>>25008777
If you are not a Christian how can you say who is

>>25008777
Sorry but I just don't get what you're saying. You don't seem willing to be reasonable. Just pushing an agenda. There's really nothing on this website that's that bad. I think you're working from an extremely dated idea of everything really. Just a bizarre attempt at guilt by association

>>25006377
>problems of all churches can be addressed
Heretical sects have a fundamental brokenness to them much like fornication.
>>25006450
>anyone that's read any theological text that this is a Godless place.
What have you read? The only sin I've committed in this thread was speaking ill of the dead, which I confessed.
>just spazz out because their commitment to the larp has broken their brains.
Look through any of the acidic prose from St. Augustine, Hilary of Potier, or Jerome for that matter. I promise you that the desert fathers would call me weak willed for my prose.
>>25007855
>context they occur
Now, say it with me, "LDS 'church' is an erroneous and demonic context for the reading of the Bible that makes other Christians look bad by being so pathetically antithetical to reason and the real Christian tradition of the Catholic Church."
>>25007834
>which is a meaningless concept and of course self-refuting when one considers that He must be, if also omnibenevolent, responsible for evil.
>“All-powerful” more clearly connotes just “very powerful” or “the most powerful”, which is what they mean when they regard God as an unfathomably superior nature to themselves.
You didn't "solve" the problem of evil by worshipping a created thing. You just confirmed that Mormonism is idol worship.

>>25006380
Praise God for your freedom from that wretched institution. May St. Pio watch over doggedly and St. Augustine bless you.
>>25008777
>No Christian would ever set foot (metaphorically) in this place, and no Christian ever has.
You do not own the definition of "Christian" nor have you proven that you can even use it properly ("A Christian is someone who doesn't go on the interwebs or use the leet haxor known as four channel!!!"). Christ gives a definition of Christian and so does St. Paul: Jesus Christ is Lord. Per Scripture, I just proved I am Christian and have the Holy Spirit. Wow!

>>24996712
t. stephan king

>>25006902
Can I pet you

>>24989497
>I only went schizophrenic from this shit
Kek same. I was sent to a psychiatric hospital and the retarded doctors were on vacation, they had me there for a month. Can't recommend boys, sleep 8 hours straight in average.

>>25009053
*I must add that it wasn't permanent, I recovered, and it was a misdiagnosis. But certainly felt like I was schizophrenic, the meds were worse than the disease though. It took me more than a year before I went to a different doctor that wasn't retarded and gave me a correct diagnosis and tapered off the meds. I'm still stuck with anxiety and insomnia meds though. We tried taking those off too but I got very moody at times, I told the doc and he put those back.

There's this Vietnamese man who's known to not have slept for decades, he's poor villager who did plenty of interview
https://www.ladbible.com/news/world-news/thai-ngoc-81-man-sleep-60-years-329712-20250131

>>25009174
Uh, nta, but Madoka?

>>25009177
oh yeah madoka thx

is anything by sandermeme good?

>>25009077
only the ones by Adams.
i did like artemis fowl, but the concept of someone continuing a series after the author's death like that feels very disrespectful. i'll treat it as it's own thing

>>25009151
Calm down, Dumas.

>>25006399
It delights me to know that these two vile creatures disliked each other. Not even feminist scum can get along with each other.
>Oh no! Muh Chinese are starving
>Let me support a philosophy in my adoptive homeland that produces the same effect

>>25002310
Simone Weil distinguishes between an atheism that rejects false, consoling images of God and an atheism that denies transcendence altogether. The first, which she paradoxically values, purifies the idea of God by refusing any deity that can be grasped, used, or made to explain away evil; it is closer to negative theology than to disbelief and is exemplified by Richard Dawkins and secular humanism. The second type, which she rejects, refuses the existence of any absolute good or reality beyond material necessity. In Weil’s terms, figures like Nick Land and H. P. Lovecraft exemplify this latter atheism: their visions of a cosmos governed by blind forces, inhuman necessity, or indifferent horror leave no room for transcendence, love, or truth beyond power. Where Weil sees honest negation as a possible path toward God, this darker atheism closes the path entirely.

>>25003057
English language poetry sucks ass and has been downhill since Romanticism.

>>25002325
This.

>>25009219
quite a funny last ditch attempt but i don’t know why you thought this would work against someone who apparently reads poetry.

>>25009101
>>25009105
Obviously there are many examples and off the top of my head I can think of at least a dozen others, but you're being awfully rude and haven't even said 'please' so I don't think I will.

