u/JerseyFlight

“This object exists solely through itself and for itself and for its own sake. It is something that is absolutely self-sufficient, unconditional, independent, free, as well as being the supreme end unto itself.”

Once upon a time there came into existence the concept, and the concept birthed the ideal of perfection, and this perfection subconsciously operated on man.

Is there a stranger concept than God? In God man strives to construct the perfect concept, which is also proof of its fiction. (Though one could argue against this by positing the universe as the perfection of itself).

It would seem that the concept itself morphs into an absolute lie when it pursues God. But is it a lie without value?

Here we struggle to think because we do not think of the function of the category of concept.

For the mind to imagine its own attributes perfected, or to imagine attributes better than the attributes it can achieve, is precisely what kind of existential activity? It is imagination, but what is its value toward the one doing the imagining?

And if man should say, “I must strive to be like that ideal thing,” is this a good thing or a bad thing? (It depends on how we imagine the God).

Perhaps all we can extrapolate from a critical reading of Hegel is the idea of a non-contingency. But does this have any value? Essentially these theological forms are absurdities— “exists for itself.” But are they absurdities that go on to produce unintended secular concretions?

We immediately want to say no. But Christianity invented divine law only to have it impact secular law.

The concept of God is bizarre, because it seeks a maximization of the concept. It must never be confused that the concept of God stands superior to Logic, but nevertheless, it is still a concept that attempts to create the dualism of such. I suspect the practical result, if reason proceeds carefully, is that we simply learn the value and power of Logic by contrasting it with the concept of God.

*Source: Hegel, Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion p.84, University of California Press 1984

I suspect the nihilism of religion is necessary, not only necessary, but it should become more aggressive!

I’m surprised that nihilists and pessimists haven’t upped their game.

William Lane Craig, The Absurdity of Life Without God (we need more of this, but with a higher level of competence).

We need a great shattering and breaking, but where will it come from? The religious man is a tyrant, only capable of making other tyrants in the image of himself.

Down must be cast the machinations of men. They must experience the painful destruction of their beliefs. But alas, they are too dull to experience this destruction, otherwise they would have experienced it many times by now.

The experience of the destruction of belief requires a comprehension of when a belief has been destroyed. But no belief can be destroyed to a mind that rejects destruction; to a mind oblivious to Logic. Invincible belief, this is the heart of man’s belief, this is also the heart of man’s religion!

The apologist must do better, he must strive to cast all man’s beliefs into darkness so that he can supply the light. He must accumulate his own believers!

“Divine goodness,” what a concept! (Man was reaching up when he made it).

Behold the ideal human! This is the highest religious form, which proves that religion is a lie.

Others thinking to do better, say they transcend this form. (Show me the Buddhist wandering the wastelands). (Show me the vessel who only lives for the other— for would that not mean to die for the other?)

One day your planet will warm and everything on it will die. This is your destiny. But you can pretend now, nay, better to exploit humans and accumulate! Life is good when one is served by humans from cradle to grave.

The absolute-empty-man is contrasted with the religious tyrant. Thou art saved by thy ignorance (a truth that is far from thee).

The darkest wisdom tells you to weave like a snake in and out of mankind. But there are good men who will not do it, and they do not realize the greatness of their light.

The philosopher says, “Here is my meaning in my constructed reasons,” and the Christian must say, “but your reason is a mere construction that admits to its own despair, and negates itself through its own form. Here is my Light and my condemnation of your form!”

“For as I walked through the wilderness of this world, I lighted on a certain place where was a den, and laid me down in that place to sleep; and as I slept, I dreamed a dream. I dreamed, and behold, I saw a man clothed with rags, standing in a certain place, with his face from his own house, a book in his hand, and a great burden upon his back.

"I looked, and saw him open the book, and read therein; and as he read, he wept and trembled; and, not being able longer to contain, he brake out with a lamentable cry, saying, 'What shall I do?'”

Little did he know that he was destined to be a preacher of darkness, even though he saw himself as a preacher of light. For before he could become the greatest preacher of light, he first had to become the greatest preacher of darkness.

For now is the time to learn the skill of this great darkness.

———-

He knows he has Logic and Science. This is why he wants to see the downfall of philosophy. Here is no chaotic nihilist who wants to burn down all of human thought; rather, here is (the first) a hardline rationalist who sees philosophy as a distorter and parasite on Science and Logic.

For what is it to you, dear philosopher, if I despise your form so much that I am willing to encourage Christianity to increase its discipline in shattering your posture? Indeed, I would even be willing to give it the hammer!

It’s necessary to stop their abstract proliferation before it even begins. The philosopher gets a rush as soon as he feels he can pull the discourse into obscurity. He lives for it in his philosophical dreams.

