humans are desperately trying to sound coyotes curb the roadrunner that could ease our existential angst.
"S being on the road i hear a beep beep
BIP BIP!
Be assured that this is my
And if you try to follow is to dusk
For neither the fierce coyote can eat me!
Runner
BIP BIP! ...
you faster than a jet
Poor coyote ... no longer even know what to do
Tonto coyote ... Your 're going to freak
And in the desert ... you going to kill thirst "
(Emphasis added)
Life is a product ® Acme
PD : way recently came across an article written by a renowned scientist on Doppler effect in relation to the runners. The article is in English, online, is titled
I decided that I no longer take any more atheists. Atheists fans of science, liberal democratic and defenders of a secular morality. They are the worst, and if we add a little stale Marxism unbearable.
The problem for me is whether they believe or not believe in God, in this sense the idea of \u200b\u200bthis manuscript is not trying to convince them of its existence, that matter I do not care. The problem is that air of ethical and intellectual self-exuding, the problem is that syndrome rational prophylactic constipation sufferers, the number of animals absurd perpetrators to justify their positions.
On the other hand it is necessary to clarify the following: if I get to choose between living in a godless society and full of fans believers with a tambourine under his arm, rather, in general, to the sordid atheists and touched me to vote every 4 years. I say generally because, for example, if in the communal bath of a prison rather have moral behind the incarnation of Jesus Christ, before an incredulous if I fall gentle soap.
Suddenly, for starters, I think annoying the way the average atheist Nietzsche uses like an avant-garde thinker, a martyr for the holy war of reason against religion. And no atheists page where they seek support in one way or another, in Nietzsche. For atheists, it seems to be what for San Juan Evangelista and Christians must recognize that initially supports the conventional wisdom: was not Nietzsche who wrote the anti-Christ, who rose from his cave with a loud voice "God is dead", who said that religion is declining, the weak and cowardly slaves? Yes, but ... Let's talk
Friedrich Nietzsche, pinching of atheists ignorant (but, dear reader, should you imagine that last sentence with the speech verbalized a Bugs Bunny placing a heavy brick in the white collar that you want slapping Daffy Duck).
...
a critique Nietzsche two main religions: Christianity and Buddhism (considering Buddhism a religion). However, criticism is not the same. In a very general criticism of Buddhism is much kinder and ambiguous. This already suggests something important: not all religions are the same bag. Religions he criticizes religions are pessimists, nihilists, resentful life, those who are in pain, pity and kindness, the core values of morality. Thus, the main disease of Christianity is not the figure of god, but the specific moral (and society) to that is associated. addition, for Nietzsche, the connection between Christian morality and the decaying democracy is very strong ... Thus, as you my dear ignorant enlightened atheists consider themselves very liberal and democratic, many of you use to Nietzsche without realizing that if he found them a dark and lonely road, it is likely to hurry to kick in disgust until it wore out the soles of shoes.
