Nietzsche's suggestion that aesthetics should be the supreme value above truth...

Nietzsche's suggestion that aesthetics should be the supreme value above truth, as opposed to truth as the supreme value above aesthetics, is what lead to the catastrophe of modern aesthetics whose quality isn't beholden to truth, there is no such thing as "true beauty" anymore, it's just a matter of who most represents the "spirit of the age" (or the "current year", as it manifests politically).

Nietzsche's idea of truth here is contaminated, and it is the contaminated conception of truth that he rebels against. After truth passed from subject (revelation, truth reveals itself consciously) to object (freethinking, the Enlightenment, truth is an object to denude), materialism rebels against the incoherent, freethinking enterprise, and identifies truth strictly with empiricism: what we see and hear, and ends up raising utility above it (and Nietzsche is actually rebelling against utility as the supreme value more than he is against truth). Nietzsche is working with the materialist conception of truth, and of course realizes that the empirical is altogether a matter of perspective, if what we see and hear is synonymous with truth, then there is no monolithic truth, each person has his own "truth".
cont

Other urls found in this thread:

oodegr.co/english/filosofia/nihilism_root_modern_age.htm
youtube.com/watch?v=Mw8XE3j_c0U
youtube.com/watch?v=u0iOBOIwQ2o
youtube.com/watch?v=AE1FzSC8DBs
youtube.com/watch?v=1mgn2Y1Yvhs
youtube.com/watch?v=Y8r5r4R2yuE
youtube.com/watch?v=aGx4IlppSgU&t=40s
youtube.com/watch?v=W3_FQ_blPYY
youtube.com/results?search_query=joseph cambell growing up
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_(cosmogony)#Chaoskampf
desustorage.org/his/thread/1074468/#1074468
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

But in order to accept this conclusion, one must first accept the entire post-freethinking enterprise, the materialist, realist enterprise. Once truth becomes purely relative, then it ceases to have any significance beyond taste, and if truth is merely a matter of taste, then taste itself is the predicate upon which it dependent, and taste itself is aesthetics, so Nietzsche says truth as a product of taste is of no value compared to the taste itself, merely a servant of taste. And once this is accepted, then the taste which is the most exotic will always be most valued, whatever is the "spirit of the age", the "current year", is what is most fresh, and therefore most exciting, and this impulse assumes control over all art and politics. But of course the dialectic is not complete, to be complete in abandonment of God, the vagaries must be abolished, and destruction becomes the measure of all things, because destruction is the ultimate excitement, the ultimate in freshness, as it is always the ultimate rebellion against every creative act prior to itself.

Anyone interested in reading about this in depth, Father Seraphim Rose wrote a work on it (you can skip the preface, which just explains it's a chapter of an uncompleted book): oodegr.co/english/filosofia/nihilism_root_modern_age.htm

youtube.com/watch?v=Mw8XE3j_c0U

FINIS

>Nietzsche's suggestion that aesthetics should be the supreme value above truth, as opposed to truth as the supreme value above aesthetics
stopped reading there. h e suggested nothing of the kind. gb2countercurrents kiddo

truth isn't important in art. they're just objects

>they're just objects
like women

you're a woman

>Nietzsche's suggestion that aesthetics should be the supreme value above truth
this complaint is pretty ironic given that you're orthodox

>Nietzsche
>having any significant influence on our societies

You're making him a scapegoat.

great another awful thread by our resident autistic christfag and his gay lover father semenphile rose which he has to mention in every single post he makes

Fuck off tranny.

Have you ever even read anything by Nietzche?

He claims to, but I highly doubt it.

Also, truth has always been subjective, Nietzsche just pointed this out. You just want to see truth come out of a single book, based on the subjective opinions of its authors, you bloody cunt.

There's a reason the most famous radical sceptic was devoutly Catholic.

The rest of my post was in reference to OP, not yourself.

Yes, I've read Nietzsche comprehensively.

>Also, truth has always been subjective
Not unless you accept the post/counter Enlightenment conception of truth

The great distinction between Biblical verse and Biblical prose is the prose uses a much more limited vocabulary, since repetition is a key literary device for reflecting recurring themes, which conveys a continuity of action. Biblical verse, however, is more concerned with description than action, and therefore utilizes a greater vocabulary so as to convey detail. Yet both by far the most common style of both Biblical prose and Biblical verse is parataxis, which is optimal for conveying parallels and parables. In fact, Hosea 10:12 overtly names this Biblical style, saying God shows visions to his prophets and speaks through them through “parables”--the word here is a form of the word “likeness”, what God created man in. Indeed, man was created to become like God (most Church Fathers gloss that God is being sarcastic when he says Adam and Eve will become like him for eating from the Tree of Knowledge), but the Fall prevented that; God aims to restore the likeness (Zechariah 12:8). So Biblical aesthetic has blatant spiritual significance. Now that we have a rudimentary understanding of in literature, let’s examine this aesthetic in art and music.
cont

In ancient times, the primary function of art was (according to Aristotle, but obviously not totally) catharsis (similar to blockbusters or tearjerkers today). But with the rise of Christianity, art took on a new purpose that was beyond the synthesis of the binary Dionysian-Apollonian or ever Socratic spoken of by Nietzsche; art became about expressing truth which could *not be expressed by reason*. This was not emotional truth (we will get to that), but a higher true which reason could not order properly. Art eventually became about materialist truth or emotion later on in the West (it started in the Gothic period Giotto's "The Massacre of the Innocents" is a good example). Materialist art. especially in the Renaissance, started to trend toward an extremely fleshy aesthetic in contract to the Christians aesthetic (Byzantine icon of Adam and Eve for illustration).
cont

Now it is not that Christian art did not have emotion in it, but that it was not about Catharsis (this is why Orthodox icons do not depict Christ suffering on the cross, but always already dead, they do not aim for some catharsis). The major difference between Christian literature and Christian pictorial art is that the former conveys constant action, whereas the latter is tries to convey a stillness for holy figures, an absence of action and total calm (sometimes contrasted with the less than holy figures); this utilizes the medium very well, since pictorial art is frozen, whereas text is active.

I think the basic understanding of how this ties with Biblical aesthetic can be shown in Christ's parables, literature within literature. Here we see the full purpose and dynamic of Biblical of aesthetic in the illustration of truth. Touching back on Aristotle's theory on the function of art, I contrast the pagan Aesop's literature to illustrate the same aesthetic as the Christian function of art.

It's not about catharsis, it is about expressing truth in a way reason cannot. This is why art ceased to be naturalist (by "naturalist" I don't meant the movement, but the realistic portrayal of dimension and anatomy) during the Christian period, because naturalism is a kind of rationalism of art (not naturalism couldn't be used, it occasionally was, but here it was an element employed to facilitate a particular truth of a particular piece of art, as opposed to something always employed for the sake of being considered more true in and of itself).
cont

To give you a visceral contrast between these two aesthetics, Here is a Roman Catholic hymn, followed by an Orthodox hymn, follow by a Roman Catholic hymn, follow by an Orthodox hymn. The Roman Catholic hymns embody the modernist aesthetic, whereas the Orthodox hymns embody the Christian aesthetic.

youtube.com/watch?v=u0iOBOIwQ2o

youtube.com/watch?v=AE1FzSC8DBs

youtube.com/watch?v=1mgn2Y1Yvhs

youtube.com/watch?v=Y8r5r4R2yuE

With the onset of modernity, truth ceased to be expressed in this unique, Biblical way (the Bible is also not about catharsis). Instead truth was expressed either rationally or trough catharsis, the return to the Apollonian-Dionysian synthesis. This is why modern variants of Christianity have difficulty reading the Bible, everything in is read as either cathartic or rational truth. This is also why scientism is increasingly marginalizing the humanities where they are not cathartic, since they are seen as inadequate to expression rational truth. We have lost touch with the use of art and philosophy as expression of truth in a way unique to art, that isn't about either rationalism or being an emotion junkie.

Returning to the idea of truth as subject vs truth as object, the portrayal of truth as subject instead of object is in Orthodox art, you can see it in any Orthodox parish. Pic related

Even if we were to take every single one of your outrageous claims about related to Nietzche, how perception, works, etc as you didn't write anything that says anything.

For instance let's assume it is axiomatically true that if people do not beleive in objective truth, everything is based on taste and that taste will somehow lead them to accepting only contrarian things.

Well is there any evidence for this in the real world? Let's take video games. Pretty much anyone who likes them, makes them, reviews them, or is remotly involved in them would say taste in them is subjective. But we don't see the type of conclusion your insane theory would suggest. It's only a very small group of people that are intentionally contrarian with their taste. If I like platformers I'm not going to suddenly stop liking them and to be an edgelord like you are suggesting.

However I think you have shown us one thing is true. Nietzche was right that Christians are resentful losers. Your entire obsession with Nietzsche is based on nothing but resentment. Last night you were resentful towards Marx and wrote up some cringy thread.

