T
Transhuman
Unconfirmed Member
Or die trying
Nihilism is the athiest God.
- Thread starter Trumpets
- Start date
- Status
Fine Ham Abounds
Member
I completely disagree, but then I became an atheist after having a completely unsolicited religious experience when I was 8 and reading multiple religions a few years later in search of answers.
For me, I've always felt there's innate value in everything, and searching for meaning in something devoid of intelligent design is just another manifestation of our evolved anthropocentric tendency for identifying intent even where there is none.
I choose to follow a personal sense of morality because I care about the effect my existence has on other people as much as I am sensibly capable, and I care about the direction and priorities of the society and culture I'm a part of. For me, behaving otherwise is to presume I've performed some gross feat to bring myself up beyond my nature as the kind of beast I am, which seems presumptuous and egotistical. No matter what revelations I have using the tools I have access to, this does not increase my value to the point where a consideration of the whole of humanity should be below me, any more than I can pretend I don't require food or shelter to survive.
I can never remember the exact quote, but these discussions always remind me of a line from the Fool in La Strada, the gist being that "even a pebble must have value or else even the stars cannot." I'm sure on a primary level you would agree with that, but whereas your perspective would be that yes neither have value, for me it's that both have equal value. Or maybe more that value judgements themselves are an evolved human affectation, an expression of ego born from the necessity of our brains to prioritize only what is most necessary in order to be efficient. My feeling thus is that such judgements are as irrelevant to describing the universe and non-intrinsic to its nature as religion.
For me, I've always felt there's innate value in everything, and searching for meaning in something devoid of intelligent design is just another manifestation of our evolved anthropocentric tendency for identifying intent even where there is none.
I choose to follow a personal sense of morality because I care about the effect my existence has on other people as much as I am sensibly capable, and I care about the direction and priorities of the society and culture I'm a part of. For me, behaving otherwise is to presume I've performed some gross feat to bring myself up beyond my nature as the kind of beast I am, which seems presumptuous and egotistical. No matter what revelations I have using the tools I have access to, this does not increase my value to the point where a consideration of the whole of humanity should be below me, any more than I can pretend I don't require food or shelter to survive.
I can never remember the exact quote, but these discussions always remind me of a line from the Fool in La Strada, the gist being that "even a pebble must have value or else even the stars cannot." I'm sure on a primary level you would agree with that, but whereas your perspective would be that yes neither have value, for me it's that both have equal value. Or maybe more that value judgements themselves are an evolved human affectation, an expression of ego born from the necessity of our brains to prioritize only what is most necessary in order to be efficient. My feeling thus is that such judgements are as irrelevant to describing the universe and non-intrinsic to its nature as religion.
On the subject of Christianity and morality, I was YouTube autoplaying some atheist experience call-in discussions and this one came along:
https://youtu.be/k-YIJN1aGvg
Which, if you ignore the dumb clickbait title, does a pretty good job at explaining why morality from the bible is in fact inferior to morality as it exists in society in 2016 and explains pretty clearly that someone who chooses not to be moral on their own merits is in fact not moral at all.
Disclaimer: It becomes a shoutfest at times as either party gets frustrated, but the reasoning and explanations on the atheist's side is pretty sound and well thought out.
https://youtu.be/k-YIJN1aGvg
Which, if you ignore the dumb clickbait title, does a pretty good job at explaining why morality from the bible is in fact inferior to morality as it exists in society in 2016 and explains pretty clearly that someone who chooses not to be moral on their own merits is in fact not moral at all.
Disclaimer: It becomes a shoutfest at times as either party gets frustrated, but the reasoning and explanations on the atheist's side is pretty sound and well thought out.
CapitalismSucks DonkeyBalls
Banned
I really wouldn't suggest using Freudian psychology in 2016.
TheOctodad
Member
I didn't get a chance to listen to the entire thing however. Her argument is fairly sound in most areas, but her view of the Bible being somewhat inferior in it's morality is not really something most Biblical Scholars would disagree with. I would point to earlier posts where I argue that most early Christians based their morality on Jesus himself and his life and teachings, and then filtered their morality through that.
Unfortunately Christian today worships the Bible far and above and concept of Jesus. And when we say Bible we mean their selected theological interpretation of their selected English translation.
Basically, the video is fine, but this is lightweight vs. lightweight when it comes to secular morality debating Christian ethics.
