Archived threads in /his/ - History & Humanities - 3937. page

>Even considering a LARP religion
>Just joining a Church to LARP
Orthodox or the Neopagan one
Stay out of my Church, we have enough problems with RPG memesters joining for fun

>>791681

You should worship Priapus anon. You might even get laid.

>>791689
*

File: image.jpg (167KB, 1002x1200px) Image search: [Google]

167KB, 1002x1200px

>>785882

>>785882
Because he died a madman, having espoused some of the most vitriolic and poisonous works ever known to mankind.

Since when? Nietzsche was one of the most influential philosophers of the last several hundred years. Russell dismissed him because he dismissed all non-analytics.

>>796835
What difference, really, does it make if consciousness is held in a soul composed of a ba, a ka, seven chakras, and the spiritual energy chi, as opposed to neurons and brain tissue? Wouldn't the same people who say "Who cares, its just chemicals?" be just as within their rights to say "Who cares, its just cosmic energy?" if the soul-as-subtle-body existed and was fully understood by science?

I end by restating my original premise. Almost all spiritual systems are actually materialistic systems featuring fictional materials, differing from normal materialism only to the degree that they feature such materials, and that scientific language is substituted for mystical language. I am convinced that if the soul was proven to exist, and natural science was able to give a full account of it, these same people would rebel, and make the same nihilistic remarks they currently do.

Discuss.

>>796839
You're asking what the difference is between a random, arbitrary universe and one where consciousness holds metaphysical value. The gulf is enormous.

I could just as easily say boring dry academics need to make everything boring and dry to grok it, if you're gonna accuse spiritualists of needing to wax poetic about everything

Interesting and thought-provoking argument regardless

>>796891
That is a point I didn't mention, but have considered. I will briefly commentate on it [because I want this thread to be mostly others discussing the idea, rather than me 'defending it' like its some doctrine of mine.

Many spiritual worldviews do have a slightly more 'anthropomorphic' cosmos than ours is [as some form of immortality is generally guaranteed, and some form of enforcement of law is done], but I would not say its sufficient to claim those universes grant consciousness metaphysical value. Value is dependent upon evaluation. To be valuable ultimately means 'to be valued by someone'.

The Abrahamic worldview is just as subjective in terms of defining values as any other proposed cosmos, the only difference is that an especially powerful Subject enforces his view on everyone else. The only way out of this is through making 'value' a feature of things that are valued [that is, objective value exists because value is a property of valuable things], a la natural law. But if that is the case, valuable could just as easily be a property of valuable things in an atheistic cosmos, or a polytheistic cosmos.

There is a reason most Christian theologians do not believe divine command theory.

>>795485
Science is literally a philosophy. For a man chooses to believe science. Positivists need to stop.

>>795485
Fucking science cucks

>>795496
Are you fucking serious
Science is anything but a belief. It is a system of observation and hypothesis to draw realistic and true conclusions on whether your meaningless life is based upon carbon or magical God dust.

>>795500
Fucking philosophy shills

>>794934
Shit posting trolls. Fuck off Austrian scum.

>>794947
>Austrian scum

Am I missing something here?

File: allani.jpg (35KB, 515x343px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 515x343px

http://www.federalreserve.gov/BOARDDOCS/SPEECHES/2002/20021108/default.htm

"Let me end my talk by abusing slightly my status as an official representative of the Federal Reserve. I would like to say to Milton and Anna: Regarding the Great Depression. You're right, we did it. We're very sorry. But thanks to you, we won't do it again."

>>791541
because it works

Because it carries a profit margin.

Saying you have a problem with usury, is like saying you have a problem with selling a boat for more than it cost producing it.

>>791541


It was the most expedient method for jews to make money for themselves.

YES IT DOES, WE JUST DON'T KNOW THE EXACT DETAILS YET

U CANT RILLY NO NUFFIN

>>791265
>consciousness
>reducible to and explained by a physical process

nice meme

>>792497
Ugh, i can sense the fedora behind the camera

>>792497
That is a lot of fucking cranes.

realtalk is it just one dude spamming stirner threads every few hours, or is this a real philosophical topic?

Stirner is a philosophical dead end m8 don't bore yourself.

>>790511
The latter, and there's always a couple little faggots like you who get their panties in a bunch because there happens to be 1-2 stirner threads on /his/ out of the 50 some odd threads allowed on /his/. But do a search for Nietzche at anytime on this board and you get 5-8 threads about that brittle superficial cuck. Go back to /mlp/ faggot

Vikings are basically a White Nationalist meme at this point.

>>787175
Whys he so smug, bros?

Since when do raiders conquer anything?

File: 4a.jpg (97KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 1000x667px

>>792541
Now, the more learned Catholics might point out that an Orthodox Council affirmed transubstantiation, but in rejoinder I must point out that

A: Most important, this is tu quoque, which doesn't resolve anything.

B: That council (which has never been recognized as Ecumenical) was basically a hurried reaction, because we had an Ecumenical Patriarch (Cyril Lucaris) who tried to make the Church Protestant and proliferated a confession that said Christ's Body and Blood are just a ceremony and not actually his Body and Blood. So the term "transubstantiation" was employed to make it absolutely clear that the Church rejected the Protestant conception of the Eucharist. It was employed specifically because Cyril Lucaris used it (in Greek, see the following point) to refer to the idea that the Eucharist was more than a remembrance. So the point was to explicitly and overtly contradict him so as to leave no doubt whatsoever.

C: That council's terminology is almost never employed today, because it has zero precedent with the Church Fathers, and unless there is precedent with the Church Fathers, something cannot be dogma. That doesn't make the term heretical, but you see what I mean, here is an article on it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metousiosis The term the Orthodox commonly used, and is attested by the Church Fathers, is "metamorphosis" ("transformation" would be the Latin equivalent).

FINIS

>>792541
>since they are suggesting it is not physically Christ's Body and Blood, just metaphysically.
since when is the metaphysical opposed to the physical?

>That council's terminology is almost never employed today
it was used before, that you changed your own understanding is your problem, not mine

>>792541
>>792542
4th crusade did nothing wrong

>>792038
Yes this is bait

File: 1452312517275.png (110KB, 382x310px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 382x310px

Sage, ignore

Jews cause we are the chosen race

Certainly not the propaganda trash in your picture.

Possibly this: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0108211/

>>789618

pleb detected

>>789610

Stalingrad 1996(I think). Maybe it was 1994.

For a lot of people, might makes right above all other considerations. What's imposed upon them by their parents and society is what they ultimately feel is most moral, and most popular systemic religions feature a god of ultimate power but not necessarily a true monastic god, the domain of philosophy.

>>788826
>What's imposed upon them by their parents
Sheeple

>>788809
Imagine if you only knew one language and never talked to someone of different language. Thats the theistic mindset.

Now imagine someone from above later interacted with another person of another language and then happen to understand some parts of it. Then they try to explain to the person above how its stupid to believe in the fact that you only need one in this life. This is the reactionary atheists.

>>788418
You mean Russism right?

>>788418
>is not instinctual, because that has nothing to do with instincts
A source would be fine, thanks.

>>788443
I mean in all countries.