Games are very often the embodiment of the POST aesthetic tendency, destructivism, which sees destruction as the highest of all values. Sometimes this is for moral reasons: for instance, the will to nothing is prominent in antinatalism. It is also a reaction of nausea and disgust with the aesthetic as the highest value sometimes: for instance, Dadaism (which was characterized by its own members not as art, but as "intellectual violence", a cry of disgust directed against aesthetics while so many were in suffering in WWI, the reaction against Nietzsche's exhortation to pitiless, remorseless aestheticism). A great deal of the more creative geniuses who obviously aren't Dadaist (such as Picasso) are even so influenced by Destructivism, and seek to mutilate the human form.

Video games are largely beyond aesthetic, and the experience of destruction as the highest value.

I agree. Art is objective. Orthodox art is objectively shit. =D

Do you think this icon of the Libyan Martyrs would be better if it were done in modernist style? Do you think it would convey truth more?

>mai video games are too violent

Constantine you are embarassing yourself. Video games are about violence and destruction because that's what all games are about. Something requires 2 things to a be a game, an opponent, and win condition: these two things mean there will always be some sort of confrontation. If you go back before games were electronic people were being "destructive" in sports, or "violent" in war simulators such as chess.


And as I said your retarded theory that embracing the subjective truth of reality=everyone is a contrarian asshole is disproven the moment you actually look at reality. Go on Patreon and see how many top payed artists are practicing Dada. Go look at the masters of CGI art in Holleywood movies and Video games and see how little they care about shock-art, it's only obscure indie-crap that uses this stuff.

And you know what even if you everything you said were true it wouldn't even matter. Art IS SUBJECTIVE and no amount of reading the bible is going to change that.

Video games requires opposition, of course, because destruction of what is already dead is not any sort of serious destruction. Video games embody the same things youth find "cool" about Tyler Durden and the Joker and V of the Guy Fawkes mask, which is the power to defy all creation and God himself, the will to destruction of life. Life must be present to present some antagonism, whether it be an actual life being destroyed, or the life poured into creative acts and culture.

Comparing chess to mainstream video games is a grossly inaccurate. People who are video game junkies seldom have the patients and effort required to become experts in chess, that requires the opposite sort of impulse. Chess requires an attention span, especially becoming good at it. Destructivism is almost a rebellion against attention span, an annihilation of all things requiring attention or creativity.

*patience

Christianity is objectivily a shitty religion and so art for it naturally sucks. Hindu art is going to always be objectively better because their Gods and mythology are awesome. Likewise the Author Myths and Celtic Legends are objectively better than Christianity. This is why they can produce inspiring music while Christian music usually is either annoying or sleep inducing.

You mentioned art that celebrates Destruction. This is good art, Life comes from Death, Creation from Destruction. That is why the Christian hatred for violence has always made them have a shit religion and shit art. This is why good religions like Hinduism worship death and destruction with things such as Kali.

It is also why violent video games and movies are some the most life-affiming art, and thus good, art ever produced.

All these words and you didn't actually address his main point.

it's only notable because it's a "retro" depiction of modern events

and it's not trash
but come on
>dude it's the eternal truth because I like it

Aesthetics is not a value, so what you wrote doesn't really make sense (of course there are aesthetic values, positive ones like beauty and elegance, and negative ones like ugliness). What I take to be the bottom line of nietzsche's thoughts about value is the following: intellect, calculation, understanding, the will, are all bad things, while the heart, emotions, feelings, intuitions are all good things. We might call the former collection of things 'Mind', while the latter 'Life'. According to Nietzsche, Life is a victim of the Mind: the latter oppresses the former. This phenomenon, which is peculiarly modern for Nietzsche, is bad exactly because Life is more valuable than Mind. Truth is related to the Mind of course, and as a consequence Truth is bad too, is not valuable. On the other hand, beauty and other positive aesthetic values are related to Life so they're good too. Here I would disagree with Nietzsche: we can also say of theorems and theories for instance that they're beautiful, and so in this case beauty would be more related to the Mind than to Life.There's a nice quote by Mae West which expresses in a nutshell Nietzsche's thesis:

It’s not the men in your life that count.
It’s the life in your men.

>I prefer made up bullshit over reality.

>intellect, calculation, understanding, the will, are all bad things
what the fuck

You should be saying that to the christians in this thread too though. Hinduism and Christianity both are made up horseshit.

Well no they don't it's obvious he doesn't play video games. But I'll address it anyway.

youtube.com/watch?v=aGx4IlppSgU&t=40s

HOLY SHIT. Constantine. I love you! You have seriously made me completly rethink all that everything I thought was just "edgy teenagers" and made me realize how importaint it is.

What you said reminds me of Joseph Campbell said about how very early religions view becomign adult. Watch that video for a few minutes.