Before any discourse takes place, clarify the standards of truth, and make sure that the philosopher confesses to their absoluteness. If he doesn’t, there’s no need to continue the exchange, as he’s merely trying to manipulate you— for his refusal is a confession that nothing he says is or can be true.

A farce pretending to be the highest knowledge and the highest form, that is philosophy.

A man likes essay (A), while he doesn’t like essay (B).

Do the test and prove the vanity of form.

In essay (A), place a series of true premise stated simply. It should come across as completely underwhelming, so straightforward that it seems obvious.

In essay (B), weave a bunch of true sounding falsehoods, or obscure sentences together, but make sure the essay has no less than five quotes from celebrated philosophers.

See which essay the control group liked better, which one they thought was more substantive. Ask them what they took away from each essay.

Those who like essay (B), reveal that they have a bias over rational capacity.

Once humans feel that something is “deep,” they automatically assume it must be true, or contain truths they can’t comprehend. This “deep” feeling can be invoked in humans through sophistication of form. And because of this form, they consider it to be beyond question that it might just be abstract nonsense.

Absolute truth is simple, reality is not.

What is absolute truth?

—reality exists independently of us, and if we want to know it we have to do the work of carefully observing it.

The reason science bypassed the abstract confusions of philosophy is because it took this absolute truth as its starting point and simply proceeded forward from it.

Reason has long been trying to tell man the same thing: stop deluding yourself with abstractions, reality is real, simply proceed forward from it, instead of trying to attack it.

A contradiction is a slap in the face from reality. But philosophy is so intellectually impoverished that it doesn’t begin with reality. Reason has to do a whole bunch of work on a philosopher just to get him to accept the fact that he lives in a real world. Even then, his cause might still be hopeless.

In general, the Atheist is too stupid to comprehend that it was the form of philosophy that empowered (and still empowers) the apologetic of religion. This is a problem.

I tend to despise philosophy more than religion because it’s able to pass itself off as secular, when its form is dealing with the same kind of irrelevant abstractions as religion. Its very subtle, smuggled reification is its supernaturalism.

For example, the concept of “Being.” This is a vague concept that carries no explanatory power. But it consumes men’s lives. Being is not a question we ask or need to ask if we’re trying to comprehend reality. To comprehend something we must observe it and learn the specific identities which make it what it is. Being is not found anywhere in this process.

But this hasn’t stopped philosophers from creating entire theologies of Being, as well as other vain abstractions.

I despise philosophy, because exactly like religion, it presupposes its own supremacy. But when a Reasoner looks more closely, this assumption is found to be wanting.

I despise philosophy because it’s irrational, though it claims to be the God of Reason. Philosophy assumes that anything that goes by the name of philosophy is automatically rational.

I despise philosophy because it teaches men how not to think. In place of thought they are taught all kinds of sophist techniques. Name dropping is common, narrative orthodoxy is common, philosophical platitudes are common— the arrogant and derogatory dismissal of valid objections that contradict their orthodoxy, is probably the most common, next to abstract proliferation.

I despise philosophy, because when one deals with a philosopher one is dealing with a manipulator, usually a person trying to prey on ignorance. One is dealing with an authoritarian that pretends to be rational because they hide behind the name of “philosophy.”

I despise philosophy, not because it “poisons the minds of youth,” but because it takes them out of commission and distracts them from the real world. It pulls men into abstract labyrinths that negate their value as thinking men. It turns them into innovators of nonsense.

I despise philosophy because it uses reality to deny and attack reality to get men to reject reality.

I despise it because it gives the intellectually weak a platform from which to posture, so that they can confound knowledge and wisdom in the world— in the name of knowledge and wisdom.

I don’t think it can.

I personally despise grifters, but this says nothing about the morals of grifting.

Philosophy has deluded men against the truth of reality, how can it therefore use reality to say that grifting is wrong?

Philosophy says all truth is constructed, so how can it say that one’s choice to construct a reality of grifting is false?

Philosophy rejects the truth that refutes its subjectivity, so how can it argue against the subjectivity of the grifter’s truth?

If the philosopher gets to believe whatever he wants against the standards of reason, then why doesn’t this also apply to the grifter?

Indeed, a grifter can even make his case pragmatically, because he’s increasing his well-being through grifting, and his life is short and he must choose what’s best for himself.

Religion allows a protection, a mediation. Nietzsche realized this, thus he wrote Zarathustra, not as religion, but as a protective form.

Case and point: humans are stupid.

This is likely a necessary starting premise for intelligence, whether we like it or not. (And in this we must start with our own stupidity!)

The reason religion allows protection is because one can use interpretation (a hermeneutic), which is mediated by the religious form. This leaves a necessary barrier that humans need, because very few of them can integrate to truth directly. They find it exceedingly distasteful and offensive to their ego.