Fenderputty
Banned
This is why non denominational churches scare me. Most of the ones I went to when I was faithful were biblical literalists.
Moving away from Jesus to the bible has also allowed conservative economic policy to blossom among the religious as well. I never heard Jesus say we should only take care of the poor if they found themselves in their situations of no fault of their own. He just wanted us to take care of the poor and sick. Yet I've seen plenty of religious republicans pull out bible quotes to support their economic positions.
You're much more knowledgeable about this stuff than me, but they way you speak reminds me of how I felt before moving to Deism and then eventually agnosticism. Your faith is a personal thing, so I don't want to poke and prod you, but I do wish more Christians viewed things from your perspective. It's refreshing. Being told I lead a meaningless and purposeless life because I lack faith gets tiring.
TheOctodad
Member
You are dead on with your comments about conservative economic policy getting mixed in with american religion. It's a shitshow honestly and something that many pastors/theologians decry despite the popular narrative that gets displayed as "Christianity" in America. Unfortunately that voice of dissent is still the minority.
My friend Greg Boyd wrote a fantastic book about this years back that made some pretty big waves.
Poke and prod me all you want. Personally, I'm not scared of losing my faith, nor do I find the need to defend my position to help me feel secure personally. If there is a God (and I believe there is, but different than the typical definition), then he can survive any doubts, questions, or confusion I have. If there's not, better to be honest. I'm always open to changing my mind or growing. That said, I have found a lot of beauty and wonder through my faith, but this has required me to let things go and embrace new ideas. So I'm always open to doing that again.
Fenderputty
Banned
You are dead on with your comments about conservative economic policy getting mixed in with american religion. It's a shitshow honestly and something that many pastors/theologians decry despite the popular narrative that gets displayed as "Christianity" in America. Unfortunately that voice of dissent is still the minority.
My friend Greg Boyd wrote a fantastic book about this years back that made some pretty big waves.
Poke and prod me all you want. Personally, I'm not scared of losing my faith, nor do I find the need to defend my position to help me feel secure personally. If there is a God (and I believe there is, but different than the typical definition), then he can survive any doubts, questions, or confusion I have. If there's not, better to be honest. I'm always open to changing my mind or growing. That said, I have found a lot of beauty and wonder through my faith, but this has required me to let things go and embrace new ideas. So I'm always open to doing that again.
It just seems like you have a very good grasp over the flaws of the bible itself and how religion (not faith) tends to further distort these flaws. When I hit this stage I grew very distraught with all religion in general. It all felt very man made and influenced. It felt imperfect like we are. So I became a deist. How else could this place exist if there wasn't some super power that made it? My time as a deist didn't last long though. I didn't believe man had it right and it was only because I was raised to believe in God that I clung to deism. In the end I slipped to agnosticism because if man didn't have it right then I really didn't know. So why stress? Just find out in the end and lead my life the way I should lead it.
By that logic, the baseline of existence is lacking meaning.
It's all about Lacan nowadays.
Mechanized
Member
I've been thinking I'm athiest lately but it's too bleak. I can't do it, my mind wanders to some really dark places. I'll have to remain agnostic/casual catholic.
Fenderputty
Banned
The baseline would lack specific meaning. Giving life a personalized meaning is the basis. What that personalized meaning is ... well ... that's personal.
Because there is a unofficial code of morality that everyone has to follow to keep society running.
Poke and prod me all you want. Personally, I'm not scared of losing my faith, nor do I find the need to defend my position to help me feel secure personally. If there is a God (and I believe there is, but different than the typical definition), then he can survive any doubts, questions, or confusion I have. If there's not, better to be honest. I'm always open to changing my mind or growing. That said, I have found a lot of beauty and wonder through my faith, but this has required me to let things go and embrace new ideas. So I'm always open to doing that again.
Cool... can you describe your notion of god (I presume christian one) in about a paragraph? Is he deist? Does he personally interfere with earthly events? Where does his values come from and what's his relationship with the bible - literal, or figurative... in which case... how does one determine how to interpret it?
Heh. That doesn't actually dispute my point. Obviously humans are capable of terrible things, including the more mundane deceit, pettiness, etc. But the fact is that we feel good when we share, when we cooperate, when we get along with others. There are built-in reward systems since evolution favoured the families/tribes that had those inclinations, those feelings... that cooperated and outlasted the more selfishly-driven groups that failed to work together. That's not to say that there aren't massive tensions in being human, such as what happens when large groups are (poorly) organized, when mental illness takes hold, or when certain people are poorly socialized.
