160]

>>8552156
Your objections are not objections, but merely vehicles to put out your take on them. All of them criticized the blind assimilation of dogma, everyone in their own ways.

Chesterton's bitchslap is a meme.

*Albert Camus

[Anonymous No.8552161]

>>8552087
I'm in the exact same position OP.
>if I could just know for certain that Christianity were true I would have no intellectual qualm about devoting myself to it, it would be difficult but I would be content
>not knowing makes me wonder how I should live my life, given that my lifestyle will change drastically given what assumptions I live under, especially since I'm a homosexual

"I would soon have renounced pleasure," say they, "had I faith." For my part I tell you, "You would soon have faith, if you renounced pleasure." Now, it is for you to begin. If I could, I would give you faith. I cannot do so, nor therefore test the truth of what you say. But you can well renounce pleasure, and test whether what I say is true.
- Blaise Pascal

[Anonymous No.8552162]

>joyless abstinence
I'm not religious but I've seen quite enough examples of this not being true. It's a joy different to the typical hedonistic joy, but joy nonetheless equally, if not more, powerful.

[Anonymous No.8552164]

>>8552149
>I'm Catholic. I've got uncles who are priests.
I find it disturbing that you don't realise this makes you more likely to be a deluded leftist. You really have no clue about recent history of the Church or about anything that's going on.

[Anonymous No.8552165]

>>8552129
This thesis is interestingly enough argued directly by Hannah Arendt and indirectly Alasdair MacIntyre and even made clear by Karl Barth, protestant fideism and a lack of a metaphysics will always lead people into atheism as Christianity is reduced from an absolute truth found in the nature of the world, fabric of human being, to a very strong opinion. This is even adapted by WLC. He's a shit tier philosopher, but he exemplifies this in adapting the materialistic analytic framework and just making God into an optional axiom.

[Anonymous No.8552172]

>>8552144
>>8552153
>>8552155
>>8552164
>guy rightly says that there is more to Christianity than avoiding personal sin (while not denying that this is a component)
>rightly mentions the importance of loving and helping others, especially the poor
>WTF LIBERAL, PROTTIE, HERETIC

What on Earth. Just because the "Church of Nice" is awful doesn't mean you have to go completely the other way and become belligerent Pharisees.

[Anonymous No.8552174]

>>8552160
>*Albert
>copying out those other philosophers' names is okay but don't call Albert by his first name like me
I'll call Albert whatever I fucking feel like, m8. The Catholic Church is the origin of the term "devil's advocate" so I hope you're not holding them in contrast to others who object to the blind assimilation of dogma.
>Chesterton's bitchslap is a meme
I wish it were, the board might be better. Nietzsche is pretty timid as a thinker; he highlights it with his bombastic prose because as he points out, some great acts of human charity are not complete without a thorough beating of the witnesses. e.g. in further paraphrase
>why am i like totally the smrtest bestest and coolests
>daily walks :3
>good diet bro

[Anonymous No.8552191]

>>8552087

>tfw you realize Catholicism is the only religion that stands up to philosophical scrutiny

what?

are you serious?

the only philosophy that stands up to philosophical scrutiny is Jainism

[Anonymous No.8552193]

>>8552172
I'm sorry lad, I get triggered by that shit too hard so I didn't read his comment carefully enough.

[Anonymous No.8552194]

>>8552161
I sympathize, anon. I've been in a relationship with a guy for several years and I'm pretty adamant about devoting myself to him. The vast chasm of uncertainty regarding the historical truth of Christ just doesn't convince me to abandon a relationship I've put a lot of effort into.

[Anonymous No.8552196]

>>8552129
>>arbitrarily decide to remove Scripture which doesn't jive with your ideas
>>1500 years of tradition got it wrong until one German stumbled upon the True Religion
>>historically debunked claims about the arly Church not giving primacy to Rome and the sucessor of Peter
>>sola fide guys, nevermind that most of Christ's message if explicitly about achieving virtue
is there a recent response to this sort of argument from a credible protestant intellectual online?
especially the one about rome

[Anonymous No.8552200]

Jacques Maritain is that philosopher the /tv/ would describe as 'kino'.

[Anonymous No.8552205]

>>8552174
Oh but I wasn't correcting you, I'm sorry it seemed that way. I just thought you were referencing another Albert, because of the utter irrelevance of what you said in regard to Camus' philosophy.