What you described as an "evil power fantasy where young children are taught they have the power to defy a God" is literally a right of adulthood.

It all makes sense now. You and most Christians hate the idea of someone having the power to shape his own destiny, even against the Gods, because you are children. You live in perpetual fear of God because you never went through the initation and opposed God.

All that "edgy" stuff with kids playing Bayonnette, or listening to edgy Metal bands, or watching violent anime, that has themes of man overcoming a celestial powers. That's our generations adulthood initiation.

No wonder you act like a child, you never learned to confront the spooks you were brought up with, your always afraid of God, and see real adults (those that think they can have power without their celestial parential figure's help) as wrong.

That's also why you are afraid of destruction being celebrated in art!

>Life comes from Death
Right, that is why the Vitalist tendency (Father Seraphim's term for the aesthetic movement, since it identifies the aesthetic with life-affirmation) always entails a destructive side, but that destructive side becomes the all-consuming focus of Vitalism,as with Hitler (I don't say Nietzsche is responsible for Hitler, I only say they were brought up on the same *air* and it fostered both their thinking). Christianity's life from death is resolved in Christ's death: youtube.com/watch?v=W3_FQ_blPYY

But while the Orthodox Church maintained the bigger perspective of life, the RCC and Protestant Christianity often stressed Christ's death over his Resurrection. This can be seen, for example, where the Orthodox Church does not use icons depicting Christ's Suffering (only his serene state of death), Western Christian perspective is embodied by The Passion of Christ, which dwells on his long process of dying (for that is what his torture is), and leaves the Resurrection as but a footnote. The life-death-life cycle is unnatural, and resolved and concluded with Christ.

CGI very much used for Destructivism, it panders to low attention span. Consider in pop art: the first three Indian Jones films, with the fourth, which relies heavily on CGI as opposed to dialogue and plot, it is panders to the video game attention span; all the movies were based on "action" but they were heavily supplemented by dialogue as a plot device, by extended scene of exotic beauty and sights, whereas the fourth Indiana Jones has no sense of creative beauty: the producers themselves have been infected with Destructivism and lost the attention span required for movies without CGI, they look for every excuse and pretense to introduce CGI. The movie no longer introduces the contrast of Jones' creative will in opposition to Destructivist enemies, but changes him into a character who accomplishes nothing by creative will

>aesthetics should be the supreme value above truth

That's a truth statement, not a beautiful one.

This same phenomenon can be also be observed in another pope format: Pirates of the Caribbean, the first, though making significant use of CGI for the skeletons, is very distinct from the spirit of the second and third, which abolish will for a string of destruction.

Have you ever played a video game? You come off sounding as if all of your information was taken from talking heads on CNN rather than actually playing a wide variety of games yourself. I understand you are referring to "mainstream" video games, but even then I'm not sure how something like Peggle or Tetris embodies Destructivism and the defiance of God as you seem to be stating.

Constantine. Do you wanna watch some anime with me and we can deconstruct the ideology in them?

No, Nietzsche rather, follows Ockham (who considered God "will"--an inevitable conclusion of Actus Purus his processors did not see-opposed to Aquinas and Meister Eckhart who conceived him as abstract intellect). When Giovanni Gentile says fascism is "anti-intellectual", he is talking about "intellectualism" as the idea of the intellect as paramount rather than will

Yes, the modern conception of maturity is increasingly the hatred of duty. Whereas before, maturity was seen increasing duty and living up to it, modernity resents duty more than anything else, and sees those who adhere to it not as responsible adults, but as "sheeple"

No,Nietzsche espousing that art is not to be beholden to truth, but rather the reverse, is a purely aesthetic sentiment.

Your understanding of duty is not based on a complex series of mutual obligations, but on divine command.

Anime is depravity, it's popularity a symptom sickness. It contributed considerably to the contemporary trans-sexual crisis.

>The modern conception of maturity is increasingly the hatred of duty
Do you have any facts to back that up? Idk if you're conflating a few hipsters with the majority of modern society but either way this is incorrect.

It's based on obligation and covenant with God.

Our entire political paradigm is a symptom of it. There is a drastic decrease in appeals to civic virtue or duty where law is concerned, it is the very soul of the movement against "victimless crime". Capitalist libertarianism and and Randian "Objectivism" are the clearest expressions of it, which detest duty above all other things.

>It's based on obligation and covenant with God.
The roman watchman at pompeii who burned to death where he stood because he hadn't been relieved was a christian now?

You didn't even watch the video I sent you =/
This thign you are complaining about isn't a modern thing. It literally exists in primitive tribes completly cut-off from civilization.

A person is supposed to grow up in two steps. The first as a child they learn "good" "duty" "obdience" "obey God" "obey parents" "obey society". This stage makes sense because children are fucking dumb and can't take care of themself, they need to taught to be obedient and not rebel for their own good. At this point their brains are not even fully developed so you can't ask them to make any serious descions for themself.

Than children need to grow up. They are expected to actually make serious choices. They are expected to think for themself. To do this they need to destroy "good" "duty" "obedience to society" "obedience to God".

This is why teenagers are rebelious and love stories about gaining power (super heroes, fantasy adventures etc.)

Christianity, as you have been telling us hates this last step. They want eternal children. After several hundred years of this Christian influence society needs a huge dose of myths about Independence, power, and celebrating destruction.

Like I said watch that video i sent you from the 1 minute to the 2 minute mark
youtube.com/results?search_query=joseph cambell growing up

>anime contributed considerably to the contemporary trans-sexual crisis
What? Are you talking about the androgynous art. You do realize that's a direct result of anime art being inspired by Disney movies. Astro boy is basically Pinocchio.

Sounds to me like you just hate everything.

The thing about the Christianity you are pushign is it keeps everyone

No, I thought you were talking about strictly religious duty. I certainly believe in and support duty besides that to God (and that is the duty I say it being attacked), I just think the duty to God is paramount; that is, no other duty has the authority to come between you and your duty to God. But if you are dutiful to God, you will also follow your other duties (Romans 13) insofar as they do not conflict with your duty to God.

Remind me of

>shitting on christian music and art in favour of pajeet drug induced hallucinatory rubbish.

>This thign you are complaining about isn't a modern thing. It literally exists in primitive tribes completly cut-off from civilization.
No it doesn't, there is no sense of duty to masks in these tribes, the masks are purely malicious. When they are overcome, it doesn't mean someone ceases to believe in obligation to spirits or rejects elders. Your simplification of God and family and government as boogeymen, is not tribal, is modernist, Stirnerist. The masks have zero to do with overcoming obligation or covenant.

Christianity is the last stage, not moral nihilism. Christianity, however, does not say the laws of the land are to be destroyed, merely that Christianity always trumps them.

>Orthodox tranny tries to Nietzsche and interprets whatever is easiest for his Orthodox garbage theology to refute, again
>Appeals to /pol/ meme
>Follows some proposition assuming the most exciting aesthetic value is simply to destroy, when Nietzsche specifically talks about cycles of creation and destruction
>"Nietzsche's philosophy leads to the collapse of everything and nihilism!!!!"
Thanks for another brilliant rebuttal to a non-position, I'm sure you made every Nietzsche sperg bite your bait prior to deciding the thread was too flooded with whatever you ramble on about in all those pastebins to even bother. I'm out, and I'll be sure to leave the door shut.

I'll add further that these masks are very clearly a Chaoskampf: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_(cosmogony)#Chaoskampf

So it is precisely the OPPOSITE of what you think it means. It's not wonder that Joker wears facepaint, that V wears a mask, that Tylder Durden wears an entirely different identity and body. Defeating the is not about "becoming" them at all, it is not about becoming the Abyss; just like Christ's death and defeat of death is not about him assuming the mantle of death, but about trampling down death. Pic, the naked main chains is death, Hades, the Devil: Christ confronts death, and overcomes him, trampling down.

...

Could you please respond to

V is an ambiguous character, and relatively heroic (if questionable), not a villain

Just like video games, I'm getting hints you don't know about comic characters either

I like how here you can't even realize you the only way to have Christian laws trump the law of the land is to destroy the law of the land
There will always be a conflict between secular and theological law. For instance gay marriage. The only way to resolve the conflict is for one to destroy the other.

In general Christianity struggles with the concept of destruction. This is why you think the celebration of violence, of rebelion etc. is a bad thing. Just look at it's metaphysics, you say God is a creator and sustainer. The Hindus already said this but they added that God is also a destroyer.

The only way something can be created is for the old thing to be destroyed. This is why all initiations into adulthood have an element of destruction. For you to be an adult the child must be destroyed. Being a child consists of being obedient and dutiful to authority. So when you start to become an adult you become disobedient to all authority. This means yes, even overcoming God. This is the only way you can find yourself, to learn what you, not the authority want and need.

This is why media for young adults is filled with destruction often against authority figures. This is not the denial of all values you were brought up. It instead must be that you value things not because you are told you must but because they are good for your own Will. When I was a kid I liked cops because I was told to obey authority. Now that I'm adult I like them because they do more good for me than harm.

If you deny a young person this initiation into adulthood, they will stay a child forever, unable to make their own choices and always looking for someone to be their surrogate parent.