Fenderputty
Banned
Atheist here and wont change my Pov
Imo everything is meaningless, but I just like to live.
We are nothing in this huge cosmos, but I can be something for other people as meaningless as me so at least that helps me carry on.
The cosmos is huge. But consciousness seems beyond rare. I don't see the point in downplaying that importance simply because of the size and scope of the universe. A universe without consciousness is meaningless IMO. Neil Degrasse Tyson was the one who made me think this. How else does the universe know itself and know it exists if there's no consciousness to take it all in?
Stereogatari
Banned
The attention of females I am enamored with is my God.
Karsticles
Member
Go play DotA or LoL online and tell me if you believe this still.
blame space
Banned
nihilism owns
I can't tell if this is supposed to be serious or not.
TheOctodad
Member
I mean, religion is man-made. But nearly everything we comprehend is man-made. It's how we function and communicate within our created structures. For example, there is a debate over if math is a real feature of the universe or if it is just a construct for us to understand it.. So of course even our best efforts of trying to understand any concept are limited by our abilities. The very idea of God once spoken into language is limited by the "man-made" constructs of that language. So of course when we are speaking of God, we are speaking of something that is automatically not fully God. So I think your impulse is understood and correct, because if God is real, than any moment we speak of what it is like, in the same breath we almost have to deny that statement as it is too limiting.
I think where I part ways is the, "why stress?" part. I don't find my exploration of spirituality and the divine to be stressful or limiting at all - in fact it has been quite beautiful and freeing. Modern neuroscience shows that people who mediate on a loving God daily actually reshape their brains. They are less prone to stress, anxiety and depression. Additionally, this practice can reduce the brains fight/flight impulse when interacting with people who disagree or believe differently. It increases the capacity to love and see others as a unified part of a whole (This research was done by two atheist by the way - see How God Changes Your Brain -Dr. Andrew Newberg).
Jesus himself claimed that his burden was easy and light. He critiqued the religious leaders for "adding burdens onto people and not lifting a finger to help them." If faith is making you anxious and stressed, abandon it fully - that's toxic.
For me, I have found wonder and a unique spiritual depth in exploring my faith. Oddly enough, I would argue that a deeper spirituality has actually been a process of letting go and simplifying than it has been adding on and creating more complexity. But as we have learned from design, simplicity is one of the hardest things to perfect.
I guess for me, I'm not satisfied with just living a life that skims the surface of existence. I have a deep desire to explore the depths of the human soul, our quest for meaning, our appreciation for beauty, the wonder of this universe. And for some reason, I have found that these experiences have led me to a reality that seems to go deeper than the sum of it's parts. But again, here we are using "man-made" words to grasp at something that is beyond them.
Phew, that's a tall order to do in a paragraph. Did you read my previous posts in this thread? I'll quote one of my earliest ones that kinda answers your question. Hopefully it helps a little bit:
I'll add by expounding on one aspect. You asked "Where does his values come from and what's his relationship with the bible - literal, or figurative... in which case... how does one determine how to interpret it?" This is incredibly difficult to reduce and I feel like I'm butchering it as I write it because it's so reductionistic. So please have grace for the gaps/weirdness of what I'm about to write because I'm distilling about 3,000 pages into 2 paragraphs.
There's a phrase some theologians use called "kenosis" - literally it means "self-emptying." It's derived from the gospels where it talks about Christ being the very fabric of the cosmos that "emptied himself" to enter into the world. Their are tomes written on this, including a few brilliant compiled ones by physicist, chemist, biologist, etc. that talk about the very fabric of evolution, biology, and math actually lending itself to a "kenotic" shape. In other words, the very "engine" of the universe seems to be one that is self-emptying and sacrificial to continue to create and evolve. The argument is essentially that the entire universe is a creative expression of the very heart of the divine, a constant motion of "self-emptying" to bring forth even more beauty and complexity.
So, to participate in the divine nature, is literally to join into a "kenotic" lifestyle. When you live for others, when you love, when you sacrifice your needs for another you are living in a way that joins the very heart of the universe. This "divine engine" seems to be helping the whole universe, including the humanity on a psychological evolutionary scale to move towards a greater ability to join into this kenotic life. Jesus was "God in human form" because he exemplified what it looked like to live a fully kenotic life as a human - he accepted the unwelcome, overthrew those in power, and died to expose the empire and religious sects that held down and oppressed the people.
The Bible then, is a account of the psychology evolution of cultural and societal growth as they "wake up" to the realization that maybe there is more than being brutes that rape and battle other tribes. They begin to have spiritual experiences and take steps towards evolving out of the "animalistic nature" and into something that is even more complex and more aware. God seems content to continually meet people where they are at in their development, but also call them forward to something more.
Ok, bring on the pitchforks and call me crazy. Sorry if this sounds like babble, because it's incredibly hard to distill without a little bit more clarity on your assumptions and background.
Fenderputty
Banned
So then how do you trust it's authenticity? Not the mundane minutia of religion, but the greater overall faith in a higher power? How do you even know Jesus lived his life they way it's portrayed if you can knowledge flaws in the bible and how it came to be? Acknowledging religion is man-made casts a large shadow over the whole thing IMO.
That isn't to say we can't take lessons from Jesus and apply them to how we live. By all accounts he was a pretty bad ass man. That being said, historical accounts outside of the bible are few and none of them imply he was something other than a relatively normal dude.
Please don't take offense to this as it's not meant to be offensive, but to me, it seems like you're clinging to the idea of a first mover because it's what you've always known. You think critically enough to realize there are inconsistencies in the man made message, but you then bend the message and your faith to fit within those inconsistencies rather than doubt the message.
Republic of Ezo
Member
Practical atheism only holds that there is no god currently intervening in the affairs of the universe. If anyone pretends to know where the hell the universe actually came from, they can only be speculating.
For instance, the creator "God" could be the mother of the universe who died giving birth to the universe. Then there would be no "God" currently even if one had created the universe. That position would be consistent with atheism.
For instance, the creator "God" could be the mother of the universe who died giving birth to the universe. Then there would be no "God" currently even if one had created the universe. That position would be consistent with atheism.
I mean, maybe technically, but I have never known an atheist of any stripe that would defend the existence of a clockmaker god.
Wolfgunblood Garopa
Member
Something doesn't have to be experienced for it to exist. The universe very easily could exist without a lifeform or consciousness to experience it. It would be absurd on an almost unfathomable scale, but there's no good reason why not. If we take into account our miniscule understanding and 'experiencing' of what we know as the universe, it's next to nothing. It's likely that 99.99999999999999% of the universe has never been viewed or experienced by a consciousness, and even then, that .0000000000000001% that has, has been experienced by an inadequate intellect such as humanity.
Early days yet. Just wait till us humans start exploring the stars.
Fenderputty
Banned
You sure about that?
http://www.sciencealert.com/reality-doesn-t-exist-until-we-measure-it-quantum-experiment-confirms
If a tree falls in the woods and no one is around to hear it ....
Even if it did, what's the point? I find lots of different meaning in my life. My new child as an example. But if I'm looking for a greater meaning than something personal, I like the idea that consciousness is special in this grand place and is the only way the universe knows itself. We're like infant eyes of the universe finally opening to take in all that's around.
TheOctodad
Member
There's a phrase "grow where you're planted." Religion functions to some degree as a shared language to speak of something that goes beyond our capacity to speak. To that degree, I would agree that I "cling" to my upbringing. But, as I have said before, others use their cultural shared language to do the same and I don't fault them for this, nor do I see it as "less than."
I would say my experiences and perspective have not, at any level, caused me to constrict my ways or thinking or limited my morality in any way. Additionally, as I've mentioned before in other posts, healthy religious communities, safe places for religious discussion, meditation, and working together for social justice, have all been incredibly beneficial aspects of my life. I don't see any negative reasons to jettison these.
When it comes to Jesus, frankly, I just find him (or the idea of him) compelling. Perhaps the accounts of him aren't entirely accurate - that's possible. But I can think of no better figure to base and center my life around. I wouldn't call Jesus' ways of thinking or living as "normal" especially for his time.
Lastly, I'm not sure I'm clinging to the idea of a "first mover."I think any way of looking at the world demands some sort of originating spark from which matter developed. I'm simply choosing to believe that that originating spark may have actually had some sort of intentionality behind it. I can't rationally prove that, nor can you disprove it. But I'm not really interested in trying to win that argument, because I think we can both participate in meaning and living with opposing views - though I personally find more value in mine because the awareness and search has given my own personality a extra layer of depth and connectedness.