>>25009132
>I could but I won't
You're just mad you got called out. By the way, before the 20th century, who the fuck do you think "into English" translators were? They were people like Alexander Pope or Samuel Johnson. And yes, I could name plenty more, but I won't :^)
Even the likes of Paul Auster have famously translated novels. So take that faggot. I've bested you until you can provide copious examples to back your claim.

>>25009185
>Alexander Pope
Who?
>Samuel Johnson
Okay that's pretty cool. Loved him in Reasonable Doubt.
>Paul Auster
From the opium family? Trust fund kids aren't impressive.

If you wanted to name an impressive translator, idk, you could have mentioned Nabokov. But he also translated all of his work into French, so I guess that would just be a self-own, doubtlessly why you had to settle on a bunch of literary backbenchers I've never heard of. Nice try though.

>>25009185
NTA, but here's some more examples.
>Edgar Allan Poe's The Raven translated by Charles Baudelaire
>Edgar Allan Poe's The Tell-Tale Heart translated by Théophile Gautier
>Mary Shelley's Frankenstein translated by Jules Claretie
>Edgar Allan Poe's The Fall of the House of Usher translated by Charles Asselineau
>Nathaniel Hawthorne's The Scarlet Letter translated by Anatole France

>>25009202
Totally forgot about Théophile Gautier, nice catch anon.

>>25009236
just read the critique of pure reason... you will find a lot of original ideas in there... the whole book is new and original... it prepares for something even better

>>25009248
>Are you retarded? I'm not talking about you, I specifically referenced his views on himself.
...to me, who knows all this stuff already you fucking pseud. i naturally assumed you were implying i believed the opposite of what you were saying or i was ignorant of what you were saying, because most human communication is implicit you fucking dumbass

>>25009255
>quote an authors views
>get called a pseud
You got sensitive too soon. You've outed yourself as a complete fool. Send me your address so I can Amazon deliver some wipes to clean up the slobber from your keyboard and armor you with a necessary safety helmet. And for God's sake, stop eating crayons.

>>25009261
yeah my bad, i tried to interpret the intentions of a vegetable that spouts non sequiturs

File: alright you got me.jpg (60 KB, 1280x720)

60 KB JPG

>>25009266
>i tried to interpret the intentions of a vegetable that spouts non sequiturs

File: 1673798569614219.png (93 KB, 1561x801)

93 KB PNG

>>25005380
>>25005388
>>25005403
>>25006302
>>25006314
>>25006887
>>25007246
Cope
Southerners are the only americans left who cluster with their british forefathers
Ellis Island trash are not americans

File: +_8a4a8866720708c6a528bb8(...).gif (557 KB, 326x177)

557 KB GIF

>>25006652
I'm a middle class british man and it hit incredibly close to home

>>25007178
Who cares what some pseuds think?

I read the sound and the fury and it was utter dogshit I genuinely think it's just celebrated because it's propaganda for race commies

>>25004583
Southern white-trash hicks are subhuman and more than deserve any negative portrayal they get in media.

>>25007546
yeah i know. i made it.

>>25007262
I mean, it's a good thought experiment. It asks you to imagine someone who can get away with anything without consequence, and to consider if anything could control their behaviour.

File: EE377DA7-A72C-44B3-BD26-0(...).jpg (1.53 MB, 1170x1795)

1.53 MB JPG

>>25007880
Ideas can control behavior. Ideas themselves are selected for and compete in much the same way that living things do. Unlike most life, however, ideas cannot exist on their own. They must parasitize a host to propagate and ensure their continued existence. Thus, ideas that are uniquely effective in steering the behavior of hosts towards the survival of the idea (rather than the host) have become immensely popular and widespread.

A person who is free from negative consequences of action is not automatically free from these ideas. They may still be parasitized and bound to values inserted to serve the idea rather than themselves.

In other words they do not act because they are convinced of negative consequence where there are none.

>>25007262
>let's design our ideal government
>now consider a man that is not subject to justice
Here you go, retard

>>25007262
>using only facts and logic
absolutely nothing this dick ever wrote was based on "facts", just pedantry and false analogies

>>25008886
yeah opting out and hoping the superintelligence regards us as ants or wildlife creatures that it allows to survive is probably the most moral choice. thats how i feel having thought about it (and being a person without any sort of influence over anything)

anyone think he looks like the guy who played dick winters in band of brothers

>>25007287
Thanks, Right on the Money #2 was really good. It answered the economic problem I always had with Land's work about how you overcome a systemic crisis of overproduction/underconsumption

>>25008886
>>25008914
The difference with Nick Land is that he regards this process and inevitable and never paints it as a particularly good thing. You ask him what the future looks like, he says Neuromancer or Blade Runner

>>25009240
>its gonna be just like shadowrun guise
You should be embarrassed for indulging this methheads psychosis

>>25008655
Okay good to know.

you can still read the transcript

>>25008661
Yeah, it is a bit cheesy. It was kind of intentional because he's not really a noble knight. He's more like a brute enforcer.