Chesterton misses Nietzsche's point by a thousand miles. He's demanding that Friedrich provides a system of thought based on absolute values, which is impossible without some kind of dogmatic base. Nietzsche simply tries to push men beyond the arbitrarily set limits that constitute dogmatic morals, not to disrupt them for the sake of it, but to question them and evaluate their validity in human terms, not in a false devinity's terms.
The Chesterton - Nietzsche matter would be worthy of a lenghty discussion and it doesn't matter, my whole point was merely that OP seems to be swayed by dogma, something all the first names above would condemn.

[Anonymous No.8552207]

>>8552191
Simple solipsism*

[Anonymous No.8552208]

>>8552196
You don't need to be a protestant intellectual to know that arbitrarily removing scriptures is exactly what the early church did when they decided the biblical canon.

Fuck knows what the badly written part about Rome's primacy meant. That along with sola fida is the religious equivalent of nerds arguing if Han shot first.

[Anonymous No.8552216]

>>8552208
But the deciding of which works will be in the scriptures was not arbitrary, it followed from an already old tradition of what was canonical and it was made canonical not because they didn't know what was divine and what was not, but because they used it to combat heresies such as arianism which had their own versions of canon, contrary to that of the general church. I recommend Essay on Development of Christian Doctrine by John Henry Newman for more information. It's incredibly well researched and has compelling arguments.

[Anonymous No.8552231]

Religion isn't something you can genuinely engage in unless you were indoctrinated from birth. You feel like a retard because you are trying to adhere to a set of beliefs that you have deemed to be philosophically sound but it's intertwined in shitty mythology that you will never embrace because you didn't have it imposed upon you before your brain was fully developed even if you agree with the underlying philosophy.

[Anonymous No.8552235]

>>8552216
And protestants didn't arbitrarily remove them either. They used the 1000 years of subsequent research to pick a new canon. I simply used the same biased language to describe it as the previous poster.

[Anonymous No.8552238]

>>8552235
Not arbitrarily, no. All of them did it by starting with the premise that it had to make sense.

[Anonymous No.8552245]

>>8552231
>Religion isn't something you can genuinely engage in unless you were indoctrinated from birth.
This is false as there are a lot of cases of people who do exactly that. For Catholics, Edith Stein for example, if we keep it in terms of /lit/. It would also make massive conversion impossible, but it happened in say China.
>You feel like a retard because you are trying to adhere to a set of beliefs that you have deemed to be philosophically sound but it's intertwined in shitty mythology that you will never embrace because you didn't have it imposed upon you before your brain was fully developed even if you agree with the underlying philosophy.

The mythology may be false, but shitty is something you can't prescribe to it.
He would be far from the first one to adopt Catholicism fully without being introduced to it from birth.

[Anonymous No.8552252]

>>8552231
This is a very recent and limited take on the whole thing. There are plenty of people who sincerely come to believe in the "shitty mythology" despite a secular upbringing.

[Anonymous No.8552254]

>>8552216
"To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant.", as Newman said. It's absolutely correct. I mean, when it comes down to it, the essential Christian claim is historical, and centers on authority. If the historical claims are weak and the authority is suspect, everything else falls apart. You can examine the evidence, and decide if the apostles founded a Church that was built on a rock and free from error, or you can be thrown into a vast sea of uncertainty and endless biblical nitpicking.

My problem with the Protestant claim is that it requires the Church to already be completely corrupt and invalid during the lifetime of the apostles. If we can't even trust any of the sources that early on, one inevitably wonders about the authority of the New Testament. Placing the entire stake on the independent witness of Scripture is very dangerous, and its fruits seem to only bring disagreement in every major area of doctrine.

[Anonymous No.8552273]

>>8552254
Read Newman, consider his intellectual might and quality of his writings across literature, theology, philosophy and education, he is not read widely enough on /lit/.

[Anonymous No.8552280]

>>8552087
You should attend a Latin Mass (remember, don't take communion if you aren't Catholic). See if you like it.

If you aren't Christian, why not try praying for a few minutes a day for like a week?

You obviously feel some sort of draw or attachment to Catholicism, isn't this enough for you?

I'd try the above and read some essential thinkers, see pick related for starters.

[Anonymous No.8552292]

>>8552280
>You obviously feel some sort of draw or attachment to Catholicism, isn't this enough for you?

What kind of reason to claim something is true is this? I abhor your way of thinking, cancer cell of humanity.

[Anonymous No.8552302]

>>8552245
>>8552252
Stein converted in circumstances very different to today when science hadn't provided an extensive history of the world and universe.

In the modern day the only genuine converts to religion in adulthood are those who are in dire straits or approaching death and are afforded support and comfort by the aide, community, or actions or doctrine of the church and are thus willing to suspend logical belief to prevent cognitive dissonance.

Show me one modern example of a person who was not involved in any religion growing up and then converted when they weren't under financial, mental, or emotional duress (or getting married).

[Anonymous No.8552326]

>>tfw you realize Catholicism is the only religion that stands up to philosophical scrutiny
>Cathoshits actually believe this
>mfw

[Anonymous No.8552333]

>>8552302
You fail to account for plain stupid people.

[Anonymous No.8552348]

>>8552333
Even stupid people need adversity or to have grown up in a religious environment to push them to religion, no one who is in a stable position in life with satisfying relationships converts because religion has nothing to offer them.

[Anonymous No.8552375]

>>8552348
You are so full of shit, wow. Yeah, let's just pretend contemporary philosophers and theologians who work within the Thomist tradition don't exist. It's extremely intellectually dishonest to say nobody can convert based on convincing rational arguments, there are so many cases of this happening.
To stop being an asshole, you really need to realize that people come to hold wildly different metaphysical positions that are both rationally defensible. If this wasn't the case we would have "solved" philosophy already.

[Anonymous No.8552402]

>>8552375
PETER GEACH
ELIZABETH ANSCOMBE
I haven't read them yet, but I'll have to soon, Anscombe is the only female philosopher whom Wittgenstein respected and thought wasn't a disgrace to the field.

[Anonymous No.8552416]

>>8552348
Sometimes they do because the alternative is not easy for them to «understand». To be religious is usually renouncing to think about life in a deep way, because you outsource that to someone else.

[Anonymous No.8552419]

What its some books about deism?

[Anonymous No.8552432]

>>8552402
W didn't think that his female contemporaries were a disgrace because of how bad they were as philosophers but because he loathed the company of women. In fact, when he was lecturing he'd purposefully wait until all women exited the room he was lecturing in.

[Anonymous No.8552438]

>>8552302
What knowledge about our universe do we have that renders Catholicism unreasonable?

[Anonymous No.8552469]

>>8552432
That's top sperg.
In any case, his relationship with Anscombe was very interesting, through her influence he started taking the sacraments before he died and she was one of the 3 people to whom he entrusted his estate. He had a lot of respect for her.

[Anonymous No.8552470]

>>8552438
Let's start with the biological fact that virgins don't get knocked up without male ejaculate entering their puss holes. Saying it is a miracle of God is not rational.

[Anonymous No.8552478]

>>8552470
Which Rationality?

[Anonymous No.8552480]

>>8552087
Take the Bodhi Pill

[Anonymous No.8552505]

>>8552205
Camus was born Catholic, that's the joke.
>Chesterton misses Nietzsche's point
You missed Chesterton's point and Nietzsche's. He's not demanding absolute values; he's pointing out that Nietzsche's values aren't as extreme as people take them to be. Nietzsche speaks of funambulists precisely because he knows the value of timid values and empty noise- it's far preferable than brash values and empty noise.
>OP seems to be swayed by dogma
to be honest I don't think you know how Catholic dogma or doctrine work, what they consist of, or how OP is failing to be swayed by either to a notable extent. I appreciate you're trying to contribute but you're coming across as a Try Reading More case.

[Anonymous No.8552512]

>>8552438
What knowledge about our universe do we have that renders Pastafarianism unreasonable?

[Anonymous No.8552523]

>>8552480
>The McBuddhism contained in that image
Consider me triggered Anon.

[Anonymous No.8552528]

>>8552523
It's the opposite of McBuddhism. The whole let's all get along happy lifestyle so zen incense instagram Buddhism is McBuddhism.

[Anonymous No.8552531]

>>8552375
There are no convincing rational arguments for God's existence, the best you can do is define a deistic God who doesn't interact with the universe in any way and doesn't have a long storied history of mythology that has been constantly revised over time from previous religions and even then all you have is an unassailable position based on nothing.

