The following is a rant criticizing me for not preferring quality over quantity. Consequently I considered pruning this post from the forum. But if people find it entertaining I will leave it up. I have re-ordered the paragraphs for clarity and eliminated the personal attacks on me.
Even now as a born-again Christian, I see little value in life. It is tedious, repetetive, pretty much meaningless.
I would not even undress in front of a woman if I was paid for it. And why should I? Why should I pass on genes for
a) a below average-sized penis (that's not too unimportant for a male, you know. Even though it's embarrassing, I've measured it and compared it to the averages you find on the net. But I was aware of it without any measurements. Four year olds have larger dicks.)
b) being hunchbacked. Again, going back generations, like with the Jukes and Kallikaks. I was bullied in school (was called Quasimodo, besides other derogatory terms used overweight pieces of genetic junk like myself). This is crap.
c) mentally ill, introverted, I hate social situations. This has improved only little since becoming a Christian. It's a curse.
d) prone to being overweight. Look, Chesterton was fat, C. S. Lewis was not thin, Kierkegaard's mother was overweight, Luther was fat at the end of his life. This is mostly genetic. My half-brothers aren't.
and so on.
My father was hunchbacked, just as his father; this goes back generations. Unlike his half-brothers, who were hunchbacked too, he was also mentally ill, a drug abuser and so on. Because of his mother, from whom I've inherited my mental illness.
Newsflash: I have been a drain on the (German) state due to my low intelligence and mental illness: I never worked in my 31 years, because I was weary of life at least at age 16, and could no longer cope with it. Only when I was born-again at age 30 did much of this change. What did not change though is my Schopenhauerian view of life. And why should it? He was dead on. Kierkegaard shared it, too.
The Bible's teaching is life-denying, because we are to hate the flesh. Have you even read the NT?
Look, the Bible teaches it's best not to marry. Even married Vox Day acknowledges this (he's very weak on philosophy, sure). If God wanted as many people as possible, there would be absolutely no commandements against adultery and fornication, but there are. In fact, the disciples said in Matth. 19 that then it would be better not to marry. Augustine even reaches the conclusion (in De bono viduitatis and De bono coniugali) that if everyone lived chaste lives, the extinction that logically follows would be fine as long as it happens out of love and a pure heart. Whatever you might say about Christianity, it teaches the opposite. It teaches that chastity is better than marrying. It only does not teach that marriage is sin, like the Gnostics. But that's about it. After all, in Heaven there will be no marriage or giving in marriage, showing that sex is evil and wicked.
Apparently, Brown does not care about the quality of a person, and he does not care at all if a person will suffer horribly during his life due to bad genetics. You have to live with your life with your physical configuration for a life time, you know. I might even, in the end, revolt against God and end up in hell.
The Kallikak and Jukes family are real, they existed. No one wins by putting more of such people into existence. This bullshit that the future belongs to those who show up for it (Vox Day) is just that: bullshit. Does any of my ancestors care that I'm alive? Of course not, they are dead. I would not care if in a thousand years some genetically completely diluted ancestors of mine existed, even if I was still alive then. They might not have any resemblence with me at all, especially in terms of character and temperament.
Even during the 19th century, there were discussions in Germany about a "Hagestolzensteuer": a tax for unmarried people because there were so many. And even back then, there were wise men who saw the folly of this nonsense. As one wrote (from Google Books, just use Google Translate if you don't know German):
-- Aus: Die Staatswissenschaften im Lichte unserer Zeit. Zweite ... vermehrte Auflage, Band 2. Karl Heinrich Ludwig Pölitz 1827
Daß eine besondere Hagestolzensteuer ebensogegen das Naturrecht, wie gegen die Staatswirthschaft verstößt, braucht kaum erinnert zu werden. Denn weil der Staat erstens kein Recht, hat seine Bürger zur Ehe zu zwingen, und die, welche unverheirathet bleiben d e s h a l b zu bestrafen, oder sie in Hinsicht der Besteuerung nach einem andern Maasstabe, als die Verheiratheten, zu behandeln; und weil die Regierung zweitens, in staatswirthschaftlicher Hinsicht, nur den reinen Ertrag besteuern darf, zu welchem die Hagestolzen bereits nach ihren gesammten bürgerlichen Verhältnissen zugezogen werden; so folgt daraus, daß die Hagestolzensteuer eben so widerrechtlich und widersinnig ist, wie die Ertheilung von Prämien an die, welche eine große Anzahl Kinder erzeugen. Denn denkende Staatswirthschäftslehrer haben bereits längst die Ansicht aufgegeben, daß die möglichste Vermehrung der Bevölkerung die wichtigste Aufgabe für die Regierung sey, weil nicht die Bevölkerungsmasse an sich, sondern blos die sorgfältig erzogene, verhältnißmäßig gebildete, an Arbeit gewöhnte, und einen reinen Ertrag vermittelnde Bevölkerung dem Staate nützt, die übrige aber, die zunächst von Armentaren lebt und ununterbrochen die Polizei und Gensdarmerie beschäftigt, jedem gut gestalteten Staate zur Last fällt und oft gefährlich wird, weil eben von dieser Klasse der Einwohner die meisten Vergehen und Verbrechen begangen werden. --
So, even back then, people were aware that the quality is of more value than sheer number.