Let talk Nietzsche himself:
"... the Buddha said:" No flatter your benefactor! "repeat these words in a Christian church they fumigated the air immediately around germ Christian"
"... Christianity was, from the beginning, essentially and fundamentally, satiety and disgust of life, that do nothing to hide and overlap under the mask of faith in "other" life, "a better life
" ... Christianity is this denial of the will to live erected in religion "
" ... Christianity with its moral ruin of the entails types stronger, higher and manly, and favors a kind of herd men, Christianity is a preparation of the democratic mind "
" ... making it possible to Christianity was not corruption of the ancient world on it, the old aristocracy, as commonly believed, never condemn the idiotic enough scholarly rigor still holding similar views. Precisely the time when the entire Roman Empire was Christianized masses in sick and corrupt people, as opposed to aristocratic type, found its expression fuller and more beautiful. It imposed the most compact, triumphed Democrat Christian instincts ... "
" ... Christianity, as a great popular movement of the Roman Empire, is the enthronement of the worst, the uneducated, the the oppressed, the sick, the lost, the poor, slaves, old, of cowards, in short, of all those who have reason to commit suicide, but lack the courage to do "
However, Nietzsche criticizes the Christian religion in an aggressive manner, but on the other hand, defends in many parts of what he called a religious feeling or instinct. For Nietzsche this religious instinct manifests itself in man as he is the creator of gods, a creative artist. From this perspective, the critique of Christianity does not come from an atheistic position but, wonderfully, in a particular assessment of the religious instinct: the problem with Christianity is that it deletes the creative instinct, putting a god as the only possible, treating this God, not as a creation in the service of man, but as something that is opposed to man and deprives him of his humanity. If a religion is possible, Nietzsche would say, be aware of its status as "artwork" and must be the service of life, not against it. At the moment we are creators, we are aware of our "lies", but embrace it as our own, it serves our human purposes. This leads us to think very importantly, if "atheism" means to affirm that God does not exist , then Nietzsche is an atheist (although there are different forms of existence that he would be willing to admit). But if atheism means the not believe in God (or gods) , Nietzsche is not only an atheist, but his way encourages us to believe . even wondered what it would be a religion that claimed life, and how would the god (or gods) of such a religion. So all those neat rational atheists can imagine what would be the blessed and valuable life of a man if a god had a wanton slut goddess of infinite trembling clitoris erotic ecstasy, which gives you satisfy symbolically (with all the mystical and ritualistic adornment for ) all of its sacrosanct depraved pleasures. And even in this last (Nietzsche accepted), Christianity has something to offer.
Again it is he himself who put the coup de grace in the brain atheist
"... the Christian moral God is not sustainable. Accordingly, "Atheism," as if there could be no other Gods "
"...¡ and how many new gods are still possible! ... In myself, who want to relive again the religious instinct, ie, the creator of gods, how diverse, how different is revealed to me more divine! ... Too many strange things have already gone before me in those moments without time we fall in life and from the moon and where ultimately nothing is known of the old one already is or how young he still is ... I will not doubt that there are many kinds of gods "
" ... we need of lying to overcome this "truth", ie to live [...]. Metaphysics, morality, religion, science [...] are taken into consideration only as various forms of lies: with their help you believe in life. "Life must inspire confidence": the duty outlined in these terms is immense. To meet him, the man must be a liar by nature, must, before anything else, an artist ... "
" for example, the religious intoxication and sexual arousal (two deep ; feelings, almost strangely so coordinated. What is that like all pious women, old or young? Answer: a saint with nice legs, still young, still idiot ...)"
"... to make love possible, God must be a person, so they can be enforced buried instincts God must be young. It should be a nice foreground for the burning of holy women, and a Virgin for men. This on the assumption that Christianity wants to prevail in a land where religion and Adonis aphrodisiacs or have given the concept of worship. The concept of chastity and strongly emphasizes the depth of the religious instinct, given the cult character warmer, more exalted, more fervent.
Love is the state in which man sees things, more than any other, as they are not. It fully shows the power of illusion, like the transfiguration "
other hand there is the matter of reason and science. Those who love the figure of the priest atheist" by They are usually superfreaks of science and rationality. What they do not realize these poor souls "is that Nietzsche condemns modern science for the same reasons that condemns Christianity: the science is not recognized as a lie, and to that extent you impose a world view that destroys all others, including the religious instinct of which we spoke. can be said that Nietzsche even religious instinct aesthetic-erotic, is more valuable than science. This idea is one of their deepest thoughts:
"... seventeen years I never tire of denouncing the influence despiritualized of our current scientific world. The hard work that the tremendous amount of science sentence today for all individuals is one of the main causes for the spirits that full, plethoric and deep and there is neither an education or educators that they are appropriate "
" ... but what principle, what creed expresses more accurately the turning point, the preponderance now reached by the scientific spirit of the religious spirit inventor of the gods? "
" ... not in things nothing but what one has added to them: to this childish game of who do not want to think evil is called science? On the contrary, continue with both activities, we need good courage for both, one to rediscover the others we others, to introduce!
