(VERY IMPORTANT PIECE) (h/t: eli harman) [P]ilpul is a craft. It is ‘the art of lying’. It is one of the oldest written arts. The art of justifying anything. The art of loading, framing, overloading, and suggestion. The art of constructing loaded relations in the mind so that a justification for for a desired action can be found. It’s the art of overwhelming the human mind with the stimulation of language so that the stimulations of experience cannot compete. Because while searching to understand one is open to suggestion – to inception – to deceit. It is the source of the last century’s transformation of western law from a descriptive science that prohibits involuntary transfers, and preserves the peace, to a system of moral justification by which people can be brought into political conflict so that political power can be obtained by force of government. Marx’s “Dialectical Materialism” is just an application of Pilpul. The vast expansion of pseudoscience during the 19th and 20th has been achieved through the use of the technique whereby it is possible to justify anything if you seek justification of it through ‘meaning’ rather than seek correspondence to existence using internally consistent and externally correspondent language. In the west we use the opposite technique: existential operations. We did so because of the the Roman conversion of greek platonism to empirical law. Because if you want to justify something using ‘meaning’ rather than existential operations, you can find or create that justification. This is the meaning of hermeneutic interpretation. The study of texts and language in order to assist you in free association by which you can justify anything is in accord with that text. And this is why strict construction and operational language, identity and non conflation, external correspondence and internal consistency, full accounting, parsimony and limits, and objective morality are required of us if we are to speak truthfully and cause no harm to others by untruthful speech. Westerners invented truth and we speak the truth. We are so indoctrinated into seeking to understand one another, and so habituated trust in one another, that we have forgotten how how to detect lies. Our empathy, our trust, are exactly what is needed for the naive training of – deceit of – our minds through suggestion. We have stopped teaching logic and rhetoric so that the left could spread lies. But even in teaching logic and rhetoric we taught rhetorical fallacies of construction. We did not teach how to counter lies of loading, framing, overloading and suggestion. Nor did we teach (or know) our cognitive biases – which are now the central canon of psychological study, or our genetic biases – which must become part of that canon. Even in our rhetoric we assume the others merely err, not that they intentionally lie, seek justification, and deceive. We have been trusting for so many thousands of years that we do not know the art of lying. We hare become naive in our trust. Pilpul is the training that educated the great deceits of Boaz, Marx, Freud, Cantor, Mises, [even some of Popper], Rothbard, and the Frankfurt School: (Horkheimer, Adorno, Marcuse, Pollock, Fromm, Kirchheimer, Löwenthal, Neumann ,Grossman). Christianity and Kantian rationalism are the training that was provided to the great continental liars that still persist in both the german rationalist, and american postmodern traditions. The originators and the propagators do not really know they lie any more than women who engage in ever-present never-escapable, but often unimaginable female wishful thinking know they lie. But if enough people go along with the lie, it is as good enough for them as it is if we discover some fundamental truth and spread it. It is the technique by which academics, jews, and women have used their weakness to create a new religion as mystical and deadly as the last that sent us into a dark age for a thousand years, from which we emerged over the next thousand through the the use of truth under the name we surreptitiously called ‘science’ in order to not accuse the church and academy and state of lying. Science is the discipline by which we practice the art of speaking truthfully. That we had to call it something other than truthful speech is an indictment of all the rest of society by the few who practice truthful speech. Reason, reasonableness and science (and not philosophical rationalism) have been attempts to create a specialization in truth telling without threatening the religious moral and legal leaders. Our law was converted from an empirical science to a religo-moral form of jewish mysticism over the course of the twentieth century by constant use of the PilPul tradition. Law identifies and lists the methods by which we humans prey upon one another, and prohibits them going forward. Law is a purely empirical study. But the talmud is not a vehicle for science of truth telling. The indo european anglo saxon law is such