sad_detective_man comments on Anon reads nihilist philosophy

[–] sad_detective_man@sopuli.xyz [S] 1 point 2 weeks ago (11 children)

Ooh, I have some opinions about Christianity's potential to be used by bad actors. Honestly I feel pretty similar about it as I do Nietzsche but more like the architecture for doing evil has always been latent in the ideology for as long as it has existed sperate from Judaic and Gnostic faith.

I definitely would like to hear more about how exactly Broicism diverges from Stoicism though, if you have the time. You're the first person I've heard say that it's different.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 11 child comments

[–] schipelblorp@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 weeks ago (10 children)

The term "broicism" is implicitly a critique. I don't know much about the stoics, but I understand it has a bit more emotional complexity where as broicism is just machistic indifference repackaged. Here's one article: https://www.trillmag.com/culture/broicism-the-manospheres-obsession-with-stoicism/

I think all monotheisms are toxic; not sure how you think Christianity and Judaism are different, architecturally speaking. It just cracks me up that Jesus explicitly talks about all the ways religion is misused (Good Samaritan, Pharisees, etc.), he lays it out and black and white, and it just gets ignored. Not to mention how its used to support hierarchy when smashing hierarchy is absolutely in the text; but it's complicated because the appropriation of Jesus was well underway when the bible was decided on. I think if Jesus was able to self-publish his memoirs, Christianity would never have gotten off the ground.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 10 child comments

[–] sad_detective_man@sopuli.xyz [S] 1 point 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (9 children)

Sweeeet, I've been curious about this since my first assumption has always been that "Bros" just were doing Stoicism in its best possible interpretation. Maybe I'm too critical of it and not of them.

That's valid and a pretty widely agreed on belief. I tend to make a few more concessions for Hebrew and Catholicism because they have controls and political structures for negating barbarism built in to their scriptures, even if those controls have failed in both past and recent history.

The difference with Christianity from those is you're given leave by the text to engage selectively and do post-modern interpretations of what Jesus wants or the personal cost of not living up to his expectations. Like it's not that he's being ignored, it's that his sacrifice canceled any price I have to pay for my actions in this life. You're right, though. The person Christ was pretty different from the faith that inherited his name, they probably wouldn't have had much to do with eachother if he had a choice in the matter. Mainly because he was a Jew and that's not compatible with how Christians want to believe he was.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 9 child comments

[–] schipelblorp@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 weeks ago* (8 children)

I'm not sure what concessions Catholicism has. It built itself into a major political player and was the spiritual foundation of the feudal system and king's right to rule... and this for over a thousand years.

The Catholic Church was aware there was stuff in the bible that wouldn't go in its favor, which is why they killed anyone who tried to translate it into a popular language... At the same time, all these priests and bishops and cardinals and popes COULD read it, and they consistently chose to support their own power. Very human, that, craving power above all else.

One defining weirdness of Christianity is the emphasis is puts on FAITH, on protestations of belief. I don't think even Judaism cares that much about it.

But the religious situation around Jesus' time was absolutely WILD. I'd start with The Life of Brian, but then read about the Gnostic Gospels by Elaine Pagels (there are probably better books by now). There were cults springing up all over the place, each with their own vibe-coded stories that were ChatGPTd from prevailing culture. I think thinking of "Judaism" as an unitary religion/culture is a bit of anachronism.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 8 child comments

[–] sad_detective_man@sopuli.xyz [S] 1 point 2 weeks ago* (7 children)

Alright this is going to be a bit of an indulgent bpersonal diatribe, but hear me out. Generally when I'm assessing the worth of religion I try to look at the cost/benefit of it existing, not really whether it's factually true or politically just. Catholicism definitely full of lies and its atrocities are really the same as any monarchist structure and equally indefensible. Also as you say, craven.

But here's what people within it at the very bottom are getting from the deal:

an accountability system that puts physical personal cost on their choices
a working historical account getting built onto and preserved as time goes on
a system of quasi-electoral government that was a country at one time but now gets to act as a diplomatic power in the world

Just saying, those are the exact opposite of what Christianity takes from you as a person living within it

Agreed, though. That's kind of one of the things I appreciate about Judaism, the pluralism and the de-emphasis on Faith. I've been dipping my toes tentatively into some Gnostic histories, and proto Christian stuff. I'll look at the Gnostic Gospels next, then. Do you have a personal favorite little blorbo from cults of that period?

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 7 child comments

[–] schipelblorp@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 weeks ago (6 children)

I thought I'd get a lot out of reading the Gnostic texts directly, but it was mostly the same religious garbage I've outgrown. One thing that really kills the vibe for me is when people take religion, you know, religiously. Seriously unreadable trash, chapter after chapter about how GREAT God is, as if greatness automatically made something worthy of worship. Servile horseshit.