[Anonymous No.8552543]

>>8552528
>Not a trace theism remains
>Self is abandoned as a concept
>Abandon the thought of god
>etc.
That's top tier McBuddhism and quite literally Buddhist heresy.

[Anonymous No.8552548]

>>8552531
>not going full everything is god and god is everything nondual vedanta mode

[Anonymous No.8552551]

>>8552543
conventional buddhism is heresy against the message of gautama

[Anonymous No.8552557]

>>8552551

[Anonymous No.8552558]

>>8552470
Dumb. If the assumption that God exists is true, there is no reason he cannot intervene in the physical processes of his own creation. If it were possible no one would care. This is a non-argument, focus on something better.

[Anonymous No.8552568]

>>8552557
that's what happens over the time, boyo. people will weaken every ideology until it no longer inconveniences them.

[Anonymous No.8552573]

>>8552505
Camus was much more a cultural catholic than a believer, even as a child, by all accounts. Therefore it's irrelevant to the argument.

Now you have managed to miss Chesterton's, Nietzsche and even Hegel's writings. Nietzsche doesn't deal in values, he presents a man above values as they are presented by society and history (much like Camus' absurd man). Nietzsche doesn't write about a man with superior values, but about a man that has trascended the absurd meanings attached to them. Nietzsche rejects morality as a concept because it's arbitrary and dogmatic.

OP is surely swayed by dogma, doing his thinking by starting with the premise that christianity is true. The bane of critical thinking.

«Read more»? You think more, Anon.

[Anonymous No.8552578]

>>8552568
I'm legitimately confused can we take a step back, what's the "message of gautama"? are you referring to the pali canon?

[Anonymous No.8552586]

>>8552558
Gods existence is an unproven premise and until you address that anything presupposing his existence is invalid.

[Anonymous No.8552591]

>>8552578
I guess he's referring to true buddhism in a sense. Not that I necessarily agree.

[Anonymous No.8552595]

>>8552591
>true buddhism
What

[Anonymous No.8552599]

>catholicism
>ebin traditions
>qt swarthy hypocritical girls

[Anonymous No.8552611]

>>8552505
Before you respond to him, keep in mind that anyone who in a discussion used 'critical thinking' as an argument is a cretin.
Save yourself some time.
Now that we are at it, I don't think Chesterton had a particularly strong critique of Nietzsche. In part lately because Nietzsche himself didn't have a coherent theory or ideas worth giving much attention to any more than Chesterton. Both are primarily stylists and neither developed a strong argument for anything, it was mostly about how to express an opinion in a poetic way.
And Chesterton was the superior writer.
>>8552586
Premises are generally unproven in philosophy.
That's why one is bound to be a Kantian if he accepts his premises, but is in no way supposed to accept his or anyone else's.

[Anonymous No.8552620]

>>8552120
You better be Anglo-Irish CoI because the Ulster Scots Presbyterian churches are all muslim tier shits.

[Anonymous No.8552625]

>>8552087
read the origin of consciousness in the breakdown of the bicameral mind by julian jaynes. theists are prototypical humans with lesser evolved cognitive faculties. they literally hear sky daddy whisper commands into their ears and they can't distinguish between their auditory hallucinations and real voices. if you've ever wondered why alvin plantinga's argument from religious experience and his reformed epistemology is considered the most "convincing" case for theism in the philosophy of religion despite it being a pile of shit, it's because most of the philosophers working in that area are theists and literally have schizophrenic minds.

[Anonymous No.8552630]

>>8552611
Critical thinking hasn't been used as an argument.
You seem to be the typical /lit/ dueler that will spew things like «didn't have a coherent theory or ideas», without actually saying anything about them and, much less, presenting an idea.

«X is shit, X is derivative, X's ideas are incoherent wishful thinking»
«Why»
«...»

[Anonymous No.8552634]

>>8552630
dweller*
of course.

[Anonymous No.8552641]

In this life you can accept either truth or meaning, OP. There is no meaning in truth and there is no truth in meaning.

You can delude yourself into thinking there is place for a hopeful narrative for your meatsack existence or accept you're a void dweller bound for nothingness. You just have to determine which you desire more, meaning or truth.

