What does it mean to be divine?

Best description of how to describe the 2000 year Christian phenomenon:
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/DK5MMOH5OXQ

That's from a much longer video of course explaining the evolution of the Israelite god(s) into THE Israelite God. Most of us who know Biblical archeology and ancient Near Eastern literature are familiar with it. But that particular quote was relevant here.

What does it mean to be divine? — Fooloso4

Ah, solving that question
Brings the priest and the doctor
In their long coats
Running over the fields.

https://genius.com/Philip-larkin-dayss-annotated

As an extremely wise man once said, theology itself is god. But seriously we could spend centuries on this, which is why we already have, we who are our past in the mode of no longer exactly having to be it. The big questions are theological in a generalized sense of the word. 'God' [ Das Heilige ] is that to which we defer and aspire, possibly proclaiming our atheism or ironism along the path. The divine predicates are human virtues. But what is human ? What is virtue ?

Once I saw a Devil in a flame of fire, who arose before an Angel that sat on a cloud, and the Devil uttered these words: “The worship of God is, honouring His gifts in other men each according to his genius, and loving the greatest men best. Those who envy or calumniate great men hate God, for there is no other God.”

It is not because angels are holier than men or devils that makes them angels, but because they do not expect holiness from one another, but from God only.

In Hell, all is self-righteousness; there is no such thing there as forgiveness of sin. He who does forgive sin is crucified as an abettor of criminals, and he who performs works of mercy, in any shape whatever, is punished and, if possible, destroyed—not through envy, or hatred, or malice, but through self-righteousness, that thinks it does God service, which god is Satan.
...
The pride of the peacock is the glory of God.
The lust of the goat is the bounty of God.
The wrath of the lion is the wisdom of God.
The nakedness of woman is the work of God.
...
The roaring of lions, the howling of wolves, the raging of the stormy sea, and the destructive sword, are portions of Eternity too great for the eye of man.

The fox condemns the trap, not himself.
...
The bird a nest, the spider a web, man friendship. — Blake

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Life_of_William_Blake_(1880),_Volume_2/Prose_writings/A_Vision_of_the_Last_Judgment

https://www.gutenberg.org/files/45315/45315-h/45315-h.htm

God is the last bastion for many to have superstitions. Even those who are agnostic/atheists probably retain some odd fears and ritualistic prohibitions from just being exposed to it in youth. And of course here we are talking a particular brand.. but the other brands also instill this too.

The average (and even not so average) dog has a better experience with the sublime than we would ever have. All the rituals cannot make up for that.

Guilt is a function of living in a social setting with conceptualizing brains that internalize external values.

Guilt connected to a divinity and mediated and quelled through ritual is another phenomena which the ancients thought of and we retained.

The idea of "keeping the rituals" in the context of the Israelite god was more about group cohesion. Usual tribal ingroup/outgroup stuff. "Our" deity wants this from "us". We are his "chosen" for doing so.

Paul had the odd notion of being "Saved". This changed it from tribal to primordial. That is to say, it had the tinge of gnostic idea that this world has been corrupted and somehow an atonement from a sacrifice of a person rights this for everyone. This is simply a foreign/alien concept that hijacked a tribal deity and made it universal. Of course the non-Jews he tried to convert took to this. They already had Greek notions of mystery cults, gnostic notions from Plato's Forms, and the like. They wouldn't care (and why would they) about a small tribal god that wasn't their own nor about their internal history of kings who were conquered by Babylonians, Persians, etc. That was "their" history. If you are a Corinthian, or a Ephesian, or a Roman, that literally, matters nothing to you. But Paul found a master key that used that tribal deity and interlayed the Greco-Roman features that appealed most to people's hopes, fears, guilt-complexes, and the rest. He also had to teach them they were doomed, so that he had the cure to save them. So odd. So odd.

A few scattered comments

In The Gay Science he asks:

Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it?

From Epicurus the idea of gods as blessed being who are unperturbed.

From Marcus Aurelius the soul as the inner citadel.

From Epictetus:

Don’t ask for things to happen as you would like them to, but wish them to happen as they actually do, and you will be all right.

I agree with most of what you say.

I tend to view gods in terms of group egos, a tribal egoideal. As you mention, a local god can be developed into a global, universal god. This seems to include (as god is a mirror and target) the idea of a global, universal human being. Secular humanism (Feuerbach's kind, basically) offers this kind of 'god' (our own perfected or at least improved selves waiting for us in the future.) One can read Hegel and Strauss as transforming pessimistic Christianity (by analogy) into a worldly, optimistic humanism (a religion of technical and moral progress.) 'History is a machine that feeds on brave young men and shits freedom.'

Even those who are agnostic/atheists probably retain some odd fears and ritualistic prohibitions from just being exposed to it in youth. — schopenhauer1

Some might, but I would not say all. Meet Nucky.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5XNSETB5MY

'You don't know me, James. You never did. I. am not. seeking. forgiveness.'

Becker and Sartre have what I take as a deeper view of (existential) guilt. The shame of having a body, inasmuch as it can fail, is the shame of not being a god, the shame of being vulnerable. As hunger steers us toward food, so does this shame steer us toward defensible positions. Consider adversarial dialogue, tarrying with the negative, incorporating death and devastation, as the path to being less wrong. War, the father of all things, does not exclude cooperation. Indeed we are supreme is just this, we hosts of a graveleaping software which gathers the trial and error of the generations, which we are now compressing into images of our own divinity, possibly our spiritual heirs.

Good comments.

Summer porn posthumously. — plaque flag

:smirk: Mild Psychosis vs the Ossified!

Mild Psychosis vs the Ossified! — 180 Proof

:starstruck:

Afar tenure knows.

Seventy new fur chins.

Pair of eyes lost.

.

The average (and even not so average) dog has a better experience with the sublime than we would ever have. — schopenhauer1

I don't know. I think a welltreated dog is more reliably happy, but do they attain the same heights ? I don't see how one can answer with more than a guess, but my hunch is no. We have music. We have philosophy. We have sin.

We have sin. — plaque flag

I've argued elsewhere if sin is doing something against God's will, then it is impossible to knowing sin because God hasn't bothered to make his (or her) will known. All we have is various preachers giving us contradictory stories about what God wants and doesn't want.

All we have is various preachers giving us contradictory stories about what God wants and doesn't want. — Art48

But do we know that sin exists? If all we have are humans telling stories about what god wants and doesn't want...

But do we know that sin exists? — Tom Storm

We can define sin as doing something against the will of God.
But if God doesn't exist or if God doesn't care one way or the other what we do, then sin becomes a concept like unicorn or luminiferous aether.

The will of God means either the will of man vested by man with absolute authority, or what happens beyond our ability to comprehend, as in the story of Job.

It's interesting to me to know when the Yawhist cult eventually took over the Israelite/Judaic religion completely. It seems like a contingent of "prophets" (reformer-philosopher-shamans) were the start of it around Jerusalem and spread from there. It wasn't until the Maccabees that the dominance of the "Yahweh alone" group took over as THE dominant narrative of Judaic religious and historical expression (replete with Mosaic law being followed by even the everyday Jewish peasant, not just a small contingent). I'd like to know that transformation because with that transformation came the ideas of that small contingent of prophetic reformers that is the basis for ideas of sin and repentance as we know it in Western culture (at least in their variations of the three religions. Judaism being the closest obviously to the original prophetic version of following Mosaic laws and repenting if not doing it correctly at holidays, prayer, and mainly sacrifices during Temple times.).

That is to say, just because the practice is ancient superstitions, doesn't mean it wasn't innovative. What those shaman-reformer-prophets did was combine a particular deity (El-Yawheh) with the notion of universal laws of behavior, with a large emphasis on ethical laws of behavior. Not "hitting the mark". Greece for example, seemed to separate ethics from religion. Of course, this attachment of the deity with godhead was a long process. When I say "prophets" I mean the reforming kind like Isaiah and Jeremiah of the 7th century or so BCE. Older historians used to call 7-5th Century BCE the Axial Age, because ethics and how to live the "good life" became paramount in all major civilizations around that time (Greek philosophy, Jewish prophetic writings, the Buddha and Pali Canon, the Upanishads, etc.). That prophetic school represented an elite scribal class that was usually centered around (or against) the king of Judah, but then spread as I said much later, starting perhaps with Ezra but really being fully implemented in the Maccabees. I'd like to know how that campaign looked though of Hasmoneans promoting Yahweh alone, prophetic school version of Judaic expression. Archeology points to it being widespread, only then.

I've argued elsewhere if sin is doing something against God's will, then it is impossible to knowing sin because God hasn't bothered to make his (or her) will known. All we have is various preachers giving us contradictory stories about what God wants and doesn't want. — Art48

I was being playful. I don't really believe in sin. Let me add some context from Oscar Wilde.


Women have a much better time than men in this world; there are far more things forbidden to them.

Young women of the present day seem to make it the sole object of their lives to be always playing with fire.

A bad woman is the sort of woman a man never gets tired of.

Perhaps you can guess that I'm positing [the delusion of ] transgression, biting into forbidden fruit, wipe coffin panties, as one of the wicked joys of life.

sin becomes a concept like unicorn or luminiferous aether. — Art48

:up:

up of a smoke

The will of God means either the will of man vested by man with absolute authority, or what happens beyond our ability to comprehend, as in the story of Job. — Fooloso4

:up:

We can maybe add that one man needs to hides this from some other men like that wonderful wizard of Oz.

I don't know. I think a welltreated dog is more reliably happy, but do they attain the same heights ? I don't see how one can answer with more than a guess, but my hunch is no. We have music. We have philosophy. We have sin. — plaque flag

It is precisely that we have music and philosophy (and other conceptualizing-phenomena) that we don't ever reach the sublime. All this hoooha, to try to reach a state a dog has lying in the sun. Again, this goes back to my thread about our break with nature. We can't go back. We are exiled for good.

Schopenhauer discusses the sublime in art and nature. The sense of awe, etc. But I guess I also mean it in a sense of complete oneness and tranquility with being, more like his asceticism than his art philosophy. That is to say, the ascetics and the artistic vision are brief glimpses of what the animal has readily available.

We have sleep at least, but then our species even has the torment of insomnia. We just can't find peace.

We know of the human condition, and yet because we know of the human condition, and we know the consequences of putting more people into it by procreating, procreation simply represents forced conversion. If we posit a reason for why we must have children, we have already admitted that we can have reasons, and thus we can decide to do any number of things, including not force converting other people into the human condition. Any ankle-biting and gnashing of teeth of the "positivity that humanity's achievements and its necessity in continuing" against the pessimists, is yet more missionizing. The pessimists can never force convert though. Not doing something to someone who is not there makes this obviously so. It only works one way. Forced conversion only happens when someone becomes the subject. Thus, only one way represents not force converting.

It is precisely that we have music and philosophy (and other conceptualizing-phenomena) that we don't ever reach the sublime. All this hoooha, to try to reach a state a dog has lying in the sun. — schopenhauer1

Where we differ is understanding the sublime in terms of relaxation. Allow me a little crudity. Consider the buildup to orgasm. That's excitement before a great relaxation. There is no joy in the tavern as on the road thereto. Actually there is joy in the tavern, sometimes, but the aphorism gets the deliciousness of expectation right.

If we posit a reason for why we must have children, we have already admitted that we can have reasons, — schopenhauer1

I suggest thinking of reasongiving as a layer on top of something more doglike and automatic. I think we both agree that our hardware (our biology) underdetermines our mode of being, and that just this is our wicked and tormented genius. We have no essence, to overstate the case. We are what we take ourselves to be. We (as bodies) are vessels for tribal software, including the 'illusion'/convention of the discursive ego that must justify itself before the others in a space of reasons which is equivalently a game of scorekeeping. Forgive me for X, because of Y. It's true that A, because of B. You can't say E, because you already said F, which implies not E.

It seems to me that you think we can project this scorekeeping structure unproblematically on the species as a global tribe subject to humanistic/rational norms. Fair enough, but perhaps justice is a dissipative structure, the kind of thing that helps a tribe flourish and expand. Eliminating evil by eliminating what makes evil evil (the good or value it harms) is questionable.