a vehicle. The talmud is not empirical it is justificationary. It is an instruction manual for lying. And pilpul is the technique by which one learns to lie. The ancient battle between Athens and Jerusalem is one between science and truth, and justification and deceit. And governments are pragmatic. They will use truth or lie as it suits them. Notice how rationalism in philosophy and legal relativism have evolved in tandem. Philosophy has been used to lie as much as it has ben used to tell the truth. Legislation is not law, unless it is also legal. Legislation consists of some combination of law(science of prohibition of parasitism), contract (exchange between parties), and Command (export of costs), and predation (bureaucratic parasitism). But law is a very simple thing: an empirically accumulated record of the methods of parasitic action, and the methods of restitution for having committed them. The only western philosophy needed is and has ever been our common law. The rest of it is an attempt to gain power, or an attempt to justify the separation of truth seeking in the form of science, from the discipline of lying in its many forms – particularly religio-moral forms. We are in this position because only Darwin and Einstein fully succeeded in their disciplines. Spencer failed in philosophy because he was not co-temporal with Popper’s falsification. Popper failed in epistemology – an irony for the ages. Mises, Hayek failed in economics. Brouwer failed in math. Bridgman in Science. All our sages failed in law – first because western law is practiced as a cult of the law, rather than as a science of the prohibitions of involuntary transfer. And Tesla and Turing and programming came to late to instruct all of the above in the solution of strict construction and operational language by limit of discourse to existential terminology. It has fallen to my generation to stand on the shoulders of great men and look back at their failings and to understand why it is that they failed, and how to restore truth to our discourse. When we encountered the enlightenment era we had to solve the problem of cooperating at scale – with different people from different nations. But all our moral discourse for intertribal and international cooperation was constructed out of myth and mysticism. We had to invent economics. Not as ‘truth’ but as a separate discipline in order not to offend our elites. Just as we had to invent science and reason as separate disciplines as not to offend our elites. We have spend millennia trying not to offend our elites – who rule by lie. To solve this problem forever, we have to punish our elites for their use of anything other than truth. We humans can organize around truth, morality, and correspondence, or we can organize around falsehood, immorality, and non-correspondence. By constructing these great deceits, the jewish enlightenment caused tremendous damage to western civilization. Although ALL the enlightenments did so. Look at what France has become? Look at what england is becoming. Look at all of europe. The lie of Rousseuaian France. The lie of Kantian rationalism. The lie of british aristocracy of everyone. The lie of the free ride of Keynesian Economics – that we can increase employment without consuming all other forms of national capital in the process. That between keynesian pseudoscience and jewish pseudoscience, our civilization had been destroyed, and we have been brought to near extinction. What is the difference between the immediacy of a gas chamber and the slow process of extermination by a new process of conversion and gradual suicide? What is the difference between gradual suicide and immediate displacement through immigration of non-kin and competitors? If we give the Chinese heroin and ruin their civilization and they kick us out forever, they are right. If we give teh lie of the good of democracy instead of the truth of the common law and science to others, they are right to reject us. If the jews and germans, and french and anglo enlightenment thinkers give us intellectual heroin and we like it very much – hyper-consumption is a naturally occurring heroin for humans – and it produces the exact same effect as heroin over longer periods. It overwhelms our reason. Hyper consumption of our genetic, territorial, physical, traditional, cultural, normative, capital, has been stimulating just as heroin is stimulating. But neither is an objective good. I think we forget that jewish verbalism and female verbalism have the same cause. That jewish argument and female argument have the same cause. That jewish group evolutionary strategy and female group evolutionary strategy are identical: to gossip, rally, shame and frame through repetition, to in order to survive no matter which group of males are in charge of them. Women act as such. Jews act as such. Jewish women are more masculine, and jewish men more feminine than competing orders. Conversely, western people absolutely LOVE to