Depending on your personality truth might even lead to a more agreeable life since you won't suffer the constant cognitive dissonance and guilt of being halfway invested in a faith that is no longer able to provide a coherent worldview.

[Anonymous No.8552661]

>>8552480
>completely free of semitic influence
>deconstructing

[Anonymous No.8552682]

>>8552573
>Camus was much more a cultural catholic than a believer, even as a child, by all accounts. Therefore it's irrelevant to the argument.
>he still doesn't get the joke
let's try a youtube clip since reading isn't working
/www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdolFXcNAH4

>>8552573
>Now you have managed to miss Chesterton's, Nietzsche and even Hegel's writings.
>trying this on the person who paraphrased and quoted both

>Nietzsche doesn't deal in values
He's usually credited with the transvaluation of values, and is a moralist, so you're really trying it on here. It's not just his readings you missed but his reputation. This is worse than wikipedia scholarship; it's making shit up and hoping it sticks.
>Nietzsche doesn't write about a man with superior values
And both Nietzsche and Chesterton recognised this. It's why Chesterton calls him timid, and why Nietzsche uses references to hiking and tightrope walking. You'd also recognise from both Chesterton and Nietzsche if you'd read them that both speak of Aristotle's problem of living alone making men into beasts or gods as a pointlessly dichotomous false presentation of choice: both arrive at the conclusion one can be both as a philosopher instead. You see Chesterton looking for absolutes in Nietzsche or opposed to Nietzsche because you make a similar false split: Nietzsche must not be timid, when Nietzsche quite liked being timid, because you'd like him to not be timid.

>>8552573
>OP is surely swayed by dogma, doing his thinking by starting with the premise that christianity is true.
>further assumptions, still no understanding of Catholicism
you've great faith in your ability to re-write canon on your own by just putting down what you think must be true since you thought it on a malaysian pet rock care and advice forum. Your stereotype of Christianity is about as developed as someone who went atheist from listening to Tool in the 90s was. You really ought to read more because the philosopher you're trying to white knight is not your princess and wouldn't want to be.

[Anonymous No.8552707]

>>8552682
BTFO

[Anonymous No.8552714]

>>8552620
Yep, I am. Anglo-Irish built Ireland and we get treated like vermin by the government (both in Ulster and in the South, where we were ethnically cleansed in the twenties).

Personally I have nothing against Presbyterians though, at least they don't but bombs in bins or shoot us for going to work.

[Anonymous No.8552731]

>>8552682
>Nietzsche doesn't write about a man with superior values
>And both Nietzsche and Chesterton recognised this
>because you make a similar false split: Nietzsche must not be timid

Chesterton submitted Nietzsche's «timidity» as something to be criticized. When it's completely irrelevant to Nietzsche. When using terms as «weak» it's implicit that Nietzsche's writings are lacking, when they're only lacking in what Chesterton expects from him. You can present Nietzsche as a moralist, but only as the kind of moralist he defines, which is beyond the definitions Chesterton (and history) has about good and evil, therefore it's nonsensical to call him that without providing statements about what he considers morality to be.

«Nietzsche is a moralist» couldn't be more vague of a statement. You get hindered by semantics.

>Your stereotype of Christianity is about as developed as someone who went atheist from listening to Tool in the 90s was.

I'm not attacking (in this discussion) any aspects of Christianity besides its dogmatic nature. If you say Christianity isn't dogmatic, then you don't understand what dogmatic means.


Again, your argument about Camus would only work if he had been truly a believer at some reasonable point.

[Anonymous No.8552736]

>>8552682
>trying this on the person who paraphrased and quoted both

To quote someone's writing doesn't mean one understands it. I should have said you missed their points, not their writings literally; I apologize, I overrated your comprehensive reading skills.