Eugenics works, even Matt Ridley admits as much in his "Genome": we would, he writes, have fewer cases of mental illnesses. But he sees it as inhumane. Inhumane! But it is humane, after all, to be mentally ill, hunchbacked, ugly, fat and stupid! Great!
As Kierkegaard wrote in one of his journal entries, at the end of his short life:
ANOTHER MENDACIOUS USE OF CHRISTIANITY
No doubt very many, and very different, things preoccupy people. But if one were to name just one thing of which one would say that it was the only thing people are preoccupied with, it would have to be relations between the sexes, sexual desire, propagation, etc. -- for human beings are, after all, mainly animal.
That is why everything, absolutely everything that human hypocrisy can invent comes together on this point, as on no other. If you really want to learn to recognize human hypocrisy, this is where to look. For it is precisely because here we are standing at the lowest level -- something they would be too ashamed simply to admit -- that here hypocrisy comes into its own. Hence the elevated talk of the profound seriousness of propagating the race, of the great benefaction of bestowing life upon another human being, etc., all of it calculated in addition to refine the voluptuousness of desire.
The great benefaction of bestowing life on another human being. Bless my soul! A tired lecher, an old man who hardly has the sensual power -- the truth is they were unable to control the flame of lust. But one puts it hypocritically by saying that they intended to perform the great benefaction of bestowing life upon another human being! Thanks! And what a life, this miserable, wretched, anguished existence which is usually the lot of such an offspring. Isn't it splendid? Suppose murder and pillage and theft were similarly made into the greatest, most priceless benefaction! And what is putting a man to death compared with bringing such a wretched creature into life? For even if it is commonly considered a melancholic thought (as, if I recall, one of my pseudonmys says somewhere, or is to be found somewhere in my journal, or in any case a remark I made loing, long ago) that there should be greater guilt in giving life than in taking it -- even if in general it may indeed be too melancholic, yet in the case of the offspring whose life is destined to be sickly it is not an exaggeration. Yet this hypocrisy about a great benefaction is upheld; the child is supposed never to be able to give thanks enough -- instead of the father never being able to expiate his guilt even if he went on his knees, in tears, before the child.
But to the hypocritical use of Christianity. This is making it look as though Christian parents -- and of course in Christian countries everyone is a Christian -- beget Christian children -- but then coming into existence is identical with receiving an eternal salvation. Aha! So the meaning of Christianity has become the refinement of the lust of the procreative act. One might perhaps otherwise just stop, see if one can control the urge, hesitate to give another person life merely to satisfy sexual desire -- ah, but when one begets eternal, eternally blessed creatures, isn't the best and most Christian thing not to do anything else all day long if that were possible?
(1854; XI I A 219) --
(See also Chris Langan's essay "On the Difference between People, Birds and Bees.")
The Kierkegaard family is interesting too, because the only son and only child of his brother Peter Christian went insane, and was institutionalized. He was as brilliant as the rest of the Kierkegaards, but all of them were mentally unstable and suffered from a melancholy disposition.
Deal with it, melancholy Christians existed. Pascal, Kierkegaard (the most brilliant), Guardini, the lesser known Reinhold Schneider.
As Schopenhauer wrote, Life is a business that does not cover its costs. Or as Nietzsche wrote in 1882: I don't want this life _again_. Or to Lou-Salome: I despise life (Ich verachte das Leben). He was right: _Ein_ Leben reicht dicke! (One life is more than enough.)
Also, it really isn't that big of a deal to care for oneself, it's just very tedious and meaningless. To show up for your wage slave job each day, pay the bills, do the groceries: 70 IQ people can do that. Though I don't know if I would be able to endure it if I lived alone; that's why I continue to live with my parents as long as possible. Again, what is the point in continuing to exist after having been born-again? I see little point in it. I thought at first my melancholy would now have been lifted. But no. There is no advantage of existence over non-existence, after all I did not exist for 13.8 billion years. And if a Judgement awaits us, it would actually have been better to not have been born, as Kierkegaard wrote in his last piece, The Moment (No. 7).