protect the weak as a sign of status. We love to demonstrate our masculine superiority by hosting more of the weak. Yet we merely invite those who conspire against us. The female encourages consumption to increase her rate of reproduction. That is her strategy. It has no mind or reason. Man herds. He manages his herd. He manages his territory. He manages the balance of each. He fights competitors. He expands his territory. In doing so he captures the genes that let him do so. END THE LIES. NOT JUST OF THE JEWS BUT OF ALL ENLIGHTENMENT THINKERS. Return the west by returning us to our martial foundations: Truth, Reason, Science, Testimony, Jury, Common Law, Rule of law, Universal standing, Natural Law necessary for rational voluntary cooperation. TRUTH IS ENOUGH. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilpul
Category: Religion, Myth, and Theology
-
The Religion of Western Man When Free of Eastern Lies
[W]here we speak of god as an anthropomorphic representation of natural law, and physical law, he is a pedagogical device. Where we speak of gods as anthropomorphic representations of the virtues we aspire to, they are pedagogical devices. Both provide us with analogies to experience that we require for learning, while informing our moral intuitions how other humans will determine our actions. It is the most effective form of learning morality by imitation. Our myths of princes and princesses teach us how we may act if we wish to be treated as princes and princesses. Natural law and physical law remain the only truths, and these narratives pedagogical devices for the purpose of education, communication, and representation in our arts. They form the binding myth in human terms, that let us perceive membership in a tribe so large that we cannot empathize with it, and learn from it, without the use of these myths. Hyperbole, Exaggeration, and Heroism, illustrate and inform us. The timelessness of these heroes teach us the importance of continuity – of what we consider the eternal consequences of our actions. Of what we westerners possess in our metaphysical value judgement: that man can become gods if we transform the universe to our will. So the purpose of each of us, if we wish to be godlike, is leave life having transformed the world for the better: to one by one, life by life, construct an eden for man from a hostile universe that is as uncaring of us as the dirt under our feet, until there is nothing left to change, and we have in practice become the gods we seek. This is the philosophy of western man. Of we who would not suffer gods, but struggle to become them ourselves. Man by man, woman by woman, generation by generation. And we may drag the rest of mankind with us into godhood, or leave them as the mere animals that they are if they pose no hindrance. Or exterminate them if they are a hindrance, so that man can become as eternal as the universe – and the master of it.
-
The Religion of Western Man When Free of Eastern Lies
[W]here we speak of god as an anthropomorphic representation of natural law, and physical law, he is a pedagogical device. Where we speak of gods as anthropomorphic representations of the virtues we aspire to, they are pedagogical devices. Both provide us with analogies to experience that we require for learning, while informing our moral intuitions how other humans will determine our actions. It is the most effective form of learning morality by imitation. Our myths of princes and princesses teach us how we may act if we wish to be treated as princes and princesses. Natural law and physical law remain the only truths, and these narratives pedagogical devices for the purpose of education, communication, and representation in our arts. They form the binding myth in human terms, that let us perceive membership in a tribe so large that we cannot empathize with it, and learn from it, without the use of these myths. Hyperbole, Exaggeration, and Heroism, illustrate and inform us. The timelessness of these heroes teach us the importance of continuity – of what we consider the eternal consequences of our actions. Of what we westerners possess in our metaphysical value judgement: that man can become gods if we transform the universe to our will. So the purpose of each of us, if we wish to be godlike, is leave life having transformed the world for the better: to one by one, life by life, construct an eden for man from a hostile universe that is as uncaring of us as the dirt under our feet, until there is nothing left to change, and we have in practice become the gods we seek. This is the philosophy of western man. Of we who would not suffer gods, but struggle to become them ourselves. Man by man, woman by woman, generation by generation. And we may drag the rest of mankind with us into godhood, or leave them as the mere animals that they are if they pose no hindrance. Or exterminate them if they are a hindrance, so that man can become as eternal as the universe – and the master of it.
-
#libertarian #altright #NRx THE RELIGION OF THE WEST
http://twitter.com/curtdoolittle/status/707212359845208064/photo/1?utm_source=fb&utm_medium=fb&utm_campaign=curtdoolittle&utm_content=707212359845208064#conservative #libertarian #altright #NRx THE RELIGION OF THE WEST https://t.co/xdSTdbGaAg
Source date (UTC): 2016-03-08 09:33:00 UTC
-
THE RELIGION OF WESTERN MAN FREE OF THE EASTERN LIES Where we speak of god as an
THE RELIGION OF WESTERN MAN FREE OF THE EASTERN LIES
Where we speak of god as an anthropomorphic representation of natural law, and physical law, he is a pedagogical device. Where we speak of gods as anthropomorphic representations of the virtues we aspire to, they are pedagogical devices. Both provide us with analogies to experience that we require for learning, while informing our moral intuitions how other humans will judge our actions. It is the most effective form of learning morality by imitation.
Our myths of princes and princesses teach us how we may act if we wish to be treated as princes and princesses. Natural law and physical law remain the only truths, and these narratives pedagogical devices for the purpose of education, communication, and representation in our arts. They form the binding myth in human terms, that let us perceive membership in a tribe so large that we cannot empathize with it, and learn from it, without the use of these myths. Hyperbole, Exaggeration, and Heroism, illustrate and inform us.
The timelessness of these heroes teach us the importance of continuity – of what we consider the eternal consequences of our actions. Of what we westerners possess in our metaphysical value judgement: that man can become gods if we transform the universe to our will. So the purpose of each of us, if we wish to be godlike, is leave life having transformed the world for the better: to one by one, life by life, construct an eden for man from a hostile universe that is as uncaring of us as the dirt under our feet, until there is nothing left to change, and we have in practice become the gods we seek.
This is the philosophy of western man. Of we who would not suffer gods, but struggle to become them ourselves. Man by man, woman by woman, generation by generation.
And we may drag the rest of mankind with us into godhood, or leave them as the mere animals that they are if they pose no hindrance. Or exterminate them if they are a hindrance, so that man can become as eternal as the universe – and the master of it.
Source date (UTC): 2016-03-08 05:36:00 UTC
-
ART OF TRUTH VS JERUSALEM’S ART OF LYING (h/t: eli harman) Pilpul is a craft. It
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PilpulATHENIAN ART OF TRUTH VS JERUSALEM’S ART OF LYING
(h/t: eli harman)
Pilpul is a craft. It is ‘the art of lying’. It is one of the oldest written arts. The art of justifying anything. The art of loading, framing, overloading, and suggestion. The art of constructing loaded relations in the mind so that a justification for for a desired action can be found. It’s the art of overwhelming the human mind with the stimulation of language so that the stimulations of experience cannot compete. Because while searching to understand one is open to suggestion – to inception – to deceit. It is the source of the last century’s transformation of western law from a descriptive science that prohibits involuntary transfers, and preserves the peace, to a system of moral justification by which people can be brought into political conflict so that political power can be obtained by force of government.
Marx’s “Dialectical Materialism” is just an application of Pilpul. The vast expansion of pseudoscience during the 19th and 20th has been achieved through the use of the technique whereby it is possible to justify anything if you seek justification of it through ‘meaning’ rather than seek correspondence to existence using internally consistent and externally correspondent language.
In the west we use the opposite technique: existential operations. We did so because of the the Roman conversion of greek platonism to empirical law. Because if you want to justify something using ‘meaning’ rather than existential operations, you can find or create that justification. This is the meaning of hermeneutic interpretation. The study of texts and language in order to assist you in free association by which you can justify anything is in accord with that text.
And this is why strict construction and operational language, identity and non conflation, external correspondence and internal consistency, full accounting, parsimony and limits, and objective morality are required of us if we are to speak truthfully and cause no harm to others by untruthful speech. Westerners invented truth and we speak the truth. We are so indoctrinated into seeking to understand one another, and so habituated trust in one another, that we have forgotten how how to detect lies. Our empathy, our trust, are exactly what is needed for the naive training of – deceit of – our minds through suggestion.
We have stopped teaching logic and rhetoric so that the left could spread lies. But even in teaching logic and rhetoric we taught rhetorical fallacies of construction. We did not teach how to counter lies of loading, framing, overloading and suggestion. Nor did we teach (or know) our cognitive biases – which are now the central canon of psychological study, or our genetic biases – which must become part of that canon. Even in our rhetoric we assume the others merely err, not that they intentionally lie, seek justification, and deceive. We have been trusting for so many thousands of years that we do not know the art of lying. We hare become naive in our trust.
Pilpul is the training that educated the great deceits of Boaz, Marx, Freud, Cantor, Mises, [even some of Popper], Rothbard, and the Frankfurt School: (Horkheimer, Adorno, Marcuse, Pollock, Fromm, Kirchheimer, Löwenthal, Neumann ,Grossman). Christianity and Kantian rationalism are the training that was provided to the great continental liars that still persist in both the german rationalist, and american postmodern traditions. The originators and the propagators do not really know they lie any more than women who engage in ever-present never-escapable, but often unimaginable female wishful thinking know they lie. But if enough people go along with the lie, it is as good enough for them as it is if we discover some fundamental truth and spread it.
It is the technique by which academics, jews, and women have used their weakness to create a new religion as mystical and deadly as the last that sent us into a dark age for a thousand years, from which we emerged over the next thousand through the the use of truth under the name we surreptitiously called ‘science’ in order to not accuse the church and academy and state of lying. Science is the discipline by which we practice the art of speaking truthfully. That we had to call it something other than truthful speech is an indictment of all the rest of society by the few who practice truthful speech. Reason, reasonableness and science (and not philosophical rationalism) have been attempts to create a specialization in truth telling without threatening the religious moral and legal leaders.
Our law was converted from an empirical science to a religo-moral form of jewish mysticism over the course of the twentieth century by constant use of the PilPul tradition. Law identifies and lists the methods by which we humans prey upon one another, and prohibits them going forward. Law is a purely empirical study. But the talmud is not a vehicle for science of truth telling. The indo european anglo saxon law is such a vehicle. The talmud is not empirical it is justificationary. It is an instruction manual for lying. And pilpul is the technique by which one learns to lie. The ancient battle between Athens and Jerusalem is one between science and truth, and justification and deceit. And governments are pragmatic. They will use truth or lie as it suits them.
Notice how rationalism in philosophy and legal relativism have evolved in tandem. Philosophy has been used to lie as much as it has ben used to tell the truth. Legislation is not law, unless it is also legal. Legislation consists of some combination of law(science of prohibition of parasitism), contract (exchange between parties), and Command (export of costs), and predation (bureaucratic parasitism). But law is a very simple thing: an empirically accumulated record of the methods of parasitic action, and the methods of restitution for having committed them. The only western philosophy needed is and has ever been our common law. The rest of it is an attempt to gain power, or an attempt to justify the separation of truth seeking in the form of science, from the discipline of lying in its many forms – particularly religio-moral forms.
We are in this position because only Darwin and Einstein fully succeeded in their disciplines. Spencer failed in philosophy because he was not co-temporal with Popper’s falsification. Popper failed in epistemology – an irony for the ages. Mises, Hayek failed in economics. Brouwer failed in math. Bridgman in Science. All our sages failed in law – first because western law is practiced as a cult of the law, rather than as a science of the prohibitions of involuntary transfer. And Tesla and Turing and programming came to late to instruct all of the above in the solution of strict construction and operational language by limit of discourse to existential terminology. It has fallen to my generation to stand on the shoulders of great men and look back at their failings and to understand why it is that they failed, and how to restore truth to our discourse.
When we encountered the enlightenment era we had to solve the problem of cooperating at scale – with different people from different nations. But all our moral discourse for intertribal and international cooperation was constructed out of myth and mysticism. We had to invent economics. Not as ‘truth’ but as a separate discipline in order not to offend our elites. Just as we had to invent science and reason as separate disciplines as not to offend our elites.
