Atheism, Old and New

You may also like...

6 Responses

  1. Avatar Ivan Karamazov says:

    You must keep in mind that Nietzsche is still a secular humanist, he sees man overcoming his nature and becoming an Übermensch. There is a form of salvation in this belief.

    The Buddha and Schopenhauer go much further, they accept that the essence of life is suffering due to man’s insatiable desire. The only respite man has is acceptance of nothingness for the Buddha and the dissolution of the principium individualis through art for Schopenhauer.

    Another atheist in the similar vain is Spinoza, but with a polar opposite view of the world. Whatever occurs in the World is by default Good, because its the only way it could be. He speaks of God as reality similar to the Hindu concept of Brahman.

    There are many other unique atheist views.

    Marquis de Sade’s and Ivan Karamazov’s hatred of God.

    Georges Bataille’s Atheology project, worship of transgression through sexual perversion and glorifying sacrifice.

    The ultimate nihilist UG Krishnamurti, he rejects pretty much everything.

  2. Avatar Han Fei says:

    All of the “atheisms” mentioned above fall into the ranks of of theological belief systems, no matter how perverted and inverted. Philosophers attempt to either crush precedent forms of thinking with some sort of innovative critique or they shoehorn them into a physicalist-naturalist mold. Ultimately, this reduces philosophy to a casuistic analysis of semantic chains and morpheme syntax, in a bid to appear relevant in an era when only the constant presumption of a purely physicalist type holds water in any discussion. This is why violent mediocrity rules the philosophical arena, which nowadays mostly serves as a postscript to Marxist moralising in universities.

    • Avatar Ivan Karamazov says:

      None of the philosophers I’ve listed fit the mold of the thinkers of their times… Rejection of metaphysics doesn’t mean you’re sheepishly following the Zeitgeist.

      Humans are born into history, they are shaped by the era they live in. They have no choice but to engage the world around them, even within the monasteries.

      By your logic, only prophets could satisfy your criteria for philosophizing.

      • Avatar Han Fei says:

        I would explain further why I think that way. I’ve always noticed that people who claim to be atheists seem to be fixated on butting into discussions of religion or metaphysics with the sole aim of ridiculing and debunking them in a form of pure negation, particularly in the field of internet debate, as if winning such an argument would somehow validate their own belief in a puerile 18th century style physical positivism that isn’t even backed by modern science. For example the comment section of Edward Feser’s site is constantly haunted by a liberal rationalwiki type who seems to be hellbent at lashing out at every post made there in support of the author’s opinions, usually by means of dubious appeals to authority, gaslighting denials of the established issues and ad hominem attacks. No matter how cleverly sounding they might appear, such devices always reflect more on the one resorting to them rather than the case they are meant to invoke. In this case you’re quite right to note that the essence of a man’s thinking is largely molded by the times. The cultural framework of a specific era, deprived of its ability to perpetuate within a society and as of late, manifest its tendencies within the sphere of a political organism, would only serve as a phantom that promises to exact unrealized past glories to its contemporary adherents. This is what we in the modern sense of the term, deem dubiously to be “atheism”, when it is in truth, nothing but a tortured wail of a dying species.

        “By your logic, only prophets could satisfy your criteria for philosophizing.”

        It didn’t even occur to me to put it that way, but thank you. You speak of such criteria as if it were self evidently absurd. But is it? A philosopher is by definition a prophet to some extent. In so far as he does not yield prophecy, so to speak, he is not a philosopher, but a scientist or a technician. He doesn’t provide anything concrete in a utilitarian or economical sense, nor does he make propositions that could have been otherwise arrived at by empirical reasoning. In the past I might have balked at such a suggestion, but presently I think the closure of philosophical departments wouldn’t be such a great loss to society. At the very least it would compel luminaries such as Jorjani or Sisek to learn crypto trading or perhaps “exotic” dancing as a means of securing a living.

  3. Avatar rideforever says:

    The problem with all this is talk … and all human talk … is you do not question what you are, what is actually operating inside you. How your feelings and thoughts function.
    You are actually an .. instrument of God … a “being” … and your “being” is part of God … part of the Light.
    Nature can only take you so far … you see out of your eyes, like any animal … and you think whilst you look out of your eyes.
    But … do you not feel inside … inside … can you feel who you are, what you are … can you breathe …
    This is spirituality.
    For what good is it to look out of your eyes like the animals … even if you talk and conceptualise at the same time.
    And what good is the metaphysics, romantic endless words.
    Make them cease, and enter the inner “being”.
    Must to discover inside, not by thinking not by looking … but through inner faculties.
    Only then will the light shine.
    Only then will you be … only then will you rest.
    It is not for tomorrow, but for now, it is not for death, but for life.
    It is not for someone else, but for you.
    For you for you for you.
    Do you hear ?

  4. Avatar Cartman says:

    Mencius Moldbug has an interesting take on Dawkins in his essay How Dawkins got Pwned. He concludes that Dawkins is only another form of English protestantism. That he invokes this nebulous non-scientific entity called ‘the zeitgeist’ without ever questioning its assumptions and merely to avoid real controversy.
    Moldbug seems to be an influence on much of the alt right at least in its early stages.
    Dawkins is just a sort of celebrity who wants to sell books and make a fake controversial statement by attacking strawman positions. He’s not a serious thinker. Moldbug on the other hand is worth attention I think.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *