are you posting undated screenshots from crystal cafe and lolcow and calling them girlboss philosophy in a strange mating ritual with the female users of those horrific places?

>>83933397
>are you posting undated screenshots from crystal cafe and lolcow
it's 10 hours ago
>a strange mating ritual with the female users of those horrific places?
god no, it's just free content

>>83933411
why do they do that with timestamps? so stupid. it makes it look like modern social media.

>>83933428
don't ask me to puzzle out the minds of creatures that can't grasp the concept of "original sin"

>>83933435
it doesn't seem that they don't grasp it, they just disagree with and assess it as a male-created phenomenon rather than a god-created one.

>>83933451
viewing "original sin" as a male feeling of guilt rather than a theological answer as to why (apparently) good people suffer means you don't get what original sin is

>>83933457
i think they're framing this based on the knowledge that original sin is supposed to stem from eve's interactions with satan and adam in the garden of eden, anon, and discussing it as an antifeminist artifact of theological justification for male domination over women based on their reproductive anatomy (as the condemnation from god specifically cites eve's childbirth pains and desire for adam who shall rule over her), which is what they interpret as an inferiority complex. not a theological discussion of why good people suffer. the entire post seems to be centered around sexuality and male sexual inferiority.

she also spells "retarded" incorrectly.

>>83933493
and all that word salad has nothing to do with the concept of original sin
>The specific doctrine of original sin was developed in the 2nd century struggle against Gnosticism by Irenaeus of Lyons, and was shaped significantly by Augustine of Hippo (354-430 AD), who was the first author to use the phrase "original sin".[3][4] Influenced by Augustine, the Councils of Carthage (411-418 AD) and Orange (529 AD) brought theological speculation about original sin into the official lexicon of the Church.
>He believed that prior to the Fall, Adam had both the freedom to sin and not to sin (posse peccare, posse non peccare), but humans have no freedom to choose not to sin (non posse non peccare) after Adam's Fall.

>>83933521
>the fall has nothing to do with the concept of original sin.
come on man.

>>83933551
the fall is the justification for original sin, it has nothing to do with the concept in itself. if you can't grasp the distinction then you're as dumb as that foid

>>83933521
It's a larger point in their argument about Nietzsche and philosophy created by men. Please do not make me have to defend that post by being even more idiotic than the person who posted it. It's clearly a blackpill radical feminist who dislikes all religion created by men, citing Roman Catholic papal doctrinal history at her that specifically centers around the exact moment she is critiquing as a faux historical invention to justify male domination as the moment that humans lose the ability to be able to choose not to sin is going to result in nothing but a "Loading..." screen on her face.

>>83933556
>the fall is the justification for original sin
>it has nothing to do with the concept in itself
read this again, out loud.

>>83933569
and it has an incorrect understanding of original sin. i would also argue that her misinterpretation of nietzsche is reductive and ignores the fact that he never saw his views as universal
>>83933574
>if you can't grasp the distinction then you're as dumb as that foid

>>83933578
>is justification
>has nothing to do with it
and yes, she is misinterpreting nietzsche. the entire post is stupid and incredibly reductive down to a gender war, just like your original post. i am not going on crystal cafe to tell her she is fucking stupid and certainly not going to screenshot a post found from lurking there to go post on here to complain. 4chan users asserting intellectual and moral superiority should have corresponding higher standards for coherent arguments. you have a million angles to attack her assertions from and chose the weakest possible one unprompted when the comment you were replying to was mocking the technical format of the website. you literally set yourself up for this.

>>83933593
lot of words to say you can't grasp the distinction between a concept and the justification for it and is repeatedly seething about his misinterpretation of a statement that is linguistically ambiguous

>>83933600
[This is a] lot of words to say you can't grasp the distinction between a concept and the justification for it and [are] repeatedly seething about his misinterpretation of a statement that is [etymologically] ambiguous.

>>83933615
>[This is a]
i was using slang
>are
typo
>[etymologically] ambiguous
linguistically ambiguous. apparently semantically ambiguous is even more correct

>>83933634
[I was truncating sentences and am referring to it as slang instead of just saying that.]
semantically pedantic would be the most correct. semiotics, how do they work?

>>83933646
how is it pedantic when i am the one who knows what i mean, you're the one wrongly misinterpreting what i'm saying

>>83933657
>what i mean
>what i'm saying
>>83933600
>his misinterpretation

>>83933671
yeah, his misinterpretation of MY statement where I know what I meant

>>83933676
and your statement was what?

>>83933685
>the fall is the justification for original sin, it has nothing to do with the concept in itself.

>>83933688
right. and who misinterpreted it?

>>83933698
him, because he thought i was saying the fall was unconnected from the concept of original sin. why the fuck am i spoonfeeding someone who cba to even read the thread

>>83933725
are you intentionally pretending to be stupid or?

>>83933725
>justification for
>nothing to do with the concept in itself

itt: r-r-r-recursive loops!

>>83933740
>>83933747
my point is that a concept and the justification for that concept are distinct and separate, they are different things

>>83933778
so a theological verdict that says humanity is doomed to sin no matter what they do and therefore end up in hell if they never receive absolution through the love and saving power of belief in god and enactment of his decrees through the works of mercy (which is only true if they are cognizant of the existence of the one true god and actively reject his divine grace) is unrelated to the fact that eve's choosing to defy god's prohibitions against eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil and sharing it with adam in her desire to know as god does is the reason for humanity being doomed to sin even though if she never had consumed said fruit she would not know the difference between good and evil and would therefore be incapable of sin? which is all, naturally, unrelated to the original image's assertion which is that "[men] made [original sin] up" - which you specifically acknowledged as correct with
>The specific doctrine of original sin was developed in the 2nd century struggle against Gnosticism by Irenaeus of Lyons, and was shaped significantly by Augustine of Hippo (354-430 AD), who was the first author to use the phrase "original sin".[3][4]
while claiming that the image op "can't grasp the concept of 'original sin'" saying that she views it as "a male feeling of guilt rather than a theological answer as to why (apparently) good people suffer" and therefore "[doesn't] get what original sin is" when what she said was men made up original sin "as if it is just something they all feel, some inferiority complex they all have" and "they need to teach this to women, it doesn't seem to come naturally to women" and then went on some nonsensical tangent about nietzsche being a beta orbiter because her entire argument is clearly about eve being the source of original sin and sin originating from temptation, not a semantic breakdown of papal doctrine?

>>83933817
>is unrelated to
you're illiterate

>>83933825
oooh, got another sick burn for when you're backed into a corner and have to cover your tracks?

>>83933832
if you can't tell the difference between two things being different from one another and two things being unrelated then there is no point in talking to you

>>83933825
btw
>the fall is the justification for original sin, it has nothing to do with the concept in itself.
>nothing to do with
>the concept
>in itself
>is unrelated
>>83933521
>all that word salad
>>83933825
>illiterate
k.

>>83933844
what do you think "the concept in itself" means? it's the concept removed from justifications, causes, effects, etc.

>>83933843
yeah, you're leaving here with your dignity intact and i'm the illiterate one who doesn't know roman catholic doctrine or basic english. i heard "eucharist" means "the last thursday of november" in ancient greek which is itself a translation of hebrew.

>>83933849
is capital punishment removed from the fact it's a legal sentence?

>>83933849
address the discussion here, please:
>>83933817

>>83933857
i'll tell you what, the next time when you say eucharist and mean last thursday of november i'll accept that without sperging for an hour
>>83933870
the concept in itself of a capital punishment would be different for the reason why the capital punishment was carried out
>>83933876
see;
>>83933825

>>83933897
read.
>so a theological verdict that says humanity is doomed to sin no matter what they do and therefore end up in hell if they never receive absolution through the love and saving power of belief in god and enactment of his decrees through the works of mercy (which is only true if they are cognizant of the existence of the one true god and actively reject his divine grace) is unrelated to the fact that eve's choosing to defy god's prohibitions against eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil and sharing it with adam in her desire to know as god does is the reason for humanity being doomed to sin even though if she never had consumed said fruit she would not know the difference between good and evil and would therefore be incapable of sin?

you:
>the fall is the justification for original sin, it has nothing to do with the concept in itself.

