Reminds me of that line from Cassidy in Preacher.
“Do you believe in God? Or let me say it this way, if you’re unsure - do yeh give a fuck if there’s one?”
Philosophy Thread
- Thread starter ResetRPG
- Start date
“Do you believe in God? Or let me say it this way, if you’re unsure - do yeh give a fuck if there’s one?”
Feday Of Madness
Working Class Hero
Like you said there is one tangible and the other intangible outcome
In most abrahmic religions or more importantly the Mormon Bible and the quran God gave sons of Adam a will unlike God's will he made for us. It is called fate, but what he gave us was destiny. In Christianity it says the messiah would come and battle mgoog gogg and all the other fornicator and non believers that stood against good would be passed judgement when the end is nigh, for Islam the messiah could be anyone, he would lead a rebellion against the evil that rules as the dejjal and yecuc and mecuc make there appearance frm cravesses as the world rips, with jesus and those who chose to fight they would eventually achieve heaven on earth for a short time when the judgement day comes, but not for a time like this even though the world is crazy enough as it is with lies, distrust, discord, daydreams it would get worse. Hebrew and the lost 3rd religion tells the same except their own propoganda.
But what's important Isint how the mind tricks itself because it understands the weight one can carry, but the truth is far too unbearable for one person to carry alone. Solomon created a kingdom bounding the 9 realm of demons and angels becoming the greatest king that ever lived making a monument that millennia's later every one would shed blood to this day. (you can guess where I'm talking about) Alexander the great would wall off the harbingers of doom while made his undisputed conquest at a young age and he sat in the cradle of humanity that is the middle east. Ibn sabbah the mad genius who thought and knew all was but too far gone, the old man of the mountain of a thousand soldiers ready to slit their own throats at his command. Master of love and anguish, a weak and frail man made his own unseen blades, his own world of unspeakable terror as he torn down empires with only one feday.
The point is, with wishes and effort one can accomplish anything. Doing it for the right reasons, even if you're alone in this, good hearts will always prevail as cheesy and corny as it sounds I have not but seen one person be like this but rather naive and egoist. But your mind knows this and it tells you that... "Somethings in the way" all this effort... Am I doing it for myself? Am I doing it for the 2 billion in abject misery, poverty and war? Maybe someone's out there working like me with these thoughts in mind. I hope people would help me rather then pass me by the faceless crowd.
This is what your mind tells you, in time you get mellow, adjusted, like tradition you lead a normal life and realise this isint meant to be and at that in your true home, your steady life you will find peace with the only ones that matter to you. And in time maybe you would be kind enough to spread it to others no matter how unreasonable everything gets.
It's all in our hands but it's spilling over.
Why do people bleat on about reading work by philosophers. Can't they make their own minds up from what they see , feel , experience . My motto is : Do not try too hard to be unambitious. Life's a bitch and then we die.
Because Nietzsche, Bakunin, and others say things that I agree with.
Part of life is taking in ideas and learning, and in order to properly develop and extrapolate our own it helps to read others’ opinions.
it’s called keeping an open mind you goober.
Define open mindedness. The human brain is a Pandora's box of electrical charges we can only begin to understand. Most brains are just receivers. Cognitive dissonance affects the muddle headed plebs that have ego's bigger than their dicks or conversely the narcissist hides his inferiority and describes himself as possibly an emperor or a king tosspot. 
Note that what you said boils down to “brain complicated ergo people are too stupid to read things and not blindly follow/delude themselves”. It’s a faux intellectual argument for “free thought” that in reality acts on the assumption that nothing important can be said by philosophy for… reasons?Define open mindedness. The human brain is a Pandora's box of electrical charges we can only begin to understand. Most brains are just receivers. Cognitive dissonance affects the muddle headed plebs that have ego's bigger than their dicks or conversely the narcissist hides his inferiority and describes himself as possibly an emperor or a king tosspot.
Open mindedness means precisely what it sounds like; take the good from other ideas and leave the bad/incompatible. It’s hard to grow as a person without sharing ideas and trying to understand others. Had humanity done what you’re advocating we’d never have had the Enlightenment reforms.