[Anonymous No.8552759]

>>8552731
>Chesterton submitted Nietzsche's «timidity» as something to be criticized. When it's completely irrelevant to Nietzsche.
Really? Because Nietzsche thought it was relevant to both the "timidity of the crowd" that follows Christianity under the impression of depth and his main criticism of Schopenhauer and his worship of Kant. Chesterton criticising him for his same love of the opaque would really seem fair game there, especially when Nietzsche can ponder truth as a woman because she's "not even shallow", much like the Stygian depths of Christianity he slighted Schoppy for loving.
Or do you think Nietzsche was the only one who got to use the word timid in his criticism of other philosophers? kek
>>8552731
>When using terms as «weak» it's implicit that Nietzsche's writings are lacking, when they're only lacking in what Chesterton expects from him.
Heaven forfend, Nietzsche might not be an elevated being to the point of god-type. How ever did he live with himself. Oh yeah, wait, he was okay with that since he thought it was faff.
>You can present Nietzsche as a moralist
Because he was one. It why he wrote genealogies on morals and values and even advice on taking regular walks. You really need your princess to be a special snowflake even when that's contrary to his teachings. >«Nietzsche is a moralist» couldn't be more vague of a statement. You get hindered by semantics.
It's a statement which is not just true but points out your specific statement that Nietzsche doesn't deal in values is patently false if you picked up any of his work or even heard his basic reputation beyond "edgy". Since all you heard apparently was "edgy" and thought he was perfect bf material, you seem to think you can retcon his work to not be that of a moralist and to remove the many values he deals with from his work. Kind of pathetic, even for waifuing.

>I'm not attacking (in this discussion) any aspects of Christianity besides its dogmatic nature. If you say Christianity isn't dogmatic, then you don't understand what dogmatic means.
And like I said, I am so certain you know nothing of Catholic dogma or its difference from doctrine or how OP is following neither well at all according to either, that I know you cannot tell how wrong or shallow a reading this is. It's like you're hoping OP secretly meant "evangelical literalist" because otherwise you're fucked and might have to learn something about Catholicism or philosophy to contribute.
>>8552731
>Again, your argument about Camus would only work if he had been truly a believer at some reasonable point.
Still can't understand Catholic dogma, doctrine or cultural practice. I'd expect nothing more t.bh.

[Anonymous No.8552767]

>>8552736
To say Nietzsche does not deal with values and needs a new category of values for the word moralist to apply to him is pretty much proof you've either not read or not understood Nietzsche. Apologies if my assumption you have not read him was to kind and the latter is simply the case.

[Anonymous No.8552773]

>>8552767
>to kind
*too

[Anonymous No.8552791]

>>8552759
Nietzsche's criticism of the «timidity of the crowd» is very close to Heidegger's fallenness. Not as in the lack of commitment or «opaqueness» you understand it as.

>Oh yeah, wait, he was okay with that since he thought it was faff.
Of course he didn't think his philosophy was weak. Chesterton did, but what he criticized wasn't anything Nietzsche cared about.

>Because he was one. It why he wrote genealogies on morals and values and even advice on taking regular walks...
Again, his «morals and values» are so different than the regular definitions of said words that you can name them in any other way.

>Nietzsche doesn't deal in values is patently false

Doesn't deal in absolute values, not even in completely relativistic ones. Therefore, Nietzsche's «values» are not what you mean by values in a traditional sense. When he deals with traditional values is to make explicit the absurdity of them.

>I am so certain you know nothing of Catholic dogma or its difference from doctrine

Does catholicism make unfalsifiable claims of truth, yes or no?

[Anonymous No.8552815]

>>8552117
>Afraid of Glossolalia and its superior catharsis

[Anonymous No.8552823]

>>8552791
>Nietzsche's criticism of the «timidity of the crowd» is very close to Heidegger's fallenness. Not as in the lack of commitment or «opaqueness» you understand it as.
I did not say lack of commitment so I don't know where you're getting that from I do, actually, and it's the one that's not throwness or fallenness but let's not drown you deeper than necessary Nietzsche criticism of the timidity of crowds and Schopenhauer is actually directly related to opacity why are you quoting me as making up words? bad job if you're trying to pawn Nietz off as a philologist He specifically uses Schopenhauer's phrasing around the Categorical Imperative of its "Stygian depths" as praise because he wants to highlight both the timid crowd and Schopenhauer translated opacity as depth. You flunked understanding Nietzsche's criticism of Schopenhauer and Christianity, when it's the same lucid criticism he offers from the Gay Science to Twilight of the Idols. You also seemed to need to bring up commitment issues for some reason, kek.