You are literally responding to copy pasta that is spammed on lit and his constantly, we literally had this same thread a few days ago.

>art became about expressing truth which could *not be expressed by reason
This is true of the sacred art of every traditional religion. Even Greek tragedy arose out of the Dyonisian and Eleusinian mysteries and was not originally meant to be "blockbusters or tearjerkers" lol. Please educate yourself so as to remove this bias. You otherwise seem like an intelligent person.

You are the worst namefag.

V nonetheless represents exactly what Joker and Tylder Durden do. His enemy is religion, government, order, duty, and so on. The values are the same, he blows things up, and his inspiration, his hero, Guy Fawkes, isn't not admired remotely for his long-term aims or ideology, but strictly and totally for his Destructivism. Just because Alan Moore see Destructivism as the "good guy", doesn't change this, V confronts Lady Justice as the embodiment of order and denounces her.

Tetris is hardly representative of video games in general. It's merely a use of technology to make a more sophisticated solitary puzzle game, like pic related. It has nothing to with the impulse of video games as a *tendency* fulfilling a social *desire*, nothing to do with video games stand for or fulfill on a regular basis anymore than books of wordfinds can be compared with general literature.

>I like how here you can't even realize you the only way to have Christian laws trump the law of the land is to destroy the law of the land
That's ridiculous. Society is a set of concentric circles of rules. Parents, for instance, have rules which apply to their children, but that doesn't mean that if the law says they can't pimp out their kids, then parents have no rule over them.

>There will always be a conflict between secular and theological law.
You're conflating "liberal law" with "secular law". Most secular law, such as not stealing, doesn't directly conflict with theological law at all, and most duties which have nothing to do with theological law, such as paying taxes, hardly conflict theological law either, in fact theological law supports following all such duties unless there is a direct conflict, as with being told to deny God. Have you read Romans 13?

>So when you start to become an adult you become disobedient to all authority.
Being an adult means taking on responsibility, not rejecting responsibility. Your conception of a adulthood is literally what a child's conception of adulthood is, "I can't wait to be a grown up, they can do whatever they want."

I posted it on Veeky Forums once, I didn't spam it constantly

>Being an adult means taking on responsibility, not rejecting responsibility.

He said rejecting authority, not responsibility.

In order to accept responsibility you must accept accountability

Again, he's talking about authority, not responsibility, not accountability, but I'll humor you anyway.

The rejection of authority is paramount to obtaining responsibility. Under the authority of their parents, a child isn't responsible for much and is held accountable for almost nothing other than whatever tasks his parents may give him. If a child goes unbathed and unfed, he isn't held accountable for his state of being, the authority figures above him are (his parents). For someone to have responsibility and take accountability for their life, they have to grow to reject authority and take their life into their own hands. Just because a child grows to reject the authority of their parents, doesn't mean they reject the responsibilities to themselves, and perhaps others, that they've relieved their parents of being accountable for.

A child beleives he is accountable and responsible to an authority figure, not to himself. It may be the state, his parents, God, or even an abstract ideology. This is good when you are a child because you are not in control of your life, you are dependent.

An adult feels account to his himself and his own values. He knows others may dislike what he has created for himself and is aware there are consequences for pissing them off. This is good when you are in control of your life and the one that ultimately needs to decide the direction of society. Society is always changing and new values need to constantly be created to adopt to it. Sometimes the old institutions even become corrupt and must be destroyed. A child cannot do either of these things, they can only obey, only an adult can destroy and create values.

In order to transition from a child to an adult you must destroy your old way of thinking. Myths, art, and other media that manipulates the subconscious help with this. Young adults need stories about brave men/women that are willing to confront an authority. It's why teenagers are biologically programmed to be rebellious.

Let's say that I have a child. I'll try to teach him all my values and everything I think is true or useful. But if my child never learns to question my values, to destroy them, than I have failed. I may have taught him something wrong, or it may be what I taught is no longer relevant to the world he grows up in. If he has not learned to destroy old values, and create his own values in place. He will always look to a surrogate parent, if I leave his life he might decide the state, a political movement, or a fucking cult is his parent.

A child stops needing authority when he will do what authority forces to do without authority forcing him to do it. Not being transcending these things.

Being an adult has nothing to do with considering yourself the sole authority unto yourself. Society can't function without hiearhy. There ARE people who are FAR wiser, FAR smarter, FAR more experienced than you are, and they are your authorities for the things that are more complex. You no longer need authority for simple things like brushing your teeth, because you have learned to do that without being forced; but if you take drugs or steal, then you need to be forced to not do these things; if you don't do them, then you don't need to be forced not to, obviously. But if you are not brushing your teeth, or cleaning your room, or any of that after leaving your parents, you are not really an adult, because being an adult is about obeying the values.