>>83933343
I can't help but agree to an extent. Most male philosophers attributed the human female's behavior to hanlon's razor, which is a mistake and a massive cope. Women aren't misguided and they're not even that dumb, they are by their nature, willfully and consciously malevolent and act as men's natural enemies.

>>83933932
again;
>my point is that a concept and the justification for that concept are distinct and separate, they are different things
stop saying "it's unrelated to" when i've already explained that i meant the two concepts were distinct, not unrelated

>>83933897
>the concept in itself of a capital punishment would be different for the reason why the capital punishment was carried out
nonsensical. the comparison is the foundation of capital punishment as a legal principle, not a generic ruling of capital punishment.

>>83933948
take your penis out of your mouth to redirect blood flow back to your brain, briefly, please.

>so a theological verdict that says humanity is doomed to sin no matter what they do and therefore end up in hell if they never receive absolution through the love and saving power of belief in god and enactment of his decrees through the works of mercy (which is only true if they are cognizant of the existence of the one true god and actively reject his divine grace) is unrelated to the fact that eve's choosing to defy god's prohibitions against eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil and sharing it with adam in her desire to know as god does is the reason for humanity being doomed to sin even though if she never had consumed said fruit she would not know the difference between good and evil and would therefore be incapable of sin?

eucharist means thanksgiving as a transliteration of eucharistia from greek which is itself a translation of the hebrew berakhah, by the way. "eucharist means thanksgiving" is the first thing any catholic schoolchild learns in ccd or catholic school when readying themselves for confirmation. but thanks.

>>83933960
how can it be a legal sentence and a legal principle? what do you mean by a legal sentence-a generic ruling for various crimes or a specific legal sentence? it's not clear, is it? if it's a generic ruling then it's different from a specific concept like original sin-there not multiple potential original sins, there's only one original sin
>>83933978
>take your penis out of your mouth to redirect blood flow back to your brain, briefly, please.
yawn. unless you correct unrelated to to distinct from then there's no point in arguing with you, because you're misrepresenting my position
>eucharist means thanksgiving as a transliteration of eucharistia from greek which is itself a translation of the hebrew berakhah, by the way. "eucharist means thanksgiving" is the first thing any catholic schoolchild learns in ccd or catholic school when readying themselves for confirmation.
so you didn't mean "last thursday of november" and were just being a dick, unsurprising

>>83933945
sounds pretty deterministic. i suppose you reject the copenhagen interpretation in favor of laplace or de broglie-bohm? occam would agree with hanlon, or, really, heinlein, like most loonies.

>>83933994
thanksgiving in america is a holiday celebrated on the last thursday of november. yawn.

>>83933994
unless *i* correct myself?
>the fall is the justification for original sin, it has nothing to do with the concept in itself.

>>83934018
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thanksgiving#United_Kingdom
>>83934026
i can't believe i'm wasting my time arguing with someone who is ignoring what i meant and insisting that their understanding of the words i typed is the correct one

>>83934036
that's fantastic. in bri'ish english, is "has nothing to do with" synonymous with "unrelated to" or "distinct/separate from"?

>>83934060
it's linguistically ambiguous you tit

>>83934014
>sounds pretty deterministic
It is. From what we can tell so far by actual completed science, free will is at best, extremely limited, realistically non-existent.
>copenhagen interpretation, etc
Not a complete science and I don't care because it's not truly relevant when we're discussing functions that operate two layers of complexity above quantum mechanics. Stick to basic chemistry and biology and you'll get a good enough answer to cover this topic.

