Every wise philosopher, every sage, every mystic and metaphysician recommends sexual purity, nofap, noporn, no lust

>every wise philosopher, every sage, every mystic and metaphysician recommends sexual purity, nofap, noporn, no lust
>at best sex belongs within marriage: face to face, always raw, for the purpose of procreation

any exceptions to this rule? no hindu/buddhist tantra shit, that's heteredox nonsense.

Other urls found in this thread:

amazon.com/Hidden-Intercourse-Sexuality-History-Esotericism/dp/0823233413
amazon.com/Alchemical-Body-Siddha-Traditions-Medieval/dp/0226894991
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Idk man, I like dirty sex, and I don't think there's anything wrong with that

it's because sex almost always involves degrading to simple base desire, making us no different from animals. If we were to speculate on an exception to sex being fundamentally barbarous perhaps only when it's truly affectionate and not just lust?

Cause it's hard to resist. And the strongest proof, to yourself, that you are in control.

>Wise
Superstitious bullshit. Wisdom is for pseuds.

>truly affectionate and not just lust?
it can't just be affectionate, because that's just sentimental/emotional which is actually romanticized lust.
To be good it has to conform to God's laws, approach the objective "Good" somehow.

Even Brian Wilson practiced NoOrgasm.

Interesting. I like your views on emotions user, but since we're only humans surely we can never truly reach an objective good and therefore simple intent is enough, even if it doesn't conform exactly to a divine law?

>
wisdom is what allows one to distinguish true from false, reality from delusion, right from wrong; without wisdom 'pseud' has no meaning.

>simple intent is enough
Nobody, not even material secularists should believe this.

>mystic
What about sex magick

>, but since we're only humans surely we can never truly reach an objective good a
this statement behaves as if its found an objective ground, objective truth, albeit an objective "limitation" of human nature. In fact it eats itself via its own internal contradiction.
For if its true then its own value becomes uncertain, it commits the error of "relativism". see:

"Relativism reduces every element of absoluteness to relativity while making a completely illogical exception in favor of this reduction itself. Fundamentally it consists in propounding the claim that there is no truth as if this were truth or in declaring it to be absolutely true that there is nothing but the relatively true; one might just as well say that there is no language or write that there is no writing"-- Schuon.

new age shit, made up by dumb women and hippies in the 70s
of course it happened in history too, but the movements die out fast because they are unstable and degenerate

>sex magick
I would think Invented traditions would come under the heteredox nonsense category.

Good response user. I need to get better at philosophising

That statement isn't relativistic you fucking pseud

no problem, I recommend starting with the greeks, specifically Plato, then moving on to the NeoPlatonists and then the Early and Medieval Church Fathers.

> Every time desire is betrayed, cursed, uprooted from its field of immanence, a priest is behind it. The priest cast the triple curse on desire: the negative law, the extrinsic rule, and the transcendent ideal. Facing north, the priest said, Desire is lack (how could it not lack what it desires?). The priest carried out the first sacrifice, named castration, and all the men and women of the north lined up behind him, crying in cadence, "Lack, lack, it's the common law." Then, facing south, the priest linked desire to pleasure. For there are hedonistic, even orgiastic, priests. Desire will be assuaged by pleasure; and not only will the pleasure obtained silence desire for a moment but the process of obtaining it is already a way of interrupting it, of instantly discharging it and unburdening oneself of it. Pleasure as discharge: the priest carries out the second sacrifice, named masturbation. ^ Then, facing east, he exclaimed: Jouissance is impossible, but impossible t jouissance is inscribed in desire. For that, in its very impossibility, is the Ideal, the ^manque-a--jouir that is life."10 The priest carried out the third sacrifice, phantasy or the thousand and one nights, the one hundred twenty ^ days, while the men of the East chanted: Yes, we will be your phantasy, your ideal and impossibility, yours and also our own. The priest did not turn to the west. He knew that in the west lay a plane of consistency, but he thought that the way was blocked by the columns of Hercules, that it led nowhere and was uninhabited by people. But that is where desire was lurking, west was the shortest route east, as well as to the other directions, rediscovered or deterritorialized.

> The most recent figure of the priest is the psychoanalyst, with his or her three principles: Pleasure, Death, and Reality. Doubtless, psychoanalysis demonstrated that desire is not subordinated to procreation, or even to genitality. That was its modernism. But it retained the essentials; it even found new ways of inscribing in desire the negative law of lack, the external rule of pleasure, and the transcendent ideal of phantasy. Take the interpretation of masochism: when the ridiculous death instinct is not invoked, it is claimed that the masochist, like everybody else, is after pleasure but can only get it through pain and phantasied humiliations whose function is to allay or ward off deep anxiety. This is inaccurate; the masochisfs suffering is the price he must pay, not to achieve pleasure, but to untie the pseudobond between desire and pleasure as an extrinsic measure. Pleasure is in no way something that can be attained only by a detour through suffering; it is something that must be delayed as long as possible because it interrupts the continuous process of positive desire. There is, in fact, a joy that is immanent to desire as though desire were filled by itself and its contemplations, a joy that implies no lack or impossibility and is not measured by pleasure since it is what distributes intensities of pleasure and prevents them from being suffused by anxiety, shame, and guilt. In short, the masochist uses suffering as a way of constituting a body without organs and bringing forth a plane of consistency of desire. That there are other ways, other procedures than masochism, and certainly better ones, is beside the point; it is enough that some find this procedure suitable for them.