We have spend millennia trying not to offend our elites – who rule by lie. To solve this problem forever, we have to punish our elites for their use of anything other than truth.
We humans can organize around truth, morality, and correspondence, or we can organize around falsehood, immorality, and non-correspondence. By constructing these great deceits, the jewish enlightenment caused tremendous damage to western civilization. Although ALL the enlightenments did so. Look at what France has become? Look at what england is becoming. Look at all of europe. The lie of Rousseuaian France. The lie of Kantian rationalism. The lie of british aristocracy of everyone. The lie of the free ride of Keynesian Economics – that we can increase employment without consuming all other forms of national capital in the process. That between keynesian pseudoscience and jewish pseudoscience, our civilization had been destroyed, and we have been brought to near extinction.
What is the difference between the immediacy of a gas chamber and the slow process of extermination by a new process of conversion and gradual suicide? What is the difference between gradual suicide and immediate displacement through immigration of non-kin and competitors? If we give the Chinese heroin and ruin their civilization and they kick us out forever, they are right. If we give teh lie of the good of democracy instead of the truth of the common law and science to others, they are right to reject us. If the jews and germans, and french and anglo enlightenment thinkers give us intellectual heroin and we like it very much – hyper-consumption is a naturally occurring heroin for humans – and it produces the exact same effect as heroin over longer periods. It overwhelms our reason. Hyper consumption of our genetic, territorial, physical, traditional, cultural, normative, capital, has been stimulating just as heroin is stimulating. But neither is an objective good.
I think we forget that jewish verbalism and female verbalism have the same cause. That jewish argument and female argument have the same cause. That jewish group evolutionary strategy and female group evolutionary strategy are identical: to gossip, rally, shame and frame through repetition, to in order to survive no matter which group of males are in charge of them. Women act as such. Jews act as such. Jewish women are more masculine, and jewish men more feminine than competing orders. Conversely, western people absolutely LOVE to protect the weak as a sign of status. We love to demonstrate our masculine superiority by hosting more of the weak. Yet we merely invite those who conspire against us. The female encourages consumption to increase her rate of reproduction. That is her strategy. It has no mind or reason. Man herds. He manages his herd. He manages his territory. He manages the balance of each. He fights competitors. He expands his territory. In doing so he captures the genes that let him do so.
END THE LIES. NOT JUST OF THE JEWS BUT OF ALL ENLIGHTENMENT THINKERS.
Return the west by returning us to our martial foundations: Truth, Reason, Science, Testimony, Jury, Common Law, Rule of law, Universal standing, Natural Law necessary for rational voluntary cooperation.
TRUTH IS ENOUGH.
Source date (UTC): 2016-03-08 04:28:00 UTC
-
VERY BRIEF, JEFFERSON BIBLE
http://www.angelfire.com/co/JeffersonBible/THE VERY BRIEF, JEFFERSON BIBLE
Source date (UTC): 2016-02-23 04:24:00 UTC
-
JEFFERSON COMPARING JESUS TO THE PHILOSOPHERS Syllabus of an Estimate of the Mer
JEFFERSON COMPARING JESUS TO THE PHILOSOPHERS
Syllabus of an Estimate of the Merit of the Doctrines of Jesus, Compared with Those of Others. By Thomas Jefferson
In a comparative view of the Ethics of the enlightened nations of antiquity, of the Jews and of Jesus, no notice should be taken of the corruptions of reason among the ancients, to wit, the idolatry and superstition of the vulgar, nor of the corruptions of Christianity by the learned among its professors.
Let a just view be taken of the moral principles inculcated by the most esteemed of the sects of ancient philosophy or of their individuals; particularly Pythagoras, Socrates, Epicurus, Cicero, Epictetus, Seneca, Antoninus.