Man finally finds in things nothing but what one has added to them: rediscover called science, introducing art, religion, love, pride "
So next time you, my respected atheist talk about Friedrich Nietzsche as a support to your deepest convictions, seeks to first get yourself a copy of " Antichrist" and read it, and if are those who have had the courtesy to read it without understanding it, so I suggest you wrap restrained and you enter it where better for you sprawling. Reading Nietzsche and want out of reading what one gifted him the win, is one of the most accurate symptoms of imbecility academic (with the single cause and struggle of classes.)
donkey not only to use Nietzsche to support critical atheism and fundamentalist religion, it is as wrong as tend to show the Church-Turing thesis relying on what one is written in a box of tampons.
conclude with a final reflection on science teacher tormented:
"So it is with this belief with which many scholars are satisfied materialist belief in a world that must have its equivalent and its measurement in human thought in the human evaluation, in a" real world " which we could bring in the final analysis using our human reason, small and square. How? Do we really stop the degradation of the existence thus be an exercise in calculators and a sink of mathematicians in his room ? First, it should not be wanting to strip of the plurality of sense of his character: it requires good taste, gentlemen, the taste of respect toward all so far beyond your horizon! Only correct interpretation of the world [...] an interpretation which enables counting, calculating, weighing, see and feel, and nothing else, this is a clumsy and naive, assuming it is not a mental illness or an idiot [...] An interpretation of "scientific" world, as the understand you could be therefore even one of the most stupid, that is, the poorest of all possible interpretations of the world "
PS: If you were upset that there was no appropriate reference citation, can understand as an invitation to read Nietzsche. Nor are they going to make work easier.
Required: read notice of liability at the end of the entry
Austin speech acts (Oral videos: blowjobs and licking).
Dworkin and difficult cases (our fiósofo law is hard to narrow the prepubescent virgins).
Making it Explicit to Robert Brandom (porn documentary techniques of this century).
The analytica back to Aristotle (anal sex in all its intensity.)
M. The Social Contract Rousseau (a special French whores and prepaid charging for their services.)
The end in itself (best masturbation of philosophy).
The Plato's cave (not for sensitive video. Plato and his Double-Fisting-Gay with huge fetish objects).
The "Red Notebook" Wittgenstein (the super porn artist brings a film adaptation of one of the best private journals).
Zarathustra It sucked.
From what I can not talk is better to be silent (Blowjobs and cumshots with Ludwig).
biconditional operator (especially for software bisexual).
The problem of excluded (three great artists in a failed porn but great trio).
Instruments and Bonds (the best of anal-isis language).
self-referential propositions (female masturbation: Many philosophers alone with nothing to do.)
Searle's Chinese Box (our porno-philosopher exploring the Asian sex honey.)
language games Wittgenstein (more oral sex with the artist of the grammar of language).
Beyond the Pleasure Principle (the famous artist porn Freud, who became famous by showing his huge sex in their glorious "Totem and Taboo, now accompanied by his sadistic fucking hysterical.)
Rawls and his original position.
Frege vertical bar.
The Organon of Bacon (another artist with a member porno exaggeration).
A subsequent proposal (anal with experience).
Internalizing Standards (sex-with deep political twin Patricia and Norma Norma Katherine).
Liability notice: After my last thought was a bit of sorrow and regret, almost ashamed that such a dramatic entrance, unnecessary and pessimistic (in part after the comment of Raymond). I decided I needed to try to post something light to help me forgive myself. I thought of writing about an animal that liked me on my beloved movies gore, or the work of Clive Barker, which hardly anyone knows. But I could, I remembered that I have a page dedicated to incipient Barker. I have nothing to say about the "gore" except that I love gutted, and that he had already made explicit in another entry: the moral anatomy of Happy Tree Friends . On an animal I was too lazy. But something to do, something light, some mental softener was used to wash my hands arenite sinful, and fast.
Some time ago I found a page of humor in English which described some fictitious porn videos philosophers. I liked it so much I decided to make my own version, copying and creating some of my own trying to raise its power morbid.
On the other hand, if what you read here offends you, then stop reading, not idiot.
But make no mistake, beloved and respected exaggerated reader, this is not a blog of humor.