Where we differ is understanding the sublime in terms of relaxation. Allow me a little crudity. Consider the buildup to orgasm. That's excitement before a great relaxation. There is no joy in the tavern as on the road thereto. Actually there is joy in the tavern, sometimes, but the aphorism gets the deliciousness of expectation right. — plaque flag

It's reifying of what we don't have. Sorry. It's like philosophy is always trying to give consolation prizes. I just don't engage in that kind of putting off of what we don't have to feel a bit better. If you lose, it's better to make the losing a good thing, so as not to feel at such a loss and continue on continuing on, trying and trying.

I suggest thinking of reasongiving as a layer on top of something more doglike and automatic. I think we both agree that our hardware (our biology) underdetermines our mode of being, and that just this is our wicked and tormented genius. We have no essence, to overstate the case. We are what we take ourselves to be. We (as bodies) are vessels for tribal software, including the 'illusion'/convention of the ego that must justify itself before the others in a space of reasons which is equivalently a game of scorekeeping. — plaque flag

Correct. If I am for anything then, it is so everyone can get to the natural terminus of collective ennui. Ghetto-thinking, tribal thinking, hunting-gathering thinking, redneck-thinking, middle-class-gardening-with-lemonade-in-bakyard-thinking, and even elitism of academia are all but variations of ignorance leading to cul-de-sacs away from the ultimate cul-de-sac.

It seems to me that you think we can project this scorekeeping structure unproblematically on the species as a global all-inclusion tribe. I do think this is a perverse implication of the quest for justice, but perhaps justice is a dissipative structure --- the kind of thing that helps a tribe flourish and expand. Eliminating evil by eliminating what makes evil evil (the good or value it harms) is...questionable. — plaque flag

Again, I am just waiting for the collective ennui. That is, all roads are exhausted and not enacting more pain on others because one has notions of reasons to do so, things as you are suggesting like "flourshing". You know who really loves the idea that you think you are here to "flourish"? The one who makes his living off of your labor. The one who doesn't mind if someone else suffers for their cause.

Any ankle-biting and gnashing of teeth of the "positivity that humanity's achievements and its necessity in continuing" against the pessimists, is yet more missionizing. — schopenhauer1

If you look at my aggresive critique of Bunge, you'll see (I hope) this I'm not a member of the go life movement, no more than I 'must' be, given human evolution. I respect antinatalism as one of the most radical kinds of 'antithetical' counterculture. I take poison as my icon because questioning the values of longevity and survival seems like a cornerstone of critical thought. Death is leverage. If I must be respectable, I cannot be a philosopher (not in my pet sense of the word.)

I take poison as my icon because questioning the values of longevity and survival seems like a cornerstone of critical thought. Death is leverage. If I must be respectable, I cannot be a philosopher (not in my pet sense of the world.) — plaque flag

:smirk:

Ghetto-thinking, tribal thinking, hunting-gathering thinking, redneck-thinking, middle-class-gardening-with-lemonade-in-bakyard-thinking, and even elitism of academia are all but variations of ignorance leading to cul-de-sacs away from the ultimate cul-de-sac. — schopenhauer1

We are largely if not completely aligned. Boredom is an aristocratic vice. We write within a peculiar intoxicating genre. Undecidable poisoncure blisspuke.


of her might had potty

:up:
You caught my typo in the quote (pet sense of the world).

You know who really loves the idea that you think you are here to "flourish"? The one who makes his living off of your labor. — schopenhauer1

Yes, and I am as greedy and wicked as that sevencrowned beast that rises from the sea, global Kapital, the whore of babble on, even if part of me, the tamed meatbot, is horrified by that.

It's like philosophy is always trying to give consolation prizes. — schopenhauer1

:up:

I agree, but I don't think antinatalism or my own pour of poison escapes that structure. Zapffe and Cioran are tall strong drinks for bold bad bleak boys. Look at me, ma. No plans.

I agree, but I don't think antinatalism or my own pour of poison escapes that structure. Zapffe and Cioran are tall strong drinks for bold bad bleak boys. Look at me, ma. No plans. — plaque flag

True enough, but I guess, at what point can we distinguish between consolations and telling it just how it is? Precisely because they aren't trying to make lemonade, might help you distinguish that it isn't just to provide a consolation prize. Rather, it is just giving the glib report and you have to make of it what you will.

Of course the bible itself claims that all its text is the

word

of God as self proclaimed authority so the question is simply for atheists to chew over.

It may be respected in other ways of course depending on the nature of interpretation.



Happy Easter