Man is emotion, he is not rational. One can swiftly reach the limit of human tolerance for reality if one understands the function and specific idealism that humans deploy to avoid reality. Cut across this barrier too quickly and the subconscious will rebel, because it’s trying to avoid a wound or a fear of reality.

If reality is the thing that men fear, then perhaps the key is to keep assaulting them with it: thou might die tomorrow, tonight. All names will be forgotten in the future. All good deeds, all crimes have the same fate in the cosmos: nothingness. The universe doesn’t have any moral rules, those are things made by humans.

The ego is a powerful force, though. It’s a master at insulating the human from himself and the terror of reality.

It absolutely makes sense to manipulate with religion, given the pathological condition of man. This must have been what led to the creation of Gods in the first place. An honest man could not speak the truth plainly to an ego that lacked the capacity to face it. Religion mediates and pacifies. (The reason humans don’t like to think is because it’s painful, so why would they enjoy the sound conclusions of honest thought?)

The more I experience and comprehend the stupidity of man, the more I am forced towards religion— not as a truth, but as a mediating form. Man’s stupidity forces us to go here. Above all, man wants to be irrational. Religion works with this irrationality, tricking it against itself.

We can’t get men to think, but if the admonition is mediated through a concept of God— God calling man to thought in holiness, then the human’s feelings can be moved in the direction of thought. One just keeps trying to make incremental progress through the authoritarian form of theology.

All of this presupposes the most pathetic state of humans. So monstrous is the human ego that it can’t handle the humble nature of reality. It has to invent a God for itself that centers on itself. And even then the God says, “you should do this because you’re the most important being in the universe.”

Indeed, “thou art so important that I will empty my Godhood for you!”

These are the delusions of an insane species. Indeed, this is the climax of delusion.

Philosophy is like a man boasting that he can punch through concrete walls. There’s nothing wrong with this, unless he can’t actually do it.

If he has the power to punch through a concrete wall, then he should be able to do it. The power is in his ability to perform what he claims— so that it’s not just empty words.

This is equally true of philosophy: it must be able to substantiate its claims with reason and evidence. If it can’t do this, then it doesn’t have the power it insinuates it has.

For example, if a philosopher claims that “all truth is just human construct,” then he must be able to demonstrate that reality doesn’t exist; that he can act against it by sheer will and it will not contradict or thwart his will. —his claim must not be found to be a performative contradiction of itself (if truth or meaning are to have any meaning or significance at all).

The reason for clarifying this is to empower the Reasoner against philosophical bullsh;t, by making him aware that he can simply call out a philosopher’s bluff by demanding an inferential proof for a claim made. [What specific premises lead to this conclusion, and what evidence supports those premises? If the answer relies on more jargon, then power hasn’t been demonstrated.]

Anyone can make an assertion, but all that matters is that the assertion is sound. The thing that makes it true beyond the assertion itself must be manifested. If this standard is rejected, then the philosopher cannot require it for any claim he dislikes, including the claim that his philosophy is bullsh;t. If he can simply make truth by assertion, then so can anyone else.

You can either prove your claims through the demonstration of a sound inference, or you can’t.

But if you have the power to do this, then you have rational power, which is Logical power!

The problem is that modern sophistry doesn’t recognize the truth of this power, which doesn’t alter its truth or its rational power, it simply manifests the ignorance and tyranny of those who reject the evidence of sound reason on the basis of their feelings. (This is a problem because of how it sabotages civilization against the clarity of reason).

Rational power doesn’t consist in the mere assertion of premises, it consists in the demonstration of their soundness— a procedure which remains impossible outside the laws of Logic.

These are not mere rules, they are laws, laws like unto gravity, only more fundamental than gravity.

Rational power is not something a thinker can fake, which is why philosophers despise it. It is equivalent to demonstrating math on the page. A thinker has to be able to show their work in the form of a sound inference. If they cannot do this; if they reject this standard, then they cannot object to any position that establishes itself by bypassing and dismissing this standard.

If you have rational power, then you have rational power!

(If a tank has power against the will of a squirrel, it doesn’t matter how slowly it moves, that it will crush the emotionally defiant squirrel, is a fact of its power. So too with rational power against the sophistical posture of philosophy).

What’s interesting is that questions like this rarely apply to science, because science is human consciousness in pursuit of truth.

But if one is stuck in a crowd of primates that don’t want to be told they’re primates, should one merely mingle and pretend with the crowd?

Should one manipulate those in the crowd for their own benefit and gain?

What are the standards that here govern, and where do they come from?

Is this not the plight of the truth-speaker in the world? Is this not the position that the truth-speaker must learn to accept, to find contentment in?

I see voices crying in the wilderness, but even more, I see the dominance of the wilderness that isolates them and drowns out their voice.

Sisyphus is the wrong analogy for the conscious man; for that man is a voice crying in the wilderness.