Hell, we never would’ve moved past “GRUG HUNGRY. GRUG EAT.” Philosophy is literally nothing more than the sharing of ideas. Don’t take ideas from others if you don’t want to, but to argue that “you need to make up your own mind because nothing of worth has been said unless it’s from your own experience” is fucking asinine.
Why do people bleat on about reading work by philosophers. Can't they make their own minds up from what they see , feel , experience . That part of my comment is fairly close to the basis of Niech, Nizt, nieztch, that German guy you like. Friedrich, not Engels the don't rely on anything but your own self belief. No gods no masters something like what Bakunin may say. Not Bukharin, he was a Trotskyist who said revolution in one country was a bum idea. Then later sided with Stalin not Yuri Gagarin and said ok lets give communism in one country a try
I think the thing about Nietzsche is that he hated certain types of philosophy. He devoted large swathes of text to his disdain for Immanuel Kant in particular. The read I get from that is that it was less about “you can only make up your mind from personal experience” in a literal context, and more that he simply hated flowery metaphysics shit.
Nietzsche’s thing was that everyone should experience the world we live in rather than thinking about the shit we can’t control, and the forces of nature. He was less disdainful of all philosophical debate and more just hated the concept of “BUT WHAT IS GOD”; his response would be “God is irrelevant, because that concept doesn’t truly impact your life. Instead of trying to define God just focus on the earthly matters you CUNT.”
I thought one of Nietzsche's actual quotes was " God is dead " ? " we can’t control, and the forces of nature. " That bit does sound a bit like metaphysics but yeah rather than obsess about ethereal spiritual shit like some beat poet or Guru that bullshits Westerners over materialistic greed while they stash dough to buy more rollers lol. You read what you want m8. Sometimes we do tailor our reading to stuff we know we will probably have agreement with. As for me I knew who I was at 14 so reading Margaret Thatcher's memoirs was a fucking no no. If you get my drift
That’s precisely it, “God is dead” wasn’t a statement on the nature of the divine but rather Nietzsche making a metaphor about the concept of religion becoming less relevant to society. A lot of his work deals with the concept of making ourselves who we want to be, rather than using Christianity as a moral crutch. His argument was less that God’s game was literally rigged from the start and rather that God as a concept was useless to the modern world.
The thing is though hat metaphor or similar could be said by millions of people. Inasmuch it's a total disgrace that this planet has been pillaged and some unfortunates still die of starvation within months of birth. If a wall falls on some cunt insurance companies say " Oh that's an act of god we don't pay out on that Mrs woman, bury the fucker at your own cost. Or if religion it's Gord moves in mysterious ways. Police in a court of law stern faced swearing on the bibble then lying through their fucking teeth lol. So bourgeois morals and theist mysticism are full of controlling shit. I thought Kant was a strand of anarchism that was a bit holier than thou. Like cleanliness is next to godliness. Lets all just be good and we become closer to god. The Fabian society is a bit like that goody goody socialist monks more like Monkeys.
Oh, certainly. Society is at this fuckin weird stage where we’re essentially Enlightenment atheist and yet still have Church and State tied together with dental floss; they’re not separated, but they’re also not proper stitches. if you get what I’m saying.
Personally, I think that mutual aid as a concept is a primo example. When people talk about healthcare, they think that your only choice is gouging, completely privatized insurance or state-funded shelters and hospitals.
To an anarchist like myself, the ideal is neither of those things: it’s more in line with the Church, ironically. Look at all the religious group funded soup kitchens and Red Cross-style medical clinics, funded by those same church groups. Separate the religious aspect from that concept and you have anarchist healthcare that’s neither privatized and unequal OR state funded (and thus is less a right and more a privilege that they can revoke at any time, like governments always do when they start to fall apart and need to strongarm the people).