>>83933343
I suppose the point is that she need to read normal philosophers (Quine, Kripke, Carnap) and not all sorts of Nietzsche

>>83934036
for what it's worth, you are the one who is dodging the actual question about how a theological belief centered around a specific theological teaching *has nothing to do with the concept in itself* despite being the foundation for it and incomprehensible if it had not occurred. if i kick you in the head, you have a brain hemorrhage, and a court decides i must pay you restitution for your medical bills, are the fact of your medical bills' existence unrelated to my kicking you in the head? is the legal ruling being used as precedent for if someone else kicks someone in the head they must pay restitution?

hold on, i think i have a quote for this.
>some inferiority complex they all have.
>LMAO they're just some retarted unreliable narrators. it seems male philosophers are always obsessed w being above their male ape desires bc it makes them feel powerless.
>They expose so much about themselves w it all.

*i* didn't even bring this up. i made fun of the weird timestamp and provided the correct framing for the image's otherwise incredibly stupid and reductive argument. you decided to deflect endlessly and got caught in a loop that could have ended with "yeah, i wrote the wrong word" and keep trying to act as if you are smugly superior when you can't even understand a simple reference to basic ecumenical etymology - presumably because you realize you actually can't argue out of it. *i* want to have a theological debate with *you*, *you* stutter constantly about the same word choice i was over forever ago.

>>83934077
>no ligotti or cioran
bro you just posted CRINGE

>>83934067
>It is. From what we can tell so far by actual completed science, free will is at best, extremely limited, realistically non-existent.
would you mind elaborating on this? i'm curious about your perspective on metaphysics.
>>83934077
you as well, if you wouldn't mind.

File: 1770141363789600.jpg (28 KB, 521x218)

28 KB JPG

The epic philosophy.
How to solve women?
Knock them up.
It always was that easy.

>>83934097
>if i kick you in the head, you have a brain hemorrhage, and a court decides i must pay you restitution for your medical bills, are the fact of your medical bills' existence unrelated to my kicking you in the head?
i cba to correct every ridiculous misunderstanding and false analogy you come up with especially when you just ignore the ones i do correct
>you decided to deflect endlessly and got caught in a loop that could have ended with "yeah, i wrote the wrong word" and keep trying to act as if you are smugly superior when you can't even understand a simple reference to basic ecumenical etymology
i might have wrote the wrong phrasing that would communicate my meaning to you, which doesn't explain why you keep using even worse phrasing instead of just correcting it
>a theological belief centered around a specific theological teaching
ok, i'll sum it up. the idea that all people are born with original sin is distinct from the actual original sin (eating the apple or whatever). you could say all people are born with original sin without making any reference to the bible

>>83934121
>ok, i'll sum it up. the idea that all people are born with original sin is distinct from the actual original sin (eating the apple or whatever). you could say all people are born with original sin without making any reference to the bible

>>83933593
>4chan users asserting intellectual and moral superiority
What? Where did you hear this? In reality most of the content here is mediocre. The number of all kinds of incels (people farthest from Nietzsche) is so large that normal people don't come here

>>83934077
Is there a particular book you would suggest someone start with?

>>83934133
what is your fucking point you insufferable cunt

>>83934111
>would you mind elaborating on this?
I'll give you a short answer because I'm gonna sleep now. The gist of it is that you don't need the variability of quantum mechanics and theories to give a coherent, scientific explanation for human behavior. It would only verify what you could already conclude from older, established branches of science. It wouldn't change your previous findings, it would at best add complexity to it.

>>83934134
t. has skimmed beyond good and evil once or twice

>>83934134
it was more of a reference to op as a 4chan user than anything. your point about incels self-segregating on /r9k/ being closer to the untermensch than the uber is astute, especially given the accurate assessment of the trajectory of content generation in the past... however many years. low barrier to entry, lower quality in higher volume. comes with the territory, but that sentiment was aimed at a 4chan user asserting superiority over an altchan one, and i assume neither demographic would typically intersect with "normal people" in the year of our lord... ever? pre-2007 and post-2017? rather than a general assessment of the dynamics of the internet. there used to be brilliance here, cloaked in vulgarity.

>>83934145
>He believed that prior to the Fall, Adam had both the freedom to sin and not to sin (posse peccare, posse non peccare), but humans have no freedom to choose not to sin (non posse non peccare) after Adam's Fall.
>you could say all people are born with original sin without making any reference to the bible

how much clearer can i make this. how can you discuss SIN without the BIBLE.

>>83934148
hm, i meant more on why you think free-will is non-existent. i don't necessarily disagree in totality or at least haven't been fully swayed to the opposing side, but your "older, established branches of science" converge with "older, established branches of religion" in this particular department if we are going to invoke predestination, determinism, and fate. of course, that could be precisely your point and one in your favor?

>>83934167
>how can you discuss SIN without the BIBLE.
by discussing sin without referring to the bible??? again you can simply say that all people are born with original sin and cannot choose not to sin, which is what the doctrine of original sin is. no bible reference there!

>>83934163
>OH MY SCIENCE YOU'RE A LE HECKIN' UNTERMENSCH JUST LIKE NEETCHEE TALKED ABOUT!!!
ok pesud. somehow i think i'll be able to live with you thinking i'm a poopyhead

>>83934179
the theological concept of moral impurity (inherited and existential or actively chosen) necessitating ritual ablution to receive divine absolution from an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent deity cannot be divorced from the foundational holy text of the religion that outlines this. what?

>>83934197
>the theological concept of moral impurity (inherited and existential or actively chosen) necessitating ritual ablution to receive divine absolution from an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent deity
name one reference to the bible in this, and if there is one i can guarantee you it's not essential

>>83934184
the nazis were the main ones discussing untermensch. nietzsche did not use the term. "pseud".

>>83934208
baptism isn't essential?

>>83934138
in philosophy or in analytical philosophy?
If the first then basic philosophy course (preferably at least a general knowledge of Aristotle, Plato, Hume, Kant and Leibniz).
For analytical philosophy, you should know the basics of set theory and logic, then you can start with Frege, Russell, and Carnap. Many people believe that analytical philosophy doesn't require any special knowledge of mathematics, and in many cases this is true, but at least you should know the basics, "this is a fucking classic, you have to know this"

>>83934178
I just don't have it in me to type it all out again, just read books from neuroscientists like gazzaniga and sapolsky or ask an LLM to summarize them. Probably a better option than reading them because they're all sprinkled with insufferable libshit opinions to make their studies seem less blackpilled and ease you up to considering why it's actually a good thing that niggers gonna nig forever and how we must be understanding and tolerant.

I just took their studies and rejected their dogshit personal opinions.

>>83934209
so you were saying i was racially inferior or something you utter fucking pedant? that's even more pathetic lol
>>83934210
what, ritual ablution? you don't need to refer to the specifics of baptism (like you didn't do there), do you?

>>83934232
i don't think you're racially inferior. i think at this point you are intellectually unfit for human life, but completely divorced from anything regarding your material circumstances or physical attributes which i do not know nor care about. this is purely based on how you respond to things. why would you even admit to being the one who can't figure out who is talking about what an unter or ubermensch is, when thanksgiving is, what baptism is, the mechanics of original sin, what is or isn't in the bible, that you can't figure out how a holy book that is a foundation for a religion complete with very specific commandments and theological stories about the foundation of human behavior is related to doctrinal rulings on and church applications of that behavior...? everything about you thus far has been completely baffling this is why i refuse to leave. you're either the best troll in the world or genuinely the most insufferable and idiotic example of dunning-kruger i have ever encountered in the wild and i am positively fascinated by the ambiguity of being incapable of telling which is the truth. given that you self-identified as being located in the united kingdom, it's genuinely a 50/50 split here. this is the most interesting interaction i've had on 4chan in a long, long time. i'm, like, getting turned on by this superposition here.
>what, ritual ablution? you don't need to refer to the specifics of baptism (like you didn't do there), do you?
like, what even is this? you've had me staring at this screen with a smile and very wide eyes for hours at this point. this is like sexting to me.

>>83934292
>i don't think you're racially inferior.
so why correct me on being an untermensch or whatever and say the nazi definition of untermnensch was the correct one? how else am i supposed to understand this?
> that you can't figure out how a holy book that is a foundation for a religion complete with very specific commandments and theological stories about the foundation of human behavior is related to doctrinal rulings on and church applications of that behavior...?
we are talking about the DISCUSSION of the concept of original sin, which is separate from biblical teachings (as is most church doctrine). do you genuinely think you can't discuss christian teachings without referring to the bible? what about the virtuous pagans?
>like, what even is this?
that's because you're dumb lol, it's written in plain english

>>83934292
>but completely divorced from anything regarding your material circumstances or physical attributes which i do not know nor care about.
I'll translate it into English: "I myself am poor and physically weak, but I claim to have a high intellect, so I can criticize you for your intelligence, but not for your strength and wealth."

>>83934221
oh, i meant analytical philosophy specifically. i was curious what you'd recommend. thanks, i'll have to look up a few of those names for later. i downloaded some pdfs a month ago but life got in the way, let me see, computational complexity: a modern approach by sanjeev anora and boaz barak, quantum computation and quantum information by michael a nielsen and isaac l chaang, quantum information: an introduction by masahito hayashi, on the unique games conjecture by subhash knot, three different things on pcp theorem and hardness of approximation, conceptual mathematics by f william lawvere and stephen h schanuel, category theory by steve awodey, semantics in generative grammar by irene heim and angelika kratzer, and apparently jean-francois lyotard's libidal economy at some point with other random shit. hopefully those will be a decent enough base to layer on.

>>83934230
>or ask an LLM to summarize them
bro, the basilisk

>>83934335
>i don't care what your life outside this thread is like and it isn't relevant to this discussion
>"I myself am poor and physically weak, but I claim to have a high intellect, so I can criticize you for your intelligence, but not for your strength and wealth."
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism_(disambiguation)

>>83933343
meanwhile all women philosophy subforums everywhere are about hand-reading, psychics, tarot and astrology and having feelings

>>83933343
>helping people, something women just do all the time

ok then put out for me and not just chads

>>83933343
If the argument is people who want to be paid to just sit around and "think" are fucking retards, that is 100% accurate, even the stoics understand you had to work the field to keep the mind sharp.

>>83933397
Give OP a break it's hard to keep up with dead internet theory and make most of these threads with with bot help.

File: 1734210256202169.png (62 KB, 834x459)

62 KB PNG

>>83934377
and that in a nutshell is all the flaws of the human condition. The help you want they will never give and the help they give you never want.

>>83934320
>so why correct me on being an untermensch or whatever and say the nazi definition of untermnensch was the correct one?
>>83934163
>it was more of a reference to op as a 4chan user than anything. your point about incels self-segregating on /r9k/ being closer to the untermensch than the uber is astute, especially given the accurate assessment of the trajectory of content generation in the past... however many years. low barrier to entry, lower quality in higher volume. comes with the territory, but that sentiment was aimed at a 4chan user asserting superiority over an altchan one, and i assume neither demographic would typically intersect with "normal people" in the year of our lord... ever? pre-2007 and post-2017? rather than a general assessment of the dynamics of the internet. there used to be brilliance here, cloaked in vulgarity.

>how else am i supposed to understand this?
as me talking to someone else about the population of the board "being closer to the" german prefix meaning "under" or "sub" man rather than the "super" man concept nietzsche discussed based on him saying
>The number of all kinds of incels (people farthest from Nietzsche) is so large that normal people don't come here
? you were not involved in this discussion other than as a the 4chan user identified as the op, unless you are the person i am responding to.

you saying
>>OH MY SCIENCE YOU'RE A LE HECKIN' UNTERMENSCH JUST LIKE NEETCHEE TALKED ABOUT!!!
>>83934184
here is why i said
>the nazis were the main ones discussing untermensch. nietzsche did not use the term.
and then directly refuted your assertion that i think you are racially inferior by saying that your material circumstances which
>>83934335
seems to think means "your bank account" and not "the facts of your life outside of the text you have typed here" are both unknown and irrelevant to me thinking you are a moron - which i then followed by saying i think you might be brilliant and i am having fun!