>>8552791
>Again, his «morals and values» are so different than the regular definitions of said words that you can name them in any other way.
>my special snowflake bf is so special that everyone else's understanding of him is wrong because I'm going to pretend those words don't mean that when applied to him
kekekkekekekeke you're just the gift that keeps on giving. You were wrong about Nietzsche not dealing in values, and your definition of moralists is fucktarded. It's almost like you think Christians are the only moralists, which is very very bad for someone claiming to like Nietzsche. It makes Nietzsche look dumber and less comprehensive than he was.
>>8552791
>Doesn't deal in absolute values, not even in completely relativistic ones. Therefore, Nietzsche's «values» are not what you mean by values in a traditional sense.
You really want there to be an absolute value proponent to rage against, don't you? Unfortunately, he still deals in values, and in fact, in pretty common ones for any moralist. It's why he writes about the major modes of values from ancient Jews to his contemporaneous SJWs. You fucked up and said some retarded shit, and now you're writing more retarded shit to try to pretend you didn't write retarded shit. It's not going to work, not even if you write twice as much retarded shit as you have.
>>8552791
>Does catholicism make unfalsifiable claims of truth, yes or no?
>unfalsifiable
oh man does Nietzsche ever say some choice things about your kind of values

[Anonymous No.8552826]

>>8552174

>I wish it were, the board might be better. Nietzsche is pretty timid as a thinker

It's literal ad hominem retardation, and far from an original critique in our contemporary times. Chesterton is saying that Nietzsche, the man and his life, don't quite match up with the philosophy he espouses. Well, he doesn't have to, and we have Schopenhauer to thank for explaining as to why:

>"It is therefore just as little necessary for the saint to be a philosopher as for the philosopher to be a saint; just as it is not necessary for a perfectly beautiful person to be a great sculptor, or for a great sculptor to be himself a beautiful person. In general, it is a strange demand on a moralist that he should commend no other virtue than that which he himself possesses. To repeat abstractly, universally, and distinctly in concepts the whole inner nature of the world, and thus to deposit it as a reflected image in permanent concepts always ready for the faculty of reason, this and nothing else is philosophy."

[Anonymous No.8552831]

>>8552826
I like your meme page

[Anonymous No.8552834]

>nietzsche is in hell right now
lmao

[Anonymous No.8552835]

I'm somewhat religious, but not under one banner. I find organized religion a betrayal, and ultimately, society perverting, of the purpose of religion.

[Anonymous No.8552839]

>>8552835

You'd like Kierkegaard.

Just don't convince a girl to marry you, only to sperg out at the last moment and leave her standing at the altar for a lifetime's worth of philosophical consideration.

[Anonymous No.8552842]

>>8552826
>ad hominem retardation
>name calling is wrong
>coming from a Nietzsche reader
Why does everyone want Nietzsche to take back his observations of timidity too or is it that they think ad hominem arguments are fine when the Elect do them? Y'all need more Nietzsche whichever case. So many of your are desperate to keep the fruit eater fresh and edgy when he's often just trying to give back some commonality to common sense. Chesterton isn't saying the man and his life don't match up the philosophy, he's saying his philosophy matches the timid existence Nietzsche led. He calls him a "timid thinker" not a "timid hotel living forest walk taking romantic soul", so he's addressing Nietzsche's thought. Jesus fuck, when did /lit/ get *this* dumb.

[Anonymous No.8552846]

>>8552842
>So many of your
*of you

[Anonymous No.8552866]

>>8552842

There's nothing timid about Nietzsche's thinking, however. Chesterton simply can't wrap his big fat head around a world view beyond the 'good' and 'evil' that so appeals to his Catholic spirit.

Nietzsche, probably understood, is both unnerving and yet liberating. It would be hard to imagine a world more frightening to our mediocre 'Last Man' sensibilities than one in which he and his ideas would be taken seriously, to the point of implementation.

Meanwhile Chesterton sits moaning about the 'terrors' of atheism/etc, the same as every other moralising Christian (and Russian) hack borne out of the 19th century. Unfortunately for him, the only thing that's fallen is Christianity's last remaining vestiges of respectability, what with the colossal push to brainwash China/Africa/etc as the Western world comes evermore to its senses.