If one was a genius, one could live for one's work (and Schopenhauer correctly writes that only the life of the genius is meaningful). But as it stands, I can't even teach myself Latin. I will most likely never be able to read Caesar's de bello gallico fluently. I could now exist for another thirty years and a live a mediocre, meaningless life, a man without any talents, hunchbacked, ugly, part of the bottom of society. It's also hard to picture what Heaven would be like; as Schopenhauer writes: if we knocked at the graves and asked if the dead would want to live again, they would all shake their heads. How can non-existence be improved upon? It can't. It's perfect. The difference between me and Schopenhauer is that I believe in Christ because I was born-again. It was less me chosing Christ than me being chosen, or drawn by God. It overcame me while reading about Christ's crucifixion.
Nothing more ludicrous to claim that religion makes one happy (Orwoll). It might give one hope, but the NT is also an awful book once you're a believer. It's full of threats. A Christian is somebody who confesses Christ as Lord and believes in the Bible as the word of God. He who does that needs to live humbly in fear and trembling, which means to die off to this world, to hate oneself, one's wicked heart (as we already read in Genesis).
Now as a Christian, I simply endure this life quietly. I no longer curse as much, but I am still upset by idiocy. Not a lot change from my atheist antinatalist days. Mostly due to the way that I am, due to my genes. My life would be a lot poorer without the great geniuses of the past, especially brilliant thinkers like Kierkegaard and Gómez Dávila, the works of Reinhold Schneider, who suffered through his life instead of killing himself because of his faith.
That no one attends Church anymore is due to the fact that it cannot be taken seriously, no matter what denomination. You can't attend a Catholic Church anymore, not only because they are sold on diversity and other nonsense, but because of the II. Vatican Council, of which Gómez Dávila wrote:
"Tongues of fire didn’t descend upon the Second Vatican Council, as they did upon the first assembly of the apostles, but a stream of fire – a Feuerbach."
I don't believe that many people went to Church in the past anyway, and if, who cares? During Kierkegaard's time, the average Dane partook in Communion three to four times a year (his father every Friday). Who cares? They played it. Kierkegaard was right: only those should be allowed to receive Holy Communion who would die for their faith. Church is boring. Maybe it should be. But you can't fault people much for not wanting to listen to inane sermons and awful music. The Latin Mass I might attend. But, again, the current Church needs to die and can't be attended if you are a real Christian who tries to live according to the Bible. And Kierkegaard did not attend it anymore during his last years; Gómez Dávila, too, said to Martin Mosebach: "The Church is dying. We need to be alone with God. Prayer is the only intelligent act."
I guess it boils down to: do I care that I'm mediocre? Because we all are. Apparently some (Orwoll and Brown) have less problems with living mediocre lives. Others (me) have more trouble accepting it.
As the Colombian Catholic writes:
"Modern man’s misfortune lies not in having to live a mediocre life, but in believing that he could live a life that is not mediocre."
To conclude with a few of his almost 13.000 aphorisms:
"Geneva, the Geneva that Calvin reigns from his sickbed, the Geneva whose shadow extends from the pulpit of Knox to the hallways of the Vatican, the Geneva where a world was formed, had about 12.000 inhabitants in 1560. The huge modern human masses are not only a problem, but superfluous."
"Being civilized means being able to criticize that which we believe in without ceasing to believe in what we believe in."
"The city imagined by every utopian is always tacky—beginning with that of the Apocalypse."
"To the most important cultural achievements of Catholicism must be counted that it created a climate unfavorable to economic activity."
"Eugenics appals those who fear its judgment."
"No beneficiary of slaves is supporter of birth control."
"Depopulate and reforest -- first civilizing rule."
"Christianity is an infamy which we must not disguise as kindness."
"What is difficult is not to believe in God, but to believe that we matter to Him."
"The importance it attributes to man is the enigma of Christianity."
"Population growth disquiets the demographer only when he fears that it will impede economic progress or make it harder to feed the masses. But that man needs solitude, that human proliferation produces cruel societies, that distance is required between men so that the spirit might breathe, does not interest him. The quality of a man does not matter to him."
"The imbecile does not discover the radical misery of our condition except when he is sick, poor, or old."
Post by slotahimself (INTP) on Oct 3, 2018 17:18:56 GMT
Is this dude trying to vent or what? Ennui isn't new, we know that, yet people typically find something substantial to do if they have an intelligence to come up with such a nexus of excuse. If you close yourself off fully to the world, then you'll never be shaped by it, which is the source of finding the will to change something about it, no matter how small or seemingly insignificant. I was the same way in my youth until I was forged by suffering put upon me by the world, now the things that used to cripple me hardly leave a scratch. Over rationalizing things to the point of paralysis is more boring than any of these complaints.
The guy obviously needs something positive in his life. Prehaps he should hang out with others with a similar disability. Probably would take less effort to achieve that goal than studying a hella lot to rationalize his unfortunate circumstance. Staying alone in his parents house is not going to make him happy.