>>83933343
My favorite philosopher is a woman though

>>83934320
>we are talking about the DISCUSSION of the concept of original sin, which is separate from biblical teachings (as is most church doctrine). do you genuinely think you can't discuss christian teachings without referring to the bible? what about the virtuous pagans?

god. do you read the things you write out loud before you write them?
>do you genuinely think you can't discuss christian teachings without referring to the bible?
god. god. i *like* you. you have such chutzpah. no one has this anymore. it's so refreshing.

>what about the virtuous pagans?
>In the Bible, Paul the Apostle teaches that the conscience of the pagan will be judged even though they cannot possess the law of God.[2] Paul writes:

>12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law; 13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. 14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: 15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;) 16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel. Romans 2:12-16

>>83934367
u was caught in poverty and physical weakness and now I'm trying to justify myself by the rules of the debate.

bye bye troll

>>83934416
aynny randy?

>>83934431
haha, look at you go. "u was" "bye bye troll". i love you.

>>83934437
Rosalind Hursthouse

>>83934389
>and then directly refuted your assertion that i think you are racially inferior by saying that your material circumstances which
so to sum it up, pedantry
>>83934424
>In the Bible, Paul the Apostle teaches that the conscience of the pagan will be judged even though they cannot possess the law of God.[2] Paul writes:
ok you don't even know what the virtuous pagans are

>>83934345
Wow, if you're ready to study literature at this level, you're already well-versed in math and logic, right? I shake your hand, anon.

If that is possible I think we can discuss this topics in another place.

>>83934375
>But I didn't and still don't like making a cult of women's knowledge, preening ourselves on knowing things men don't know, women's deep irrational wisdom, women's instinctive knowledge of Nature, and so on. All that all too often merely reinforces the masculinist idea of women as primitive and inferior - women's knowledge as elementary, primitive, always down below at the dark roots, while men get to cultivate and own the flowers and crops that come up into the light. But why should women keep talking baby talk while men get to grow up? Why should women feel blindly while men get to think?

>Ursula K. Le Guin

>>83934442
ooh, neo-aristotleian virtue ethics and moral philosophy! what do you like about her? i like simone weil :)

>>83934441
thank you
Incels forgot that 4chan, no, no only 4chan but the world in general are places created for fun. If if you find my activity funny then you are my friend

>>83934446
>Biblical and theological foundations
>In the Bible, Paul the Apostle teaches that the conscience of the pagan will be judged even though they cannot possess the law of God.[2] Paul writes:

>12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law; 13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. 14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: 15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;) 16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel. Romans 2:12-16
Certain Church Fathers, while encouraging evangelism of nonbelievers, are known to have taken a more broadly inclusive view as to the participation of non-Christians in divine wisdom. In Chapter 46 of his First Apology, Justin Martyr went so far as to claim all logos-inspired pagans as sharing in the wisdom of God, even those who espoused nontheistic philosophies:

>We have been taught that Christ is the First-born of God, and we have suggested above that He is the logos of whom every race of men and women were partakers. And they who lived with the logos are Christians, even though they have been thought atheists; as, among the Greeks, Socrates and Heraclitus, and people like them."[3] Francis A. Sullivan believes that early Christian writers "did not preclude virtuous pagans from possibly attaining salvation", but he "agrees that it is possible that the patristic Fathers, had they been asked directly, may have denied that pagans and Jews could become partakers of eternal life."[4]

>>83934482
:( man now all my thread cred is gone because i fucked up the formatting. o woe be unto thee, >>>> and enter key!

File: 6C7825986-pb-130610-vietn(...).jpg (908 KB, 1500x973)

908 KB JPG

>>83933343
>monks think they're enlightened for: not masturbating 24/7 and helping people
trvth nvke

>>83934473
She's the one who convinced me of the efficacy of virtue ethics, which I think is a personal boon and a boon for humanity that it's being brought back.