Go fuck elsewhere. Nor cease to be a reactionary and useless pessimistic pichurria to everyone. The mammal world will not be a very smiling and shit spic like us.
Understanding The phrase "end of the world" this way: the extinction of humanity.
The reasons why human beings are diverse and may disappear in principle not exclude religious mystical reasons.
Our Western civilization has been obsessed with the idea of \u200b\u200bdoomsday for some time, and with good reason. The Apocalypse crushed the minds of the poor peasants medieval trumpets, New Yorkers mounted fucking dragons, lambs with opposable thumbs, crowds protest tattooed with names and other minor hallucinations. That fear then it has survived as any other religious sympathy ... To make matters worse, the other Western religion (science) has also placed human tranquility in check for generations. The Ptolemaic universe was very quiet, perfect spheres contained in the soil was protected from all but the devil that corroded souls and genitals. Copernicus and his band of bandits then opened the universe, and with it came asteroids murderers, invading Martians, megacolisiones planetary ... Current science added to the old list of antichrists supernovae, black holes and even to mock big bang on a small scale. The daughters of our science (technology and arrogance) have collaborated on with it, atomic bombs, pollution, artificial mutations virus, global warming ... There is no end of the world that has not been considered, and at one point provided by our tree-dwelling apes paranoid nature.
But I would like now to consider the end of the world (the disappearance of our species) as a favor that we do, or that we do. I would consider the end of the world not as an evil, but as an ethical necessity that should be seriously considered as desirable.
however, willing to see the end of the world as something horrible, what are the reasons for this? (Besides the obvious loss of life), that is why we must reject the extinction of the human race, existentially What's good for our species to be considered as a positive thing to be preserved?
an endless number of answers can be supportive of positive things that men have done in the present or the past. But on a scale considering the relative weight of these good deeds, with the troubled gravity of the vile and disgusting things that human beings have done to us, our animal brothers and the whole world The idea of \u200b\u200bconsidering the conservation of the human race as desirable is ridiculous, and even features a distinct and evil demons.
Thus, if a sympathetic response to the human race can be given, that answer must revolve around, not our past or present as a species, but about our future. That is, the only possible arguments are mere hypotheses of things happen.
Still, I consider it necessary to face these extravagances to show their character laughable.
Very broadly two responses were considered positive moral when asked about our future:
The future of humanity is that it has increased awareness, which will allow the universe to know itself .
The future of humanity is the moral perfection of man.
These
answers are as ignorant and poor.
Let's face the first time and show the obvious. What the hell thinks a person who says something like 1?
1a) The future of humanity is in space, colonizing and spreading the life and consciousness throughout the universe.
Wait I understand it, which says the above obviously thinks movies and science fiction series Star Trek, for example. Human beings are going through the cosmos at warp pulse. Black holes traveling asteroid-sized ships. Taking life to galaxies unknown, unknown planets planting beans ...
Please, those are stupid sci-fi of the 70s and 80s, when I still did not consider local damage we do to our own planet. Refute this nonsense is simple. When we get the level of technology necessary to achieve those childhood dreams while ago do not exist, because the damage we do to this planet will end up affecting us. And while the damage is unfortunately not sufficient to extinguish, the big countries and the major economies succumb. Ensure the flow of non-renewable materials on earth (or potentially renewable but at risk, such as water) will be our priority technology. Ensure our food is another. Consider palliative for the damage we have done to Earth's ecosystem will be another. Too bad geeks friends of science fiction, but, can we get to Mars once (and even that I doubt it) out of curiosity perhaps we will, to say we could. But colonize Mars will not be a real human goal ever, we are very busy fixing our trash at home. How are we waiting for to bring awareness to all areas of the universe? That is an ignorant patosidad.
is still possible for someone to say that what is meant by 1 is not what has been discussed, but this one:
1b) The future of humanity lies in the total knowledge in discover the essence of the universe, its origin and future mysteries.
