Anyone here read "Nihilism," by Father Seraphim Rose?

>>1713728

Women are hedonists and their enemy is boredom, effort, risk, danger.
Fortunately, men are desperate enough to feel relevant, dutiful, respected, valued so they are pushy enough to try to be noticed by women (because they fail to be relevant beyond women). and sooner or later, they cracks the bf-shield

Women know that chads and other robots are willing to help them, to have an easy life. The natural problem of women is that they get bored sooner or later with whoever choose to try to entertain them.
So women change their partners to avoid the rut and to create drama. men do not like to be changed, since they loved to be relevant for once in their life, they whine and hate women when women find other providers.
Of course, changing partners constantly becomes a bore too, so they want some fixed men in their life to give them emotional and material support, Rarely sex because women know that, no matter how good the lover is, it gets boring sooner or later.
When they are replaced, men become resentful towards women, since they lose the validation of their existence. They pretend that they can live without women and that they even are better than women, smarter, stronger (in forgetting that women do not need to be so, because men want to be so in place of women)

Knowing that they are not able to stop loving to be supported by men, Women love also to think that they need no man and that they live to help others >muh compassion. This is part of the tactic to enhance their pleasures: women think that they are good people in society, only to feel even more raw, more animal, more of a little minx, typically in private, when they are fucked properly by some beta ready to serve them sexually.

She looks so much better in the left pic. Makes me sad.

>>1713728
http://spankbang.com/qtfq/video/cute+teen+couple

>>1714063
She's a porn actress. Makeup is like a superhero costume for them.

>>1714083
she have a name?

>>1714089
Alaina Fox

>>1714102
thanks famalam

>>1714083
>>1713728
she's more attractive on the left imho

>>1713728
>source: his ass

>>1713728
“What is it we value? Innovation. Originality. Novelty. But most importantly...timeliness. I fear you may be too late, my confused, unfortunate, friend.”
― Brandon Sanderson, The Way of Kings

>>1714083
>Makeup is like a superhero costume for them.
Dont Porn Actresses don excessive make up so as to be more visible while on action on camera?

>>1715719
What is this, the 1920s? NO.

Porn actresses wear make up to look pretty, especially since many of them are run-of-the-mill women you would have to look twice before finding attractive.

I did read a Huffington Post article how some do makeup to preserve their "private" face. Its no secret given that Hollywood actors do the same.

>>1715708
What is considered timeless, in modernist conception, is that which was novel for its time. It's timeless only as a momento to that.

Oh, so he's the source of Constantine's idiocy. Yeah, I wont be reading that, I value my mind and don't want to risk whatever damage Constantine incurred. There's all kinds of values people will base their personal systems on in the absence of God, newness is not among them. Culture continually changes, and he considers this process of change to be the sole place to base values in, but this simply isn't the case. Take the (CURRENT YEAR) stuff for instance, most of it's not based on the fact these ideas are (CURRENT YEAR) but instead on the same old ideals of the French revolution and enlightenment, taken to a new, more abstract dimension (instead of equality before law for the peasants, it's equality in attitudes for other marginalized groups, but it's still rooted in that old basic idea).

In short, he's a moralistic crank that needs to shut the fuck up.

>>1715744
Oh even at all that, it's worth noting that the alternative he'd propose, that we all base our values in how Godly they are, is no better. Under his system all politics would be what was endorsed by the Bible, all art the same boring repeats of icons and Madonnas, all philosophy based on Christian metaphysics. Fuck that, and fuck him.

>>1714021
>Women are
Stopped there.

>>>/r9k/

>>1713728
Wouldn't even mind waking up next to left desu.

left>>>>>>>>right

File: 1474174501927.jpg (123KB, 520x621px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 520x621px

>>1715729
>What is this, the 1920s? NO.

>>1715744
>>1715765
You all are ridiculous for judging Fr. Seraphim Rose without listening to his lectures or reading his material. He's a very intelligent and wise man, totally devout. Much more than internet anons like you or myself, for sure.

>>1715801
yeah shes a qt

>>1713728
>left: cute girl next door type that you read about in middle school, the type that just wants to hang out with you and maybe watch some anime while sharing ice cream
>right: sub human whore that isn't even really a person

>>1715839
>You all are ridiculous for judging Fr. Seraphim Rose without listening to his lectures or reading his material. He's a very intelligent and wise man, totally devout.

Well, if this is representative of the caliber of his opinions, he's an idiot and needs to shut the fuck up. Also why should I care that he's totally devout?

>>1715890
>she's made herself pretty and thus becomes less of a human being

Good God anon.

>>1715895
>he's an idiot and needs to shut the fuck up
>people can't say things I disagree with!
Nice caliber of opinion.

>>1715902
>implying she wasn't prettier without the whore makeup

>>1715926
Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom being told you need to shut the fuck up. I don't think the state should force him to shut the fuck up, I think he should do it of his own accord because his opinions aren't worth hearing.

>>1715934
>implying you're not claiming that because you're threatened by women that display an element of beauty or sexuality

She looks fine without makeup, she looks prettier with makeup because she's taken care in crafting an aesthetic. You seriously need to examine how you view women.

>>1715945
>disliking the aesthetic of whore make up means i am threatened by female sexuality

>>>/i/ntersectionality

>>1715938
>because his opinions aren't worth hearing.
And who are you to judge, so much more high than a humble Father? Such arrogance.