I like how you conveniently ignored the his part of it. But hey if spamming and being dishonest leads people to Orthodoxy then its wholly justified right

There are people smarter than me. But they are not going to hold my hand and tell me what do to do. They are far too busy actually living their life.

Some of these smart people write books and I read them. But they are not going to be there with me and tell me how to apply what I read or even what the correct interpretation is!

Nor will these smart people line them-self in nice columns separating the geniuses from the charlatans so I know which books to read at all!

So yes, even when learning from people better than you, I am the sole authority.

>because being an adult is about obeying the values
Think about this. Who made these values you obey? It's the adults. You cannot have a society with a bunch of children running around looking for some authority to tell them what to obey. The only reason children such as yourself even have values to obey is because an adult made, interpreted, or promoted these values.

The Veeky Forums thread from May 02 was hardly fleshed out and there was literally no response to it or discussion

desustorage.org/his/thread/1074468/#1074468

>being an adult is about obeying the values.

Values should only be obeyed as long as they're still relevant to the society that validates them. Of course there are values like not murdering, raping, and stealing that transcend societies, but perhaps that's because those are values that are key to maintaining ANY society. There are other values that, overtime, become obsolete. The authorities of an established society may not want to do away with these now obsolete values because they benefit the authority more than the society they maintain authority over, or the society simply doesn't see these values as important anymore. It's at this point that the adults who reject the values enforced by the authorities must be able to rebel against them so that they may advance their society in a way they see fit. The main distinction between a child and an adult is that a child believes that authority figures create societies, when in fact it is a society that allows certain figures the privilege of authority to maintain the values agreed upon by said society.

>The only reason children such as yourself even have values to obey is because an adult made, interpreted, or promoted these values.
Over countless generations of trial and error and perfecting them to understand what works and what's harmful. Have you ever read Burke?

OH look! an appeal to tradition! Not that tradition does not hold anything of value, but neither is it worth following blindly

Evolution of tradition is sensible. Revolution is not.

>Over countless generations of trial and error and perfecting them to understand what works and what's harmful.

So you're making the assumption that we have already reached a perfect society and no longer have the need to continue re-evaluating our values (is that a redundant statement, "re-evaluating our values?")? We have already reached the pinnacle of human thought and have no need to ever amend or replace any values that currently exist? If that's not what you're saying then how else would we continue to advance our societies, if not for adults who can reject the current model and rebel against authority?

Vested interests rarely if ever give up the benefits of rent seeking voluntarily.

Back in ye greek times, art was judged not on the basis of aesthetics, though surely those mattered, but primarily on the basis of moral content. This still happens today. For example, Malala's Eurovision song was not the best aesthetically, but it contained a moral element that was pleasing to viewers and judges alike.

>modern aesthetics whose quality isn't beholden to truth, there is no such thing as "true beauty" anymore, it's j

You give them too much credit. In reality, you can reduce most examples of the defeat of aesthetic to once again, reasons of morality. Black culture, gay culture, are not held up as standards to demean the existence of standards, but because of a direct ethical statement made by the act of supporting them.

The occasional leap of progress in going to be made in any "evolutionary" scheme.

Its those apparent leaps taken since the dawn of the modern era that you reject, despite the fact social problem are NOT worse than they have ever been, and in terms of education, standard of living, we are in fact better off.

This guy's writing

>Society is always changing and new values need to constantly be created to adopt to it. Sometimes the old institutions even become corrupt and must be destroyed. A child cannot do either of these things, they can only obey, only an adult can destroy and create values.


There is no single value system which can sustain a society forever. The world is always changing and you need to adopt with it. It used to be that women were best pumping out babies and doing housework. Now we invented so many gadgets that housework is no longer a full-time job, and the mortality rate isn't so bad we need 4 children per family just to keep it stable. With all this free time women are now getting jobs, something unheard of in the past. I could also say similar things about how feudalism is no longer a good system of government.

In order to make these changes to society we need people that are willing to reject authority, people that can create an destroy values.

>vested interests
Way to simplify tradition with Marxist poppycock

Homer was lambasted by Heraclitus and Plato for his moral content, he was still considered the pinnacle of literature

>was

He is still considered the pinnacle of literature.

The benefits you're talking about due to advancement in technology more than anything else

Ah, yes, appeal to the "spirit of the age" and the "current year". The greatest values are whichever those which are "in", and they are inherently superior to all older values.

How is tradition separates from the values of the age? and if they are not, how far do you go back?

