True Religion

...So... Buddhism?

That's Deism I think, except I think deists actually believe in a personal God.

Buddhists deny the existence of any "God".
Maybe Advaita Vedanta?
But then you need to get a Pajeet Guru which probably makes you suck his cock...

Moralist instincts must have their basis in something. Read Mere Christianity.

Well, there are many flavors... But those that share what you are alluding to all still share the concept of "The One". Namely that, effectively, everything is god, and the separation between things is an illusion brought about by ego.

The problem with Spinozism is that there's absolutely no reason to take any of his postulates as valid. His entire system as propounded in the Ethics rests on the assumption that others will assume that he was right. He literally just says that what he's doing is an instance of perfectly executed logic revealing absolute truth and people (in my experience, quite honestly, mostly Jews, goyim don't really enjoy having this level of autism in their relationship with the Absolute) just keep saying he's not only worth reading as a philosopher but also worth accepting as a prophet.
Hegelianism is the only philosophical take on religion that's worth adopting, other than Catholicism, Platonism and Neoplatonism. Spnoza is for Jews and NEETs who aren't interested in developing compassion. The man spent all his time making glass, doing science, and arguing about his vision of the divine with anyone who would talk to him about it. He may have had some understanding of politics and he may have been a decent logician/geometer (btw I've never even seen someone try to translate the Ethics' postulates into symbolic logic as it's used today, which if it can't be done is as crippling for Spinoza as Wittgenstein was for the logpos movement), but as a 'religion,' Spinozism is on par with New Age nonsense.

>Spinozism is on par with New Age nonsense.

Yet he was still one of the most important philosophers to ever live, responsible in part for starting the enlightenment. I love Veeky Forums's tendency to flippantly dismiss thinkers.

I read it and it didn't convince me.

>Yet he was still one of the most important philosophers to ever live
[citation needed]
> responsible in part for starting the enlightenment.
>in part
Very important words.
>I love Veeky Forums's tendency to flippantly dismiss thinkers
I'm not dismissing him, I've even granted that he's worth reading as a philosopher. I'm not granting that he adequately articulated Truth with a capital T to such an extent that his philosophy ought to replace religion in the modern world.

>[citation needed]

Any text on the history of philosophy.

>Very important words.

He provided the ideological impetus, the rest of it was material conditions.

>I'm not dismissing him, I've even granted that he's worth reading as a philosopher. I'm not granting that he adequately articulated Truth with a capital T to such an extent that his philosophy ought to replace religion in the modern world.

And your counterpoints are Mr. "I was destroyed by Stirner" and Mr. "I and my sycophant follower were obliterated by Nietzsche" in conventional philosophy. Though to be fair to Hegel, he lived on a bit longer through Marxism.

There is a religion like it is personal perspective of spirituality. Basically, it sounds like you cultivated your understanding so far to these conclusions, using different ideas from other religions and philosophies. Not all may agree but different can help us collaborate on different ideas than strong argument.

The only difference is in worship, and everything is work, even a baptism and a prayer, and we are like God because we are made in His image, and the human consciousness is always expanding much just like the universe and just like God. The Personality of God is revealed though there is the duality of those who believe God impersonal

>Any text on the history of philosophy.
How about you name one, maybe cuntpaste a passage? This isn't hard, the rules even state that you should use sources.
>He provided the ideological impetus, the rest of it was material conditions.
This would be another wonderful place for you to provide a source.
>Mr. "I was destroyed by Stirner"
>Mr. "I and my sycophant follower were obliterated by Nietzsche"
Another wonderful place for you to provide a source. The entire concept of master and slave morality was a blatant lift from Hegel, it's really hard for me to understand how you think Nietzsche overcame the dialectic of lord and bondsman when he literally talks about how the perception of morality derives from the social and psychological status of the propagators of morality.
Here's what really gets me about your claims. I took issue with the logical form of Spinoza's arguments, you say "Stirner said Hegel was wrong, therefore Hegel was wrong." That's not how this works. Can you demonstrate to me that Spinoza's arguments are not only valid but also sound? If not, please don't waste any more of my time.
>Though to be fair to Hegel, he lived on a bit longer through Marxism.
Now, this is just obscene. Hegelian thought has hardly been confined to Marxist discourse, which is devoted almost entirely to tearing down Hegel as a propagator of bourgeois ideology whenever he comes up.

>How about you name one, maybe cuntpaste a passage? This isn't hard, the rules even state that you should use sources.

They're not rules, sources are encouraged. But I come here for casual discourse. Go look for yourself. Spinoza was an important philosopher, up there with Descartes and yes, Hegel.

Stirner didn't just say Hegel was wrong, he basically utterly demolished the idealistic tradition of Hegelianism, leaving on Marx's materialistic interpretation. This isn't the same as obliterating all of his ideas.

Nietzsche was more or less the death-blow to Platonism in philosophy, and responsible for shaping what philosophy would look like in the west during the 20th century.

>If not, please don't waste any more of my time.

You waste your own time. It's not as though I at any point twisted your arm to read my posts or respond to them.

>Now, this is just obscene.

Hardly, Marxist discourse is the only place where you'll see a large amount of Hegel's ideas crop up, even though they obsessive tear down his idealism.

>They're not rules, sources are encouraged. But I come here for casual discourse. Go look for yourself.
This isn't casual discourse, this is about the essence of philosophy and the ultimate nature of Being. I'm not going to read much of your post or pick up my copy of Russels' History of Western Philosophy, or consult the marxists.org copy of Hegel's History of Philosophy. If you can't bother to provide a source, your claims are irrelevant, especially when you end with
>Hardly, Marxist discourse is the only place where you'll see a large amount of Hegel's ideas crop up, even though they obsessive tear down his idealism.
Who is Francis Fukuyama? Who was Josiah Royce? Who was Heidegger?
>Fukuyama disavowed his End of History theory
Not before it was embraced by neoconservative intellectuals as a form of American exceptionalism justifying global hegemony by the last superpower standing after the fall of the USSR.
>Josiah Royce isn't contemporary!
No, but if you want to dismiss American Hegelianism I want a source that justifies this dismissal.
>Heidegger wasn't a Hegelian!
And yet his commentary on the Phenomenology of Spirit implies that Hegel does crop up in Heidegger, and that Heidegger did not dismiss Hegel out of hand, as you claim everyone since Nietzsche and Stirner has done and been obliged to do.

Can't make money off of that

>This isn't casual discourse,

Veeky Forums is some serious business, friend.

>this is about the essence of philosophy and the ultimate nature of Being.

Which are neither serious, nor formal matters, and anyone that treats them as such is an idiot.

Also you should have read the rest of my post. I said obliterating the intellectual tradition of Hegelianism is not the same as eradicating all of his ideas.

That said, a small selection of thinkers doesn't change the fact Stirner's writing was pretty much a death blow, the corpse just sputtered for a bit.

>Veeky Forums
Keep using that as an excuse.
>Which are neither serious, nor formal matters, and anyone that treats them as such is an idiot.
So if your government were to tell you "2+2=5, anyone who disagrees ought to be shot," you wouldn't take seriously the possibility that someone ought to figure out if 2+2=4?
>That said, a small selection of thinkers doesn't change the fact Stirner's writing was pretty much a death blow, the corpse just sputtered for a bit.
Are you still saying that Spinozism can be considered to be religion-worthy? Or have you just dropped that premise because it's incompatible with involuntary egoism?
Aside from which, Stirner stated his case on even less than you're stating yours. He literally admits that he can be dismissed out of hand if you feel like dismissing him out of hand.

>Keep using that as an excuse.

Keep justifying acting like a sperg on a website known primarily for trolling, porn, and pedos. But hey, you keep acting like we're doing something serious here. It's only you making yourself unhappy.

>So if your government were to tell you "2+2=5, anyone who disagrees ought to be shot," you wouldn't take seriously the possibility that someone ought to figure out if 2+2=4?

That's not what's going on here, now is it? That would be a matter of politics, not casual discussion of philosophy.

>Are you still saying that Spinozism can be considered to be religion-worthy? Or have you just dropped that premise because it's incompatible with involuntary egoism?

No, what I'm saying is that if you're going to blithely dismiss Spinoza for the reasons you mentioned, you really ought to dismiss Hegel and Plato for similar reasons. I never said Spinozaism was religion worthy, I told him to read Ethics without a stated reason (the unstated reason was that I figure Spinoza could help deliver some insight to him).

>Aside from which, Stirner stated his case on even less than you're stating yours.

Actually, Stirner never states his case, and you're a fool or expecting him to do so. The thing about a nihilistic thinker is that you can never argue *for* nihilism, you can only attack other positions and hopefully leave nihilism as the remaining conclusion, which Stirner does quite effectively. His thinking was responsible for utterly obliterating idealistic Hegelianism in German thinking (need to clarify there, his work didn't go much further than that, so you do some outliers, but Hegelianism was basically dead as a coherent ideology outside of Marxism by the 20th century anyway).

>He literally admits that he can be dismissed out of hand if you feel like dismissing him out of hand.

And? Doing so wont actually undermine his critique.

>Keep justifying acting like a sperg on a website known primarily for trolling, porn, and pedos.
You're the problem with this board. Ever since people who don't come here to sperg out started posting here, it went to complete shit. There hasn't been a good thread since that one about the development of Imperial Japan.
>That's not what's going on here, now is it? That would be a matter of politics, not casual discussion of philosophy.
How about you answer the question? Spinoza's political philosophy was a significant portion of his system, as were those of Hegel, Stirner, Fukuyama, and Marx.
>blithely dismiss Spinoza for the reasons you mentioned
Asking you to demonstrate the validity of his arguments =/= 'dismissing' him. Do you not read for content? I've said this several times.
>you really ought to dismiss Hegel and Plato for similar reasons.
The difference is that Hegel and Plato aren't materialists. Not only that but Plato doesn't even claim to make his own positions explicit in his surviving texts, save the Seventh Letter, which is of dubious authorship anyway. Hegel's philosophy isn't pure rationalism, unlike Spinoza's. Spinoza claims that people can deduce a priori the existence of his deity. Hegel, an effective Lutheran who put the Absolute nakedly at the center of his philosophy, believed that a measure of experience is required for anyone to take seriously the idea of his god. The god of the philosophers is something Spinoza rejected, alongside God, Christianity, and the Jewish tradition.
>Actually, Stirner never states his case, and you're a fool or expecting him to do so
Which was exactly what I was saying.
>nihilistic
Is he an explicit nihilist, or are you reading nihilism into him? Again, I'd like a source.
>but Hegelianism was basically dead as a coherent ideology outside of Marxism by the 20th century anyway
What about Fukuyama?
>And?
And nothing.
Are you an irrationalist and a nihilst? What is your position?

>How about you answer the question?

Why should I?

>Asking you to demonstrate the validity of his arguments =/= 'dismissing' him.

That's not what you were doing at the start, and I'm not dignifying your requests. Get over it.

>The difference is that Hegel and Plato aren't materialists.

That makes literally no difference. They're both philosophers whose positions were fundamentally undermined by later philosophy but still possess good ideas underneath.

>Which was exactly what I was saying.

And missing the point.

>Is he an explicit nihilist, or are you reading nihilism into him?

He denies inherent moral, existential, and political meaning. That's three categories of nihlism.

>Again, I'd like a source.

The Ego and Its Own :^)

>What about Fukuyama?

Literally who?

>Are you an irrationalist and a nihilst?

I don't really accept being an anythingist, as I don't really know enough to say such labels are typically only applied from outside anyway.

>What is your position?

I don't consider myself to have one. I seek truth, but don't believe I can ever attain it or experience it.

>He denies inherent moral, existential, and political meaning. That's three categories of nihlism.
lmao are you serious? He thinks that the ego exists, how can he be a nihilist?
>I seek truth, but don't believe I can ever attain it or experience it.
So you admit that you're an idiot? By your own standards?

Also, since the chance has come up.

>Ever since people who don't come here to sperg out started posting here, it went to complete shit.

NORMIES GET OUT! REEEEEEEE!

>I'm versed in philosophy but I don't know that there are several different categories of nihilism.

Wow. Also he thinks the ego exists as a general catch-all for something beyond definition or true understand.

>So you admit that you're an idiot? By your own standards?

Yeah, I've never considered myself anything special intellectually. Though I only seek truth idly, it's not something you should take seriously.

I second the Tao, you do good work sir.