Woe unto those who are foolish enough to seek out truth, and mad enough to bring it to mankind, for they are alone in a wilderness.

Or externalized in the form of God’s love for man, thus promoting the universal dignity of man?

If we say, “your claims are false.”

Why does “false” mean false?

A different question:

Why are the symbols “f-a-l-s-e,” not the symbols A-B-C? Because in actual reality (absolute objective fact) the symbols f-a-l-s-e are not the symbols A-B-C. This fact stands objective to our feelings.

What’s interesting about this is that there is an empirical objectivity to symbolic form, and it is because of this objectivity (which equally holds for speech) that our concepts can have any meaning at all.

Meaning cannot be purely subjective if the symbols through which meaning is expressed are themselves objectively distinguishable facts. The difference between “false” and “ABC” is not a matter of preference or interpretation— it is a fact of reality.

Therefore, when we use symbols to make claims about reality, we are not operating in a realm detached from objective truth. The very possibility of saying something means something depends upon an objective distinction between one symbol, word, or proposition and another.

Before we can even argue about whether a claim is true or false, we are already relying upon an objective reality that makes “true,” “false,” and every other concept meaningfully distinct.

“It’s far more complicated than that.”

That is, exactly like a theologian: “well, you just don’t understand it, because if you did you would believe it. Therefore, the fact that you are criticizing it, doesn’t say anything about my theology, it simply proves that you don’t comprehend it.”

Then is it possible for someone to comprehend your philosophy while also rejecting it? Will every person who comprehends it also believe it? Is it possible that your philosophy could be false?

Logic is a razor that cuts swiftly. In fact, it’s so sharp and so swift, that we can hardly believe it when it dismantles error. (The philosopher and philosophy reader most certainly cannot believe it). Why? “Because its form is sophisticated, therefore the refutation must be sophisticated.”

This is false. Refutation is as simple as contradiction, because that’s what a refutation is.

The cognitive dissonance of the philosopher and theologian is a defense mechanism to preserve their cult belief. This is the whole point of the rhetoric of complexity and sophistication, where it is in fact, the case that complexity and sophistication are simply forms of abstract obscurantism meant to insulate beliefs from scrutiny and refutation.

I have substantively refuted modern irrationality in swift terms. Not through mere assertion, but through sound premises that can be easily demonstrated in inference.

(The modern irrationalist doesn’t care about the soundness of inference or the error of contradiction, which makes him an intellectual charlatan).

Be it known: it is not my intention to prop up or support the propaganda of religious apologetics in any way. But it just so happens to be the case, that apologists can use my reasoning to shatter irrationality.

The apologist and the Reasoner do have something in common, they both fight against modern irrationality. (However, the religious apologist swiftly morphs into an adolescent relativist the second his religious premises are refuted).

What I have provided is a naturalistic grounding of reason that isn’t circular. I have provided a polemic for logic that effortlessly slices through the confusions and manipulations of modern sophistry.

For every (a) to be (a), it must be the case that A=A.

There is no way past this truth. This isn’t a mere assertion; it mathematically exposes every attempt to defy it. Where the skeptic begins to speak, he has already gone too far, because he has laid down a determinate identity. This is the objective destruction of skepticism.

And because philosophical discourse pivots entirely on skepticism, this simple reasoning shatters all modern philosophical discourse, thereby clearing the ground of confusion, and forcing the sophist to admit that he must first be standing on solid ground before he can even begin to speak.

Because modern irrationality defends epistemological relativism, a religious apologist can simply use my reasoning to destroy this relativism, and then attempt to smuggle in his theism, fallaciously aligning it with Reason’s objectivity.

It will work because it has always worked, because humans don’t even know what the fallacy of a non-sequitur is.

The people I know who have studied philosophy the longest, and the most intensely, have all collapsed into nihilism.

But nihilism doesn’t look like the active preaching of nihilism, it manifests in the form of subjective resignation to hedonism.

When I ask these seasoned thinkers what it would be intellectually responsible and valuable to pursue, they can only cite their own amusements. And they mistake these amusements for objectivity, precisely because they are entertained by them and feel a sense of power at indulging them.

But this is not how objective evaluation works. This is how nihilism works.

If you ask a nihilist, “what’s the point of living?” They will immediately pivot to hedonism, because they don’t have anything else to which they can pivot.

I can accept a nihilist who takes responsibility for the reality of his nihilism (these people basically don’t exist), but the modern man (philosopher and nihilist) wants it both ways. He wants to flee to the hedonism of his nihilism, at the same time he wants to be able to posture with an objectivity and authority that condemns all objectivity and authority.

The important thing is to recognize what nihilism looks like in practice, because many who would claim to reject nihilism in theory, are in fact, nihilists in practice.