I. Philosophers.
1. Their precepts related chiefly to ourselves, and the government of those passions which, unrestrained, would disturb our tranquillity of mind.[Note] In this branch of philosophy they were really great.
2. In developing our duties to others, they were short and defective. They embraced, indeed, the circles of kindred and friends, and inculcated patriotism, or the love of our country in the aggregate, as a primary obligation: towards our neighbors and countrymen they taught justice, but scarcely viewed them as within the circle of benevolence. Still less have they inculcated peace, charity and love to our fellow men, or embraced with benevolence the whole family of mankind.
II. Jews.
1. Their system was Deism; that is, the belief in one only God. But their ideas of him and of his attributes were degrading and injurious.
2. Their Ethics were not only imperfect, but often irreconcilable with the sound dictates of reason and morality, as they respect intercourse with those around us; and repulsive and anti-social, as respecting other nations. They needed reformation, therefore, in an eminent degree.
III. Jesus.
In this state of things among the Jews, Jesus appeared. His parentage was obscure; his condition poor; his education null; his natural endowments great; his life correct and innocent: he was meek, benevolent, patient, firm, disinterested, and of the sublimest eloquence.
The disadvantages under which his doctrines appear are remarkable.
1. Like Socrates and Epictetus, he wrote nothing himself.
2. But he had not, like them, a Xenophon or an Arrian to write for him. I name not Plato, who only used the name of Socrates to cover the whimsies of his own brain. On the contrary, all the learned of his country, entrenched in its power and riches, were opposed to him, lest his labors should undermine their advantages; and the committing to writing his life and doctrines fell on unlettered and ignorant men, who wrote, too, from memory, and not till long after the transactions had passed.
3. According to the ordinary fate of those who attempt to enlighten and reform mankind, he fell an early victim to the jealousy and combination of the altar and the throne, at about thirty-three years of age, his reason having not yet attained the maximum of its energy, nor the course of his preaching, which was but of three years at most, presented occasions for developing a complete system of morals.
4. Hence the doctrines he really delivered were defective as a whole, and fragments only of what he did deliver have come to us mutilated, misstated, and often unintelligible.
5. They have been still more disfigured by the corruptions of schismatizing followers, who have found an interest in sophisticating and perverting the simple doctrines he taught, by engrafting on them the mysticisms of a Grecian sophist, frittering them into subtleties, and obscuring them with jargon, until they have caused good men to reject the whole in disgust, and to view Jesus himself as an impostor.
Notwithstanding these disadvantages, a system of morals is presented to us which, if filled up in the style and spirit of the rich fragments he left us, would be the most perfect and sublime that has ever been taught by man.
The question of his being a member of the Godhead, or in direct communication with it, claimed for him by some of his followers and denied by others, is foreign to the present view, which is merely an estimate of the intrinsic merits of his doctrines.
1. He corrected the Deism of the Jews, confirming them in their belief of one only God, and giving them juster notions of His attributes and government.
2. His moral doctrines, relating to kindred and friends were more pure and perfect than those of the most correct of the philosophers, and greatly more so than those of the Jews; and they went far beyond both in inculcating universal philanthropy, not only to kindred and friends, to neighbors and countrymen, but to all mankind, gathering all into one family under the bonds of love, charity, peace, common wants and common aids. A development of this head will evince the peculiar superiority of the system of Jesus over all others.
3. The precepts of philosophy, and of the Hebrew code, laid hold of actions only. He pushed his scrutinies into the heart of man; erected his tribunal in the region of his thoughts, and purified the waters at the fountain head.
4.He taught, emphatically, the doctrines of a future state, which was either doubted or disbelieved by the Jews, and wielded it with efficacy as an important incentive, supplementary to the other motives to moral conduct.
Source date (UTC): 2016-02-23 04:22:00 UTC
-
IS CHRISTIAN LOVE IMPORTANT, OR NOT? GOOD OR BAD? (promoted to post) (Now that i
IS CHRISTIAN LOVE IMPORTANT, OR NOT? GOOD OR BAD?