[Anonymous No.8552895]

as someone who spent 10 years being a believer (not catholic though) don't do it, religion sucks the joy out of your life and replaces it with fear and worries over stupid bullshit like 'am I believing properly/doing enough good works/whatever to avoid burning in hell for all fucking eternity, etc etc'

[Anonymous No.8552906]

>>8552866
>There's nothing timid about Nietzsche's thinking, however.
I know you're having a hard time getting this, but there's a lot of Nietzsche which is thoroughly timid in his thinking. And he knew it was. That's why he makes the title of each chapter in Ecco Homo so bombastic, so fuckers like you who need edgy to tolerate common sense might read some common sense shit. >>8552866
>Chesterton simply can't wrap his big fat head around a world view beyond the 'good' and 'evil' that so appeals to his Catholic spirit.
kek that ad hominem protest is always a sign someone's retarded and afraid other people might be allowed point it out. You haven't read him. Chesterton's criticism of Nietzsche is well thought out, and he understood Nietzsche at least better than you, which isn't saying much but still. I personally don't agree with his argument, but I at least took the bother to know about it like I did with Nietzsche. You've not even bother to read the dude you're fanboying and refuse to abandon the notion that Nietzsche might not be as edgy as his teenaged non-reading fanboys make out. You're still caught in the bombastic surface which Nietzsche and want to make him a new idol, like he would not be repulsed by the very idea. You think you're helping but you're one of those bile vomiting newspaper sensationalists he envisioned climbing a mountain of shit and corpses to be king of shit because superfluous titles mean something to you.
>'terrors' of atheism
He has the same problem with the 'we;re just animals' approach as Nietzsche does. What you're trying to attack Chesterton on is where he and Nietzsche agree, not where they differ. Think about how retarded that seems and multiply it by twelve posts.

[Anonymous No.8552912]

>>8552625
>read the origin of consciousness in the breakdown of the bicameral mind by julian jaynes.

Pseudo-scientific theory full of holes.

[Anonymous No.8552928]

>>8552906
>You've not even bother
*bothered
>You're still caught in the bombastic surface which Nietzsche
*of Nietzsche
Sorry, hard to proof rn

[Anonymous No.8552936]

>>8552906

>there's a lot of Nietzsche which is thoroughly timid in his thinking

Er, like what?

>That's why he makes the title of each chapter in Ecco Homo so bombastic

You're going to have a hard time proving that those 'bombastic' titles begat timid content, when his content is generally anything but.

>You haven't read him.

On the contrary, I've read Kaufmann's Portable Nietzsche to death. Something tells me you're too busy sucking Chesterton's dick to ever do the same.

>He has the same problem with the 'we;re just animals' approach as Nietzsche does.

You've moved the goalposts.

[Anonymous No.8552938]

>>8552906
Doing God's work anon

[Anonymous No.8552963]

>>8552936
>Er, like what?
like I've been pointing to Ecce Homo and why am i so smrt for fucking ever now as an entire book of him lampshading that
>>8552936
>You're going to have a hard time proving that those 'bombastic' titles begat timid content, when his content is generally anything but.
Ecco Homo would be the one that recommends the daily walking and good diet and bedtime and all that shit I've been pointing to as common sense Nietzsche dispenses under bombastic titles. That you don't know this shit means you're not even a basic bitch, btw.
>>8552936
>On the contrary, I've read Kaufmann's Portable Nietzsche to death. Something tells me you're too busy sucking Chesterton's dick to ever do the same.
Him in that instance refers to Chesterton. You've also not read a lot of Nietzsche and have greatly misinterpretted a lot of his works, so it's understandable you didn't understand to whom him referred. Read more.
>You've moved the goalposts.
No, I'm still maintaining the same argument as when I pointed out their unified opposition to the Aristotlean split in understanding man outside society. See above, like every other point you're repeatedly getting wrong having been corrected.

[Anonymous No.8552967]

>>8552938
I'd have better grammer if I were, anon

[Anonymous No.8553015]

>>8552641
my nigga

[Anonymous No.8553049]

>>8552130
Good recs. The Essence of Christianity is fantastic.

[Anonymous No.8553180]

>>8552292
OK Sergeant Sperg, calm down.

[Anonymous No.8553208]

>>8553015
Edgy

[Anonymous No.8553276]

>>8552625
I really hope this is bait

[Anonymous No.8553313]

So why didn't God teach the earliest anatomically modern homo sapiens that He exists and there is only One of Him though his oneness is of a triune nature?

[Anonymous No.8553338]

>>8552470
an arational commitment doesn't make a belief irrational bubba belief in anything requires arational commitments

[Anonymous No.8553351]

>>8552478
Really makes you think