File: viking_fortress_by_meewto(...).jpg (103 KB, 1024x559)

103 KB JPG

Lawful Pantser here. How do I stop the unintended strange consequences and bring order to my new realm?

File: Screenshot.png (49 KB, 397x778)

49 KB PNG

>>25008682
I'm not reading 3500 words in this format. You can present in a reasonable way.

>>25007305
Not writers block, but drive to sit down and write. When I draw I get serious art block and same face / same pose, but writing is effortless when I do it. Do you post anywhere else, I've enjoyed these blurbs.

>>25009197
The west post 2020

>>25009210
precisely what my main inspiration is. I'm basically writing future headlines

>>25009197
I'm pretty sure this is just the plot of The Walking Dead.

>>25008484
it's a critique of husserl (phenomenology as epistemology), but also of all western philosophy, since he thinks they are all driven by the same impulses, and have the same problems, the problem of the concept of a first or something on which epistemology could be based, which actually presupposes the identity of thought and being, and thus was latent in parmenides. it's basically an inverted hegelian view of the history of philosophy, where western philosophy is all developments of the same starting point, but in adorno, it's a bad thing.
>>25007466
the sutra itself is some kind of hyperphantasic cosmic vision, the main effect of reading it comes from its endless repetitions and variations, I can't describe the effect of reading the sutra itself, but the introduction written by Thomas Clearly changed the way I think permanently. He describes how huayan buddhism overcomes all previous schools of buddhism by surpassing one-sided views. people typically look at nagarjuna's philosophy of emptiness as the most profound statement of buddhism, but there are actually several stages higher than that.

>>25008103
For me the side effect was more so taking occultist influence more seriously, I was never much of a Hegel fan and the first time I read Goethe's criticism of him I immediately agreed with it. The more interesting part was looking for religious motivations in everyone else, a lot of times thinkers would just repeat their religion's ideas with some make up on top as if it was completely new. Nietzsche also helped with that given the whole genealogy thing.
As for what to get out of all of this I would say a lot of ideas have been repeated for at least 1000 years, just go to the source. A lot of the supposedly Christian mysticism many philosophers dabbled with is just kabbalah, for example. For an example in politics: there were "globalists" in Rome as well. And when you read about the origin of things there tends to be less bells and whistles.

Reverend Insanity

File: lits.jpg (111 KB, 610x1000)

111 KB JPG

>>25007304
Kind of prepared me for this day and age

>>25008194
that's really all their is to if. you just keep banging yourself over the head with it until one day it clicks

Makes sense. Gauss was formally trained as a mathematician so other disciplines will take a bit of a windup.

>>25008194
This only happened because Gauss didn't have the Cambridge Edition. It is also true for every famous work of philosophy.
We lived in blessed times

>smartest 18th century revolutionary mathematician
>too low IQ to easily grasp epistemological metaphysics
also funny to think the anti-pytagorean read Kant

>>25008194
yeah this never happened, Gauss thought philosophers were retarded.

>>25008070
Shakespeare
Johnson
Dickens
James

>>25008070
Ulysses

>>25008080
>>25009166
no

No I think Dickens would be a mistake
Give Raymond Chandler, Hemingway, Orwell, Dashiell Hammett and John le Carré a try
Don't bother if it's really difficult

>>25007998
>Anyone who has even an intermediate understanding of Platonism and Christian theology and who had read even 1 or 2 of Augustine’s major works would find OP’s post totally comprehensible
The problem wasn't comprehension of the terms, in fact the point seems to have been describing terms, but rather that none of them are substantiated or supported. If you go into a pure-math environment and someone asks for proofs and you desist and keep saying that "it's well understood" they'll call you out for not knowing how to derive proofs and you wouldn't even be in the conversation from then on out. That's what we're dealing with here. The defense for OP seems to be an implied argument that Christian beliefs from a very particular brand need to be accepted at face value with no work being done.
>This thread was directed at that sort of audience
So you agree that the thread was designed to cater to those who already agree with it- but that's not really the point of the board and you ought not to have expected such a ridiculous scenario. Most people here aren't Christian.
>If you are going to continue to be insufferable while also adding nothing of value
We're the ones questioning the value of OPs post. He's obviously very proud of himself for listing out Latin terms, which anyone with a passing knowledge of first year Latin will have derived for themselves, but he doesn't actually make any serious arguments or build any ideas. He's just parroting what someone who he thinks is esoteric said.