(promoted to post)
(Now that it’s the next day and I’m not under the influence (as much). )
“Christian Love” refers to the unconditional extension of kinship love (cost-bearing) to non-kin. This concept exists in the literature. It is just appropriately mangled by church rhetoric.
This idea was an innovation at the time. We take it for granted now. But in the ancient period, at the beginning of the decline of the Roman period, and the beginning of the medieval, it was an invention. We could actually make the case that it is christian love in competition with aristocratic egalitarianism that defines the medieval period.
We take this concept of the devotion of Jesus/Ascentic-Monts and Saints/Mother-Theresa, for granted, but it was just as much an innovative technology as was reason.
Now. At present we know the strategy originated in slave morality. And that it causes unification in the slave populations and prevents division within them. But what we didn’t account for was that in combination with near-breeding and property rights, chivalry, and the incentive to imitate aristocracy, that it would produce high trust and economic velocity.
Once combined with the re-emergence of science under Bacon in the 13th century, and the Hansa’s recreation of the incentives of the trading society of the greek Aegean, and roman mediterranean in the north sea, that
My question is whether all of this is nonsense, and that christian love was nothing but a detriment, and that Martial (not marital – marriage, but martial as in military) was all that mattered. This is the the premise behind Mithraism which heavily influenced the state’s design of institutional christianity. Mitraism being dominant in the armies where brotherly love was constructed as part of the intitatic brotherhood of soldiers that goes back as far as we havre evidence of human warafare.
It’s also lost on us today (and it is why I illustrate argumentative technique) that the social science of the ancient world was the study of religion – a formal improvement upon myth and oral tradition. And that people investigated religion the way we use comparative law, comparative government, and scientific analysis.
The religious era was a great transformation of mankind.
The Just as was the invention of reason – and the counter to reason: in Augustine and Muhammed.
Just as was the invention of experimental science from Bacon to Smith and Hume – and to a lesser degree Jefferson – and the counter to experimental science was german, french, and jewish rationalism.
Just as was the invention of evolutionary physical and social science by Darwin, Spencer, and Maxwell – and the counter to evolutionary science by Freud, Marx, Cantor, Keynes, Rawls.
Just as SHOULD HAVE BEEN the evolution of the unification of truth, philosophy, science, biology, morality, and law, but that failed. Brouwer(math), bridgman(science), mises(economics), popper(philosophy), hayek(law).
But that revolution failed, and the postmodern revolution outpaced our development of science through about 1990-2000 (my generation of thinkers). And fully ensconced pseudoscience and wishful thinking, as well as outright deceit, using suggestion by loading,f raming, overloading and partial information to convert women and the underclasses just as christianity had done milennia before.
So my question is, christian love a ‘bad’ technology, that merged slave morality of the jews and the soldier morality of mithraism (soldiers are also slaves) into a weak approximation of warrior love (aristocratic egalitarianism).
While we know there is but one truth, we still require a spectrum of truth necessary for different externalities produced by our actions.
Just as we need different levels of educational argument.
Just as we need different levels of ethical argument.
Just as we need different levels of technical argument.
Do we also need different levels of love?
Or is martial love enough, if all men are engaged in martial commons?
How do we extend high trust to non kin?
Is it through:
– Martial love among warriors and aristocracy? (right)
– Commercial love of those who engage in commerce? (libertarian)
– Christian love among women, children and ‘slaves’ (proles)? (left)
This is my question.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
Source date (UTC): 2016-02-15 07:43:00 UTC
-
A profoundly interesting question: if you have the oath then why do you need Chr
A profoundly interesting question: if you have the oath then why do you need Christian love?
That is the question I have been intuiting all year and I couldn’t put into a frame.
If you have martial love is that not the inverse of Christian love?
That was the question I was looking for.
It was out there.
I could sense it.
Took me a year.
Source date (UTC): 2016-02-14 09:15:00 UTC