Any person with some training in scientific methodology is well known that the human desire to grasp the truth of the universe is a grim medieval illusion. That science can not. Our scientific theories are more like instruments than truths. It is well known. But here I want to focus more or in another type of rebuttal, an idea that I call, the local effect, which means that it is possible in principle know the truth:
Our galaxy is located at a point in the universe such that our measurements and perceptions are altered by some kind of cosmological proportions Yottaevento (a shock wave of cosmic Teraexplosión a power output of grotesque proportions produced by an unknown entity that affects the entire section of the universe of which we are aware, bla bla bla .) The consequences of this event alter our perceptions and measurements so that all our physical theories cosmological are not only wrong, but we do not have the means to make them correct. The big bang , for example, would a local illusion. If some fool is the intelligent gives an event stating that it would be impossible since the size of the universe would not allow the amount of mass / energy / space to provoke, then reply that what we consider the possible size of our universe is just an illusion Local Effect product. In fact, for all we know the universe could be infinite, and our galaxy could be just a speck of stars floating around the core of a massive galaxy hipergalaxia. For all we know our universe could be a piece of snot that God left stuck in your pillow before you go to have coffee with the devil ... What can we do, no science that reflects more our provincialism and ignorance of physics.
picture captured by the Hubble to 9000 light years from earth (to the universe fun of us)
We still consider the other possible positive feedback on our future: the moral perfection. Response that is obviously the result of religion on the one hand and the humanistic character of our philosophy on the other. What specific ways we can give this idea?
2a) The future of humanity is to be an evolutionary intermediate to the emergence of a new species more adaptive, intelligent and peaceful.
Indeed I believe that our moral capacity is subject to our natural history. Our inclination selfishness and violence is the result of our evolution as are our brains. Thus, this idea what he proposes is that the future evolution of man can overcome all these macules spiritual and free us reason and love. Could be a final link in the natural generation of a new species, something like terrestrial angels to transform the land into the paradise of goodness ... Shameful particular reason.
The key development is the selection. The question is what kind of selection we made in our species over the centuries and what kind of selection we are able to provide us.
I think if there are features of our species that we are responsible for selecting the features violent, selfish and interested. Intelligence is an important feature that we should cultivate genetically, but are precisely the least smartest breed and bequeath to posterity their genes. Could perhaps be said that the healthiest and most beautiful are those most likely to get intimate, but in a society that has life and health as the ultimate values \u200b\u200bof humankind, those born with defects and diseases increasingly more increases through the medicine your chance of living long enough to procreate, and many times more than the healthier ones. If the future of the human species is in evolution, we should consider implementing a mass breeding, vicious, authoritarian. Who would dare to do so in a society dominated by reason and humanism as ours, a society where the problem is more important to kill the cancer and the flu that the problem of overpopulation?
No, my dear readers, evolution does not lead us anywhere, at least not any that we find it enjoyable.
2b) The future of humanity is in the heavenly paradise, where you'll only those with appropriate moral qualities, the other will be lost in nothingness.
I must admit that I have nothing in principle against this idea. Moreover, the possibility of a religious paradise is completely compatible with the physical disappearance of the human race (which is the issue here and that's all I care now.) I do not understand is how the idea of \u200b\u200bmoral perfection may be something like the most important thing in our lives. I do not believe that moral perfection gives us the meaning of existence. on life after of death only let me quote one of my teachers, " The temporal immortality of the human soul, that is, even his eternal survival after death, not only is not guaranteed in any way, but such an assumption we provides in principle thanks to what she has always wanted to achieve. Is it perhaps an enigma resolved by the fact I ever survive? And this eternal life is not as enigmatic as this? . "
The ethical importance of doomsday
El problema es que no hay nada que esperar de nuestra historia: Esa miseria autocomplaciente que sirve de marco a la banalidad humana.
Lo único que podemos esperar de nuestro futuro es una humanidad confinada a su situación local en el universo, moralmente deprimente, evolutivamente degenerada, racionalmente impulsiva, tecnológicamente mediocre y padeciendo una ignorancia atávica radical.
Desde este punto de vista, la desaparición de nuestra especie sólo viene a salvarnos de una auto-humillación inevitable. Que mejor argumento a favor del fin del mundo. Carpe diem, brothers.