I know I say bourgeois a lot. An outdated term maybe. In Britain we are now bombarded with every charity under the sun. Middle class being seen to do good. I went to Catholic schools and the nuns and priests bang on about the poor while in reality they have it cushy unless they self flagellate lol. Again the angle is collect from the poor to give to the poorer. The Vatican is worth as much if not more than the British monarchy. Priests in South America different kettle of fish. Cuba top healthcare, exported hundreds of medics to Italy to help with covid not big on mainstream news reports though. Not sure how healthcare could work without any state though but the concept is the right one. maybe a bit too utopian to do this overnight. Whether decrees would equalise healthcare I don't know. What bugs me is some medics trained by the NHS end up doing one to California then doing cosmetic surgery. I would stop that overnight. Or if a medic wanted to leave it would cost them big style. After seizing all the mansions and turning them into rest homes for lung fucked miners and tabbies I would raid all offshore accounts of the elites. I would arrest Blair and Bush put them in the stocks and let people pay (unwaged free) to beat them to death with 'blackpuddings' lol. Lack of sleep got me a bit dippy.
I’d say that mutual aid, like I said, would come from Red Cross and secular church-style groups. A typical statist argument tends to be “but what if they poison the blood plasma” or some weirdo shit, but, like, if someone is going to privately run a clinic or aid service, and take up that responsibility, why the fuck would they purposefully sabotage it? “Lmao I spent years of my life just to kill you all with the wrong blood type on purpose hahah long grift get rekt fag”.
As for your confiscation ideas… it breeds resentment, I think. The catch 22 is that in any reformation of society, equality is a hurdle that has to be addressed. But by, as a government, taking someone’s shit by force, you’re not only committing a fascism but you’re making enemies to the revolution ideals that formerly could’ve at least been compromised with. It’s a fine line to toe.
I’ll also reiterate that any “right” given by an authority is a privilege. Government can and will always revoke it should they feel the need or even just the want to. Look at my home country, the US, and how the Constitution and Bill of Rights are just meaningless pieces of paper.
Between people willingly wanting to give the government more authority over firearms out of fear (which historically is how literally every totalitarian state gains momentum; the people give up rights after a tragedy and those rights never come back), or that new law passed that violates the 4th amendment by letting Border Patrol raid US citizens in certain areas of the country, your “civil liberties” under a government, any government, are not guaranteed and rather are propaganda words on paper that the government will either eventually revoke or use as examples of how “benevolent” and “great” their leadership is.
Anyone who brags about giving you freedom should be seen with as much suspicion and wariness as the one that wants to revoke those freedoms.
As for your confiscation ideas… it breeds resentment, I think. The catch 22 is that in any reformation of society, equality is a hurdle that has to be addressed. But by, as a government, taking someone’s shit by force, you’re not only committing a fascism but you’re making enemies to the revolution ideals that formerly could’ve at least been compromised with. It’s a fine line to toe.
I’ll also reiterate that any “right” given by an authority is a privilege. Government can and will always revoke it should they feel the need or even just the want to. Look at my home country, the US, and how the Constitution and Bill of Rights are just meaningless pieces of paper.
Between people willingly wanting to give the government more authority over firearms out of fear (which historically is how literally every totalitarian state gains momentum; the people give up rights after a tragedy and those rights never come back), or that new law passed that violates the 4th amendment by letting Border Patrol raid US citizens in certain areas of the country, your “civil liberties” under a government, any government, are not guaranteed and rather are propaganda words on paper that the government will either eventually revoke or use as examples of how “benevolent” and “great” their leadership is.
Anyone who brags about giving you freedom should be seen with as much suspicion and wariness as the one that wants to revoke those freedoms.
I’d say that mutual aid, like I said, would come from Red Cross and secular church-style groups. A typical statist argument tends to be “but what if they poison the blood plasma” or some weirdo shit, but, like, if someone is going to privately run a clinic or aid service, and take up that responsibility, why the fuck would they purposefully sabotage it? “Lmao I spent years of my life just to kill you all with the wrong blood type on purpose hahah long grift get rekt fag”.
I just backspaced some text to make space milord. I was dog tired last night , still am last 48 60 I've had about 8 10 hours kip.
Marx mentions the withering away of the state, in no way am I a statist but as I said you cannot create utopia overnight. So to a degree It's all , nothing or a fair big chunk.