>When you take God away, the sole principle for the quality of anything becomes how "new" it is

How does that fallow? People can and do evaluate the world round them by a host of metrics, pleasure/pain, duty, freedom, truth, etc. "newness" or novelty is but one category for some things like fashions, but certainly not the "sole principle" for everything.

To address the idea of "taking God away", I think you have fallen into a religious mindset where when you INTRODUCE God, there must be a "sole principle" to the complexity of life, which warps your perspective.

>>1713728
>there can be no meaning beyond God
Why do christcucks believe this?

>>1715974
Well as Herr Nietzsche pointed out it is really they who are the ardent nihilists.

>>1715966
Who am I? Someone with eyes to see and a brain to think, my friend. His opinion here is demonstrably false, and clearly just the aimless flailing of a spurned ideologue unhappy with the fact society disagrees with him. I'm not higher than him, but I am capable of pronouncing judgement, Constantine.

Hijacking this thread since its kinda relevant.

How can I live a moral life and believe in morality when there's no religion to guide me?

Accepting authors/books recommendations on the subject.

File: 1467359669578.jpg (62KB, 600x554px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 600x554px

>>1715966
Humility isn't a virtue who gives a fuck
fuck you old man

>>1715963
>oh hey, she put on a pretty standard amount of makeup
>she's now less human for it

Yeah, you totally don't have some warped views of women.

File: Nietzsche187c.jpg (2MB, 1956x2940px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1956x2940px

>>1713728
>current year
>crossniggers STILL don't realize that their jew-cult religion is the original and eternal source of nihilism in the west.

Get on my level, untermenchen.

>>1715974
Because they're basically nihilists who've created a very delicate suit of armour to avoid having to deal with the conclusions of that position.

>>1715996
That seems like a ridiculous amount of foundation for the sake of displaying an extreme juxtaposition. I could be wrong I don't know shit about makeup.

>>1715990
Plato and Aristotle are actually good places to start.

File: Crocifissione, 1927.jpg (134KB, 637x856px) Image search: [Google]

134KB, 637x856px

>meaning

>>1716007
I work with the public, it's a pretty normal amount of foundation for someone who's looking to make an appearance (say a date, a night out, a special occasion) etc. It's by no means abnormal or whorish.

>>1715990
Read Kant.

>>1716011
>>1716027
Any TL;DR to pique my interest?

>>1716043
Kant: golden rule lmoa
Plato: be a good person lmoa
Dunno about Aristotle

>>1716043
Plato: be honest, just, temperate and wise.

>>1716043
Read Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics, Politics, and Metaphysics.

File: 7c0496086084cd0545130a4ccaa4fd9e.jpg (13KB, 236x294px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 236x294px

>>1716004
I wonder who could be behind this post.

>>1716083
I'm not Nietzsche idiot. How could I even still be alive?

>>1716091
Only if you eternally recurred.

>>1715945
>threatened
fuck off with your r9k memes
i don't need to seriously examine anything just because i have a different taste than yours, taste that in this case is only depending on a bunch of stuff on someone face

>>1715996
she's not "less human", who said anything about?
also she's a whore, or sex worker if you prefer it, because of her job, it's not a moral judgement, it's a fact

>>1716227
about it*

>>1716227
Read the conversation before commenting on it, you fucking imbecile.
>>1715890
>>right: sub human whore that isn't even really a person

>>1716239
you are talking with two different persons if you didn't realize it yet mr r9k

>>1713728
>the sole principle for the quality of anything becomes how "new" it is

That's retarded. The MAIN principle of quality is how effective something is.

>>1716284
That's the commercial principle.

>>1713728
>When you take God away, the sole principle for the quality of anything becomes how "new" it is

>nihilism
>"new" things have quality
>anything possessing a quality

Father Seraphim Rose (is that a real name?) seems to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what nihilism is. Nihilism: There is no value to anything. (and an absence of value is not in itself an ascription of a negative value to anything - it's more of a neutral state)

One could be nihilistic by simply objectively acknowledging that values are completely arbitrary. This does not preclude a person from nonetheless being able to subscribe to a set of values, even though they may lack any objective purpose as far as the physical universe may be concerned. I can't imagine how you would be able to reconcile that with your religious beliefs, but I'm sure plenty of non-religious individuals have found some existential purpose in their lives.

no he's not right. in the case of art the value of christianity was superseded by the values of the medium itself rather than an external quality. it wasn't that 'newness' became a value, just how best to develop art as truth in a new secular language rather than art as truth in a divine one. for example in the 19th century -- immediately after the loss of god as a value in art -- you basically have two camps of art being produced that aren't directly concerned with 'newness' per se; romanticism and (social) realism. after this, the 'avant-garde' is actually a return to the art of previous centuries, based on draughtsmanship, composition, close study of nature, except all dealing with the contemporary idea of what constitutes 'reality' given that the christian model was inadequate

art has always been a sort of meditation on the metaphysical. if you were to say that the avant-garde is concerned with 'newness' because it directly contends with the immediate reality rather than a christian one, how does that logic not extend to the art of the 4th century, when depicting christian themes was considered 'new'?

certainly not the most robust of theories

>>1716921
>is that a real name
His birth name is Eugene Rose, but when you become a monk you must accept a new name to go by for the rest of your life, since the old you is as dead.

You aren't familiar with the book, so you don't understand where nihilism factors in, but he discusses it at length and has the same definition you do

Girl on the left side is cheating, Has contacts in, also forcing a Facial expression.

alright without makeup though.

>>1717055
what is called the position when the girl is on top of the guy ?

>>1714063
This.

bo