I got a lot more out the prison planet subreddit, which is sort of gnosticism redux for people with obvious delusion and people like me, interested in the power of a radically different perspective.

It's really interesting that imagining the world as a place created as a prison to torture us IMMEDIATELY makes so much more sense than the tri-omni God of traditional Christiainity, but offering that as a possibility had to be heavily regulated at the edge of a sword.... makes you realize how much of religious debate is based on a very narrow range of choices. Pascal's Wager works in the popular imagination because the bedrock assumption is that there is only one God that exists and that we are choosing to believe in the right one. When you consider infinite gods and infinite risks of choosing the wrong one, the wager falls apart.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 6 child comments

[–] sad_detective_man@sopuli.xyz [S] 1 point 2 weeks ago* (5 children)

Oh damn, this made me have to look up Pascal's Wager in order to follow and that is NOT what I thought it was. And it's not nearly as actionable as I was giving it credit for.

For sure, though. It's not like Gnostic thought is terribly useful in a modern context. It's just the joy of discovering old models of belief. Also they're colorful. I mostly wanted to know if you have any favorite characters from it because most people who engage with that or pre-Christian cults tend to find a funny little guy that they latch onto.

There's a couple people who I interacted with who have derived some personal viable uses from the Gnosticism, but it's kind of way too specific to recommend widely. One was definitely engaging with that "world as a torture device" lense and admitted that these kind of ways of thinking lend themselves pretty greatly to paranoid disorders.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 5 child comments

[–] schipelblorp@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (4 children)

Pascal's Wager was (edit: not) intended to be taken seriously, but it sort of took on a life of its own.

Yes, and Gnosticism is definitely cool; just saying reading the source texts is a pretty miserable experience. Better to Monster Manualize it, boil it down to critters and cosmology without the lard of worship.

And, yes, there were a lot of people attracted to world-as-torture-device, but it's interesting that can invalidate a philosophy when the countervailing philosophy of God Loves Us attracts a greater amount of disordered thinking.... This is an artifact of exactly what we're talking about--the need for people to avoid acknowledging existentially destabilizing realities. Check out The Last Messiah for more on that.

Back to Catholicism: it's a religion. All religions have psychological and social value, lest they would not exist. There's not any real point to rate and compare religions, because I believe they are simply the result of society and not its determiners.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 4 child comments

[–] sad_detective_man@sopuli.xyz [S] 1 point 2 weeks ago* (3 children)

Really? Maybe that's how I got my misconception of it. My favorite thing about this thread is I'm getting a lot of stuff to reexamine, so this ones moving to the top of the list.

Dude, that would be so sick! I really love Monster Manuals! One of the Gnostic thought people I talked to recently actually showed me a video that was showcasing the different deities in a similar way, but as Tumblr art characters. Very entertaining.

I hadn't considered that angle for our discussion here but that's true. The biggest damage any Faith-based theology is doing to incentivising people to decouple from tangible reality. I won't ever defend that, I just don't know of a way it's possible for anyone to widely convince people to stop doing it.

I'll consider that last part. That seems like an idea I'll have to examine for a bit. Thank you for engaging and for all the recommendations, Schipelblorp 🙂 Always a pleasure

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 3 child comments

[–] schipelblorp@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Did you read in the intended "not" into "Pascal's wager was intended to be taken seriously." ? Because I think it was an idle thought experiment that got taken up by Christians.

I have spent more time reading monster manuals than I ever have playing... it's mythological crack.

If you want more, the person that's pushed forward my thinking most recently is Britt Hartley of No Nonsense Spirituality on YouTube. She cheekily refers to herself as "your atheist spiritual director", but there's a lot of wisdom there. I think you'll appreciate her attempts to separate the baby from the bathwater, as you have with Catholicism here.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] sad_detective_man@sopuli.xyz [S] 1 point 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 child)

Ooh you know I actually didn't, I was just assuming he was being serious considering the non-secular time he existed in. But I didn't exactly think he was talking about the results being literal eternal suffering or paradise either. In my misconception I had thought he was proposing to live as a functional faith practitioner and just reap the tangible benefits of that when you're alive. So thanks for prompting me to actually look at it.

You already know I love youtube. I'll get to that first before the books but probably not before the further Wikipedia articles I got recommended in this thread. Is it cool if I message you any thoughts she stirs up? I definitely appreciate people who can identify pro-social and useful facets of problematic ideologies.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] schipelblorp@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 weeks ago

Sure! Love to hear your thoughts.

She's like a third-wave atheist, recognizing that hating women and muslims isn't a coherent philosophy to build a life around, that there's more to the human project than being technically correct actually.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent