"You enumerate it's laws and in my thirst for knowledge I admit that they are true. You take apart it's mechanism and my hope increases. At the final stage you teach me that this wondrous and multi-coloured universe can be reduced to the atom and that the atom itself can be reduced to the electron. All this is good and I wait for you to continue. But you tell me of an invisible planetary system to which electrons gravitate around a nucleus. You explain this world to me with an image. I realize then that you have been reduced to poetry"-Camus:The Myth Of Sisyphus.
I myself prefer philosophers who sneer at pure reason and make evidence too painful for anyone with finite insides to digest without a certain distinction. I have read Voltaire, I've not taken the shortest route to liberating myself from prejudices... Since then I've realised the cynicism of the position continually liberating itself from prejudice: it can't be done. Prejudices are who we are, human existence is innately irrational to me. I find it cherry picking of the elitist order to presume otherwise through a scientific presupposition which all turn to mirrors in our hands, to our faces before the faces of the priviledged judiciary. The Scientific method, is an arguement for priviledged knowledge and authority; which in the end ails far short of existence to my eyes. An authority, which all societies are to some extent. The truth is as it has always has been, a matter of taste, Christian or otherwise. The world is no unity.
"One is necessary, one is a piece of fate, one belongs to the whole, one is in the whole- there is nothing which could judge, measure, compare, condemn our Being, for that would mean judging, measuring, comparing, condemning the whole...But there is nothing apart from the whole! That no one is made responsible any more, that a kind of Being cannot be traced back to a causa prima, that the world is no unity, either as sensorium or as "mind", this alone is the great liberation-this alone re-establishes the innocence of becoming...The concept "God" has been the greatest objection to existence so far...We deny God, we deny responsibility for God: this alone is how we redeem the world-"Nietzsche:Twilight Of The Idols.
I like Nietzsche because leaves the path open for interpretation: all paths are now opened to us, free from responsibility, even a return to God's hands... The importance of atheism to me our right to decide for ourselves. It's purpose as a piece of artistry, is the assumation of form to deny responsibility for other's deciding for us... My contention with atheism is it's lauding Scientific naturalism in doing so.. It has no right. Atheism is the null position, it entails nothing, there is nothing inside it, it doesn't presuppose rationalism or empiricism; it is in essence a piece of sophistry designed to liberate people from themselves, from the paths they never chose, from every path to God others knew on their behalf; however, in doing so it cleaves off all heads of the hydra. Shows like "atheist experience" I watch like a hawk when I can because it is a greedy fish which bites off more than proffered to the header: "atheism". They are not neutral because they do not contradict oneanother explicitly. Where Nietzsche would attack all paths of oppression, they cement the void with an infinite reprieve, a chorus of a single voice. They don't argue amongst themselves over issues of any substance, they are predominantly propounders of a single path in daylight, materialism; whereas Nietzsche's passionate attack is an assailing of all oppression rife with apparent contradictions. I write this to remind you that towards the end of his life in prison, even the beloved Socrates spoke to his "Daemon" and that the naturalist explanations are a decision too. If you want to believe in God and the Jettatura as distinct from your atheism that is your prerogative. You can deny God and his properties will still emerge regardless and you could accept him within them despite your atheism.
Last edited by Orestes
on Wed Dec 07, 2011 3:45 am, edited 1 time in total.
"If complete indifference is required for freedom, then there is scarcely ever a free act. For even if by chance, the reasons are equal, the passions will not be"-Leibniz