Similarly, or actually in a different way, it would be an error to interpret courtly love in terms of a law of lack or an ideal of transcendence. The renunciation of external pleasure, or its delay, its infinite regress, testifies on the contrary to an achieved state in which desire no longer lacks anything but fills itself and constructs its own field of immanence. Pleasure is an affection of a person or a subject; it is the only way for persons to "find themselves" in the process of desire that exceeds them; pleasures, even the most artificial, are reterritorializations. But the question is precisely whether it is necessary to find oneself. Courtly love does not love the self, any more than it loves the whole universe in a celestial or religious way. It is a question of making a body without organs upon which intensities pass, self and other—not in the name of a higher level of generality or a broader extension, but by virtue of singularities that can no longer be said to be personal, and intensities that can no longer be said to be extensive. The field of immanence is not internal to the self, but neither does it come from an external self or a nonself. Rather, it is like the absolute Outside that knows no Selves because interior and exterior are equally a part of the immanence in which they have fused. "Joy" in courtly love, the exchange of hearts, the test or "assay": everything is allowed, as long as it is not external to desire or transcendent to its plane, or else internal to persons. The slightest caress may be as strong as an orgasm; orgasm is a mere fact, a rather deplorable one, in relation to desire in pursuit of its principle. Everything is allowed: all that counts is for pleasure to be the flow of desire itself. Immanence, instead of a measure that interrupts it or delivers it to the three phantoms, namely, internal lack, higher transcendence, and apparent exteriority.13 If pleasure is not the norm of desire, it is not by virtue of a lack that is impossible to but on the; contrary, by virtue of its positivty, in other words, the plane of consistency it draws in the course of its process.

d-did somebody say sex

Only if you are 100% certain there is no objective truth.
I can say I'm *pretty* sure there is no objective truth or I have no good reason to believe in objective truth, I'm 99.9% certain maybe, without contradicting myself.

That's the Platonist approach to desire, negative, privative, viewing desire as a "lack" and thus a flaw.

There's a smaller current of thought in Western philosophy viewing desire as affermative, which goes: Aristotle -> Spinoza -> Nietzsche -> Bataille -> Deleuze -> Dumoulié

I'd tell you to read the latter's book on Desire, which is the best one on the topic, but it wasn't translated to English lol.

He looks like what you get if a Bond villain fucks a Taoist monk.

> mfw desire hits in

>a bunch of fucking nerds praise never getting your dick wet

wow who wudda thunk

nice

Deep insights Mr. Hedonism

>I'm not a fucking HEDONIST mom!
>Browses a timewaster anime imageboard

people who are not good at phenomenology rely on their imagination so they are not qualified to talk about desire : all they can talk about is, as usual, desire and society.

Dont listen to these lies.
Promiscuity and lust should be considered virtues.
Fuck like a rabbit, the old ones never got enought pussy to truly understand the value of unlimited fuckery
Now go and make some bastards out there

>I'm nothing like those FUCKING NERDS mom!
>Browses a literature board

>You need to be a selfcastrating neet in order to read books
lol

>you go into full denial mode when you are faced with even the most innocuous of hypocrisies too
insecure as fuck desu

No hypocrisy friend, art is the highest pleasure. Are you sure you aren't projecting?

>Are you sure you aren't projecting?
no i know i'm a nerd. meanwhile you get into fights about how totally not a nerd you are on literature boards. you might be the most insecure person on this board right now and this is coming from a trashman. why do you larp this hard?

I'm killing time while I wait for my train to arrive. Keep projecting.

you are so blase and unfazed by it all. very cool.

eheh, I know ;)

...

Blasé and unphased.

wow really i had no idea.

thank you, pseud.

So should I jerk it or not you fucking nerds I need an answer quick

if dubs on this post yes.

trips and it's twice with no break.

don't jerk just read your bible and let someone else fuck every woman you find attractive

Wan't Aquinas a huge lecher or maybe that was Anselm?

anyways if you want to be living the stoic life you gotta think about things
more than that
you gotta think about things more than you think about pussy
even further
you have to think about things like they were pussy

but you have to come to grips that you are never going to get any.
thats the hard part.

Nice try.

That's knowledge. Wisdom is usually some brain teaser for an idiot, something 'profound'. It's a quality given to owls, one of the dumbest birds.

t. try hard pedant

Thomas Jefferson was impregnating slaves while giving his treaties on liberty

Anyone else notice how much better music sounds even after a few days of abstinence?

> he doesn't start with the pre-Socratics

>when theres a metaphysical section at your bookstore but no philosophy section

Elaborate please. How does phenomenology approach desire and which authors or books are relevant?