I am not a reformist as you cannot polish a turd. Traitor Blair created ' New Labour ' a populist so called meritocracy, champagne socialism, pro bankers, pro capitalism, Thatcher
acolyte. I detest the cunt although Brown the Presbyterian type was a decent chancellor. " . Government can and will always revoke it " ? Your type my type would never revoke
gains made in such matters ! You still see government as the enemy this is where anarchism can contradict itself. Without any sort of lead who calls the shots ? I would say a revolutionary government putting forward radical changes in society would have backing of the people, or if the people were the ' government ' they would do away with the money
mad and run industry, food production, schooling, health etc etc for the people by the people kinda gig. Confiscation is not ' the politics of envy ' It's fucking revenge lool.
Salvador Limone " Viva La Revolucion "
Keep in mind that Marx wanted the state to wither away after taking on a guiding role rather than a ruling one; my issue with that is simply that once you give them everything, why the hell would they ever give it up?
As for shot calling? Every anarchist has their own opinion on this shit, it’s why we never fuckin get along, but I’d say that a healthy dose of individualism is needed along with the mutualism aspects. Follow your own dreams, and make your own future. The community is there if you ever fall from the path.
But that’s why realistically it’ll be awhile, maybe never, before anarchism is tried like it was in certain communities prior to the Spanish Civil War (worked smashingly there btw, shame the war undid all that shit and the fascists won, to say the least).
The main issue with anarchy is that we need to get our fucking shit together and make a unified front, like those aforementioned CNT Spanish anarchists. Because as it stands, the anarchists that joined, say, Occupy, spent their time in tiny encampments and squabbled over everything. The Spanish CNT created relative utopias out of entire cities and large swathes of countryside. And that’s another thing about anarchism; there’s definitely a greater potential for failure than with statism. But the proven potential rewards are far higher and, I’d argue (bias and all), a loftier goal.
As for shot calling? Every anarchist has their own opinion on this shit, it’s why we never fuckin get along, but I’d say that a healthy dose of individualism is needed along with the mutualism aspects. Follow your own dreams, and make your own future. The community is there if you ever fall from the path.
But that’s why realistically it’ll be awhile, maybe never, before anarchism is tried like it was in certain communities prior to the Spanish Civil War (worked smashingly there btw, shame the war undid all that shit and the fascists won, to say the least).
The main issue with anarchy is that we need to get our fucking shit together and make a unified front, like those aforementioned CNT Spanish anarchists. Because as it stands, the anarchists that joined, say, Occupy, spent their time in tiny encampments and squabbled over everything. The Spanish CNT created relative utopias out of entire cities and large swathes of countryside. And that’s another thing about anarchism; there’s definitely a greater potential for failure than with statism. But the proven potential rewards are far higher and, I’d argue (bias and all), a loftier goal.
Did you take a look at that vid ? Left communism and left Anarchism are identical IMO. The heights of capitalism is Imperialism and economic supremacy. Libertarianism black flag anarchism is totally unshackled chaotic capitalism, I won't be kidded otherwise. I suppose Anarcho Syndicalism is more relevant to me as non corrupt well organised, workers in solidarity through trade unions and community groups can bring about change........ tale : I am not mocking you but when working out of town one time in Cambridge this dude
[ posh cunt ] would stroll in the boozer kitted out in black and red trying to look mean. Patronising fucker would try to chat us up, not sexually he was thrilled common workies
a big change from the snob students were in the pub. I just said to him " Take me to your leader " he looked dumbfounded then fucked off.
[ posh cunt ] would stroll in the boozer kitted out in black and red trying to look mean. Patronising fucker would try to chat us up, not sexually he was thrilled common workies
a big change from the snob students were in the pub. I just said to him " Take me to your leader " he looked dumbfounded then fucked off.
I agree with you that certain systems of anarchy make social fascism, it’s a fine line to toe for sure.
As for the pub incident… fuck me that’s hilarious. I HATE the kind of asshole who’ll go “HOW DO YOU DO MY FELLOW WORKING CLASS PROLETARIAT”
Lol you got the scenario 100% but we did not alienate him. Next time he spoke he asked how did we get a lock in (late drink). The manager was a Geordie {Newcastle]. Northerner so a bit in common. The anarchist student or just local guy told us he had drank there for quite some time but had never had a late drink staybehind as we call it. The guy was just some walking parody,,, bless lol
Last edited:
T
TorontoReign
Guest
My philosophy is he who smelt it dealt it.