The problem is that the work itself is not very obscure and the attempt to mimic technical jargon and bring that to the world of theology falls flat because it's not really all that complex or hindered. Three people in the opening comments called it word salad- because it is. It's a vacuous post that never presented value in the first place. The reason for me bringing this up is because Christians can and should do better. If you want to be respected, don't play at being an intellectual- be an intellectual. That doesn't come from parroting arguments but pulling the substance for oneself. The real genius would have been crystallizing Aquinas VS Bonaventure in fewer words, not just echoing.

>>25008611
It isn't. /his/ and /x/ are unironically more Christian in general.

>>25004858
>Bonaventure’s metaphysics is superior to that of Aquinas as it preserves the intrinsic intelligibility of being by refusing to sever ontology from its epistemic causes. Bonaventure argues that ens creatum cannot ground its own intelligibility through the mere actus essendi abstracted from sensibles, since abstraction yields at best a conceptual universal. He insists that intelligibility presupposes participation, that every act of genuine intellect implicitly refers to an epistemic order in the divine intellect.
>This avoids the latent nominalism implicit in Aquinas’ account, where being is treated as epistemically neutral and self-disclosing prior to illumination. By contrast, Bonaventure’s metaphysics secure the conditions of possibility for knowledge by grounding ontology, logic, and epistemology in a single explanatory principle: participated likeness. The result is a system in which necessity, universality, and intelligibility are not postulated but metaphysically explained.
>Bonaventure’s rejection of the primacy of esse in favor of the transcendentals of goodness, light, and exemplarity yields a more coherent account of participation and causality. Aquinas’ analogy of being risks rendering the analogate opaque, since being-itself is posited as metaphysically primary without a corresponding account of how finite intellects can apprehend being as such without already presupposing illumination. Bonaventure avoids this circularity by articulating an analogy of light in which being is intelligible only insofar as it is radiated by divine exemplarity, thus preserving the hierarchical structure of reality without collapsing epistemic access into angelic institutions.
>His metaphysics therefore maintains a strict asymmetry between Creator and creature while still accounting for real participation, something Aquinas’ autonomous natural metaphysics struggles to secure without supplementary theological premises. In this sense, Bonaventure’s system is not merely more theologically integrated but more logically coherent, since it thematizes the conditions under which being can be known at all rather than tacitly assuming them.

This is the better version. "Exemplarity" should be elided because it's a term that widens the meaning of text instead of narrowing it, making it a dirty word. Yes, it's an established term, and that's the mistake of the original authors. "Angelic intuitions" is subbed for institutions, from verb to noun, because it's too much to presuppose that angels even exist much less act, so to establish the noun first is to give credence to the existence of angels without having to make a second leap that angels have intuition and that other beings are subordinated to their "intuition"- an intrinsically material being's notion of perception.

if god is real how come I can't see im

>>25009180
>since abstraction yields at best a conceptual universal
He's kind of undermining himself by suggesting that a conceptual universe isn't enough. To engage in any of this discussion is to presume that conceptualization is enough.
>Bonaventure’s metaphysics secures the conditions of possibility for knowledge by grounding ontology, logic, and epistemology in a single explanatory principle: participated likeness to the first Truth

The whole point seems to argue that an act of intellect is to be part of subordination to a God, but then avoids explaining the process from God to subordinates. In fact, it seems like he's arguing in favor of copying the Gnostics but just erasing all of their work and just assuming they're right in order to avoid falling into accusations of heresy or technical fumbling.

>Aquinas’ analogy of being, while formally elegant, risks rendering the analogate opaque, since ipsum esse subsistens is posited as metaphysically primary without a corresponding account of how finite intellects can apprehend being as such without already presupposing illumination
More nonsense. For one, Bonaventure is already presupposing bonds between intellect and the divine without securing a direct route, for two Aquinas is using being the same way that Bonaventure is using intellect so Bony is just shifting the problem somewhere else instead of solving it, thirdly shifting the problem to intellect makes even less sense because being is universal and shared material experience whereas intellect isn't, fourthly presupposing illumination depends on one's assessment of what illumination is supposed to be. If it's an abstract notion of intelligence being the manifestation of God's light then it needs to be explained why being is not representative of that. I illumination is just God's energetic power, then of course it's presupposed and it would just straight up be Satanic to argue against it as a presupposition since it would deny God's capacity to act itself.

>>25004858
could you say this in a language other the one you invented to speak with your dead twin, thanks