Fenderputty
Banned
Which is awesome. More people should live and let live without judgement.
I don't think becoming irreligious means you have to jettison community and social outreach. Though I do agree that church is a great communal activity that the secular don't get as easily. There's 4 churches all within a block from my house as an example.
I find him compelling myself. Like I said he was a pretty bad ass dude. Going from bad ass dude to son of God is another thing entirely though and rooted squarely in a flawed piece of literature. You'll also note that I said historical accounts outside of the bible imply he was a normal dude. Since I view the bible as man made I can view Jesus as an ideal to live by without actually elevating him beyond the physical.
But would you have had this outlook if you weren't taught from day 1 that a first mover made this? You're right, neither you nor I can prove where the big bang came from. I just don't see any reason to believe a first mover is more likely than another scenario. In which case I go back to why I felt a first mover was needed anyway, and it's always rooted in how I was raised.
Either way ... I appreciate your feedback.
Riposte
Member
I think the point is that, since it is unavoidable (for anyone with some intelligence), you want to obtain a nihilism that will lead you out of nihilism. The end goal is not the state of nihilism itself, even the good/active kind. You destroy the old goals, but now you must create new ones. What makes me uncomfortable with your description is how closely it pairs the process and the ideal state.
The idea that humanity's natural habit of "sharing", "pity", "compassion", etc. with/for other humans represented in tribal mechanisms can be a basis of a fixed, consistent morality is deeply flawed. It's an easy answer, sure, but I think it's an obfuscation that makes human fall into the same patterns as Christianity. In the absence of a God, people have turned to this, so it is popular even with Scientism folks (e.g., Sam Harris). I'll try to present a few simplified counterpoints to the idea...
First things first, evolution is entirely situational and has no meaning beyond its results. To try to see the fittest as anything more than temporary success in a specific environment, that is, to begin making value judgments, is to engage in a practice contradictory to scientific principles (at that point, it becomes low-level philosophy and loses it's scientific certainty). If you are trying to force onto people what "evolution has taught us", then you actually in contradiction with the true results of evolution. Let's accept this speculative evolution-approved morality theory for a moment. There may have been a time where the environment rewarded humans whom practiced being berry-picking hippies, but that doesn't mean that time is now or that time has been relevant for most of humanity's civilizations. The truth is you merely want it to be true, it can't really be proven, and in trying to prove it, you run against the same problems as any philosophy.
Humanity has obviously obtained traits for social harmony and cooperation (and this has proven invaluable for civilization), but it has also obtained traits perfectly contradictory to the espoused ideal image. Humanity is violent, oppressive, and has no problem engaging with all sort of "sins". You can see how frustrated humanists are with humans, it even begins to look like Christian idealism (negation) at points. The fact that people are willing to cooperate doesn't really change the equation, it just reflects that we have certain traits and these traits may not even be opposed to (cancel out) each other. The sneaky trick here is to put value on certain traits and downplay the others. Look at how we define the term "humane". We get this dilemma: "Our animal nature shows us that we should treat each others kindly", but "we are better than our animal nature, so let's stop with all that rape and pillage". "Let's be a tribe, but let's not engage in tribalism" or "look at how we get rewarding feelings for these good things, but don't mind the fact that same system rewards improper behavior". Ultimately, it's quite shallow and to really understand what's happening is to consider why people want to focus on certain traits, the true origins of humanism. Here Nietzsche becomes invaluable.
We also have conceptual problems, such as how the fundamental principles of equality, justice, and freedom have no real basis in nature, they are as man-made as God. For example, equality is logically impossible outside of mathematics and differences between two things will always manifest in consequences. We may hold ideals that say humans are equal and they should be treated equally (a rarely success endeavor because of that pesky human nature), but it's not because it's "true", it's because we want it to be true. Because it is "fair", but what is "fair"? How does science discover fairness? We should not overlook where our sense of fairness comes from, why we want it.
Ah and the funnest of part of all: "humans" don't actually exist. Had God created humanity and with it our values, we could have a concrete understanding of humanity (among other things) - an often overlooked casualty in the death of God. What we have come to consider as humans, as with any species or form of life (up to life itself), is merely a category of commonly occurring natural phenomena, the value of which depends on entirely on to the degree we can agree upon it (unfortunately, racism tells we don't always do that, consciously or unconsciously). Humanity is, itself, an abstraction, one that is seemingly infinitely malleable when it comes to the describing the "mind". Even the value judgment that we should treat this category as more important than a larger category, a sub-category, or a single object within that category (e.g., individualism) cannot be answered through any sort of inherent meaning.
I suppose a further critique would involve tackling the ethical systems, such as utilitarianism. Since I'm clocking out here, I'll just leave a little note here saying that the value of "happiness", especially collective happiness, should be challenged. Scientific humanism want to point at chemical reactions in the brain as the end-all and be-all of human purpose/valuation, but it's little better than hedonism and overlooks the idea that happiness itself is just a tool (see: Will to Power).
Holy shit...never thought it that way, thats really cool.
davidwhangchoi
Member
Nihilism... this sounds silly but i kept thinking the topic was about Xenogears/saga for some reason...
Thanks for the summary. That's a pretty mature belief system, no doubt something you've given great thought to.
So a bit of a pantheistic take on a christian god, coupled with the comforting notion of a benevolent guiding hand in bringing about greater complexity.
The pantheistic part is something I've arrived at myself, even though I'm atheist. I mean in the sense that the nature of consciousness is that of information processing... that information processing can happen at all levels of matter... and that there are forms of information processing that extend beyond what we'd recognize in our limited frame.
Moreover, I also agree with the interconnected notion of everything... it's quite literal though; everything operates according to the physical laws of the universe, and everything on this planet is connected to each other through presence on this planet and its biosphere. Humanity is connected via language, culture, technology, etc.
On the other hand, I can't believe too much in the idea of a benevolent guiding hand... I see that sort of thinking as something that might make us complacent about the broader threats that we face towards our survival.
Complexity and beauty can be quite easily destroyed after all - so we need to do what we can within the powers and knowledge we have available to us to ensure its preservation and continued meaning.
Anyway... here's a thought regarding the first mover/guiding hand stuff...
Why does the first mover have to be coupled to a sentient being? I suppose if you believe there's only been one universe, the idea that we'd emerge out of sheer luck is rather improbable.
But what if the first mover was simply a mechanism of necessary existence that continued to spawn random matter (and the rules associated with that matter). Over an infinite number of tries, you'd necessarily get a universe with this current outcome, no guidance or intelligence required.
I can't describe the reason why this first mover can exist external to everything else... but then I don't really have to (as it's not my belief, only a useful rhetorical tool to me). On the flipside, it doesn't seem like outside of 'design' that theists can articulate a reason as to why the first mover must necessarily be sentient (much less their version of the sentient first mover).
Yes.
nothing has meaning in a vacuum. How could it? "Existence" on it's own is devoid of meaning. We, i.e. Life, give meaning to things. Only life can give meaning to life.
The things that mean something to you are exactly what the meaning behind life is. Family, friends, creativity, love, music, art, exploration, writing, ect
Hmm, maybe this will help - If there is nothing to be conscious of, what is consciousness?
UltimaPooh
Member
Life is pretty rare in the universe. Out of all the observable planets in our little area Earth has the only life, that we can see.
From that we've evolved from gunk in the sea to thing that is able to reason and acknowledge our existence.
And that all started because of the creation of our sun and thus the creation of the universe. We're the result of 14 billion years of time, energy, and evolution.
So life does have a purpose... We're the next step in the advancement in the universe. Therefore we are higher than a pile of mud, or a tree, or any number of things.
From that we've evolved from gunk in the sea to thing that is able to reason and acknowledge our existence.
And that all started because of the creation of our sun and thus the creation of the universe. We're the result of 14 billion years of time, energy, and evolution.
So life does have a purpose... We're the next step in the advancement in the universe. Therefore we are higher than a pile of mud, or a tree, or any number of things.
IrishNinja
Member
still my favorite post of the last week
Prototype Viktor
Member
PdotMichael
Banned
I like how a "god" would give the own life more sense. It would only turn people into little tamagotchis.
Mr Waluigi
Banned
Mine just keep dying. Then thrown in the garbage when I get bored of them
You took a gamble by pretending to know wtf he was on about. Let's see if it pays off.
travisbickle
Member
It's alright as a starter. I wouldn't base a post-war economy on the theories, but a lot of more modern theorists have taken ideas from it. You're going to come across Lacan if you start there.
PdotMichael
Banned
At least science can explain the "mindless atoms bumping into each other" while the alternative is being nothing under the whim of a higher being.
- Status