Are you thinking of Augustine?

probably

Jefferson was a unitarian, deist, cuck and not my president.

This is a common response to sex saying that it’s animalisitic, but most animals do not have sex for pleasure like humans, if anything it’s a trait that truly belongs to us

This is from Deleuze and Guattari, correct?

Yep. There's no better shitposting material.

this

also OP not everyone is destined for greatness.

*cough* De Sade *cough*

>but you have to come to grips that you are never going to get any.
>implying Plato never got any

>any exceptions to this rule? don't post exceptions to this rule though

>every wise philosopher, every sage, every mystic and metaphysician recommends sexual purity, nofap, noporn, no lust
I find this very unlikely.

Not so much abstaining, but realizing it is worthless.

>but most animals do not have sex for pleasure like humans, if anything it’s a trait that truly belongs to us

you are fucking retarded and should do a bit of research before spouting shit from your mouth just to sound like a pseudo intellectual hipster.

...

Aleister Crowley and Gurdjieff suggest it too?

>grants one of the most unique experiences you can ever have
>worthless

Maybe the life denying philosophers

Name a few that aren't from before the 1700s

>he has never locked eyes with the woman he loved as she wrapped her legs around him, grabbed the back of his head and pulled it down to hers, and whimpered for him to cum in her
>he has never had that brief moment of profoundly naked intimacy following a mutual orgasm
>he has never drifted off to sleep after speechlessly gazing into his loved ones eyes for what seems like an eternity, completely content with everything
>he shitposts on Veeky Forums about how things are worthless instead

...

>>every wise philosopher, every sage, every mystic and metaphysician recommends sexual purity, nofap, noporn, no lust
[citations needed]

This. Fuck you, OP.

Have you ever looked into a beautiful woman's eyes and seen nothing?

>he has never
>he will never

I never think about pussy. Am I enlightened?

I have done all those things

Only a brainlet would think that experiencing flashes of beauty and pleasure throughout your life will somehow save you from misery

Add to that confederate sympathizer and your straight

Nope.

Why do you think Brave New World citizens get all the drugs, sex and games they want? It keeps them docile.

just a fag desu

why are anime girls getting cute all the sudden is this the power of Veeky Forums??

>Completely missing the point of BNW

Nietzsche?
>inb4 wise philosopher

>Taking Nietzsche seriously

they all lived in era much different to ours namel they had no internet.
we now have access to instant gratification.
also im fairly certain the greeks were promiscuous as fuck

Please explain the point.

BNW was utopia, actualized.
The only people who did not understand this were
a. Outsiders
b. People created in Error
If people would just stay high and ball, everything would be perfect.
Reptilian sedation is all that humans truly seek, and a government that in abundance is truly the best.
Freedom is the path to misery.

amazon.com/Hidden-Intercourse-Sexuality-History-Esotericism/dp/0823233413

Indeed, what is so striking about so many of the figures treated in these essays is their conviction that in the depths of human sexuality lies hidden the secret of religion, occultism, magical power, spirituality, transcendence, life, God, Being itself. This astonishing connection, such figures would insist, is not metaphorical, or rhetorical, or symbolic, as some would prefer to have it. It is fundamental, cosmic, ontological, religious. We are not dealing here, then, with a
politics or sociology or anthropology of sex. We are dealing with a metaphysics of sex, itself intimately entwined with the destiny of the
soul. The historian of Western esotericism, of course, must remain agnostic about such final matters, but the historical data are quite
clear about what our sources thought and wrote.

>no hindu/buddhist tantra shit, that's heteredox nonsense

amazon.com/Alchemical-Body-Siddha-Traditions-Medieval/dp/0226894991

Gordon White shows how tantra owns its philosophy and practices to upanishad and samkhya philosophy, "folk" practices as the ayurveda, and the original priestly fire sacrifice.
Despite the sexual element, tantra is as orthodox to the religious life of India as it gets.

That's why angle I suspected you were going with.

I actually agree. Praise Ford.

>made by women in the 70s
Who is Aleister Crowley?

Praise Ford.

>but most animals do not have sex for pleasure like humans

>not being an Epicurean
Just enjoy life, nigga

A fucking fraud

brainlet

>austerity, bread and water, old rags and a bunch of plebs in a suburban commune
>only activity is talking about Epicurean dogma
>can't even fuck eachother

The only reason Hindus affirm sexuality is because reincarnation makes finality and irrelevant consideration.

To be a human requires suffering. BNW is a utopia, but it shows that it wouldn't be something we'd want. I tend to agree with Leon "The Madman" Bloy, that civilisations lose their humanity when they lose to ability to destroy themselves.

Hollywood rape, tinder adultery, no-fault divorce, and crazy incel murder sprees. And somehow we think we're too sexually enlightened for the thousands of years of traditional wisdom that advised people to sublimate their sexualities.

Our society has the sexual maturity of a lusty teen, and somehow we've convinced ourselves that that regression is progress.