Your position is nonsensical because there is no fine line where tradition begins and mores end

I cannot disagree there. The main reason some of the ancients didn't like him is due to his portrayal of the gods

Tradition is precisely what is consistent through time as opposed to subject to the vagaries of time.

>Tetris is hardly representative of video games in general
Once again you demonstrate a complete lack of knowledge about what you are talking about. You make unfounded claims about how the majority of video games are turning people against God, and then when given evidence to the contrary you simply move the goalposts. You seem to assume that all video games must involve a competition of some sort against some thing, and anything that doesn't fit that definition is just a "continuation of solitary puzzle games." Once again you demonstrate a complete lack of knowledge about what you're attacking.

I didn't say video games are turning people from God, video game in the mainstream the product of a dialectic stage that comes far later than the stage of turning against the God (the Enlightenment). Video games furthermore are not a cause, they are a symptom.

Now you're just being an ass on purpose. There's a difference between fads like spikey hair and ripped jeans, and the gradual (and sometimes sudden) evolution of societal values as humanity advances. The "spirit of the age" and the "current year" carry different levels of importance across subject matters.

And this guy makes a good point about technological advancement being an important factor in the need for change in societal values.

No dummy. You are the one who beleives in that moralities are superior or inferior based on absolutes.

Right here
Apparently history has been marching towards some progress, fuck Karl Marx really is your religion's successor.

I'm telling you the world changes and you need to change with it. Go back and read the two examples I gave you. You're habit of just ignoring points that refute you are really annoying.

You also ignored this guy's post which shows your own insane idea about the progress of tradition contradicts itself.

Maybe your parents should have bought you some castlevania games as a kid or some nice RPGs so you can role-play being a valiant paladin.

Fuck man, one of the best platformers of all time literally has you killing Satan.

But one must remember they were going against the grain. Homer informed all of classical hellenic culture. The mass popular consciousness embraced these notions. Never mind some dirty old men who drunk on orphic mysticism began to demand more from their gods than the gods deigned to give. This was of course impiety.

Except there is not a difference anymore, after the air Nietzsche breathed took over. Politics and values are governed by what's "in" and what"s "out of fashion."

>Karl Marx really is your religion's successor.
No he isn't, he sees all problems as a matter optimum distribution of material goods. That's the exact opposite of Christianity. Christianity says the corrupt and wealthy Publican is better than the poor and oppressed Pharisee: Luke 18: 9-14.

>You also ignored this guy's post
I don't assume society needs improvement, but radically overthrowing values en masse willy-nilly to just make up your own, is not gradual improvement. But improving society means an increase in selflessness and humility, whereas we're moving in the direction of the self as paramount and a sense of entitlement, and this move is done in radical changes without any examination of their implications.

In that case you should reject Christianity, it was at its time a radical break with both Jewish and Classical tradition, and is still contrary to the traditions of many parts of the world

>No he isn't, he sees all problems as a matter optimum distribution of material goods

He sees all problems as being tied to how goods are produced with things like distribution flowing from that

M8 you're making some broad generalizations about the general views of Christianity on material wealth. Your specific passage is not directly related to wealth, unless you are using a vastly different translation from mine. Jesus tells his followers to sell their goods and I believe many Communists would support his acts of charity for the populace and his sayings on wealth, such as
Luke 16:19-31

>In that case you should reject Christianity, it was at its time a radical break with both Jewish and Classical tradition, and is still contrary to the traditions of many parts of the world

Christians dont see anything radical about Christ as he was only maintaining the true faith with the jews being the ones who radically diverged.

I already explained to you in length how Egoism, is the only way to produce an adult, and these people are nessiary to govern society. Here you are asserting the opposite with no real reason given. It's literally just 'mai feelz'.

You also are still ignoring the central point of this guy's post
>If (we havn't reached the end of evolution) you're saying then how else would we continue to advance our societies, if not for adults who can reject the current model and rebel against authority?

You can't fucking change a system (or as you call it "advance it") without destroying an old part of the new system and creating new values to fill the gap. In order to do this you must have people who say no to the authority.


and the two points I made here

>The world is always changing and you need to adopt with it. It used to be that women were best pumping out babies and doing housework. Now we invented so many gadgets that housework is no longer a full-time job, and the mortality rate isn't so bad we need 4 children per family just to keep it stable. With all this free time women are now getting jobs, something unheard of in the past. I could also say similar things about how feudalism is no longer a good system of government.

The material conditions, the current technology, and the political climate are all things you adopt to. Values do not exist in vaccums they are responding to the real world. The real world is in flux. Therefor values are always in flux.


Please respond to the damn points and stop dodging questions.