Philosophy General: You Kant say that!

[Venerable Bede]

Mine so far are Stirner and Nietzsche. I am looking into other philosophers with similar ideas as well. Anyone know many philosophers on the subjects of individualism, Existentialism, and nihilism?

Sartre and Camus are the obvious choices, along with Kierkegaard. Dostoevsky is a novelist and not a "philosopher" per se, but he explores similar themes.

There's also Heidegger, who is arguably the godfather of existentialism.

I don't really think Dostoevsky should be so readily grouped in with them. Yes, he does have some very, often overtly philosophical passages in his work, and sometimes he does champion a sort of line of thought along their work, but he can go both ways. He strongly opposed the freethinkers and the idea of quantifying human happiness and turning the individual into a formula with no freewill, but he also strongly opposed "schismatic" individualism (the protagonist of Crime and Punishment is named "Raskolnikov", which means, "schismatic"; he falls into evil in cutting himself off from his humanity and the common conscience, which can be contrasted with Demons, where individuals are turned evil by "the herd"--not just the communist conspirators, but also the mob that murders).

Notes from Underground can, taken by itself, absolutely be read as the first existentialist novel. But, taken in the context of Dostoevsky's other post-exile works, it gets a little more complex than that.

[Internationalist Bastard]

Well if we're talking religious philosphy, I'd say I'm a Tengri-Budhist, but I draw influence from Christianity and Confucianism.
On political philosophy, I don't even no where to point.

[The New Sea Territory]

My personal philosophical influences:

Laozi, Zhuangzi, Nagarjuna, Dogen, Spinoza, Nietzsche, Bergson, Whitehead, Wittgenstein, Deleuze and Guattari, Foucault.

Mine so far are Stirner and Nietzsche. I am looking into other philosophers with similar ideas as well. Anyone know many philosophers on the subjects of individualism, Existentialism, and nihilism?

Sartre is the big name in existentialism. Heidegger inspired a lot of existentialist ideas although he himself distanced himself from the movement. Mackie lays out an epistemological argument for moral nihilism (specifically, cognitivist moral nihilism: error theory).

Camus's The Rebel is a worthwhile read talking about the history of thinkers and movements in this vein, notably a detailed analysis of Russian nihilism (something Dostoyevsky did through novels).

[Venerable Bede]

My biggest influences philosophically wouldn't necessarily be people specifically, but ideas. The biggest influences would probably be from Orthodox Christianity (of course), but also major influences from existential nihilism, dialectical materialism, Berkeley's idealism, and a few others.

Just picked up Bishop Kallistos Ware's The Orthodox Way, which is a text which seeks to explain the intricacies of Eastern Orthodox metaphysical beliefs, largely, anyway. I have also been influenced by St Seraphim of Sarov's conversation on the purpose of a Christian life with regard to my ethical view.

Orthodox Christianity is about a person, though, Christ.

If you want a comprehensive overview of the Orthodox perspective, you might try Orthodox Christianity, by Metropolitan Hilarion.

I think Saint Ignatius Brianchaninov's words on ethics are good, which was, stop trying to seek to do right contrasted with wrong in a moral sense, just do God's will (Luke 17:10). Something of course very important for monastics to remember, but also for those of us in general: don't try to be a "good person," or do the "right thing," these can lead to be mislead. Just do the Lord's will--and don't do it impulsively either, but consider and weight your actions (or lack thereof) as much as possible with Scripture and the words of the Fathers.

[Mer Salcia]

Sartre and Camus are the obvious choices, along with Kierkegaard. Dostoevsky is a novelist and not a "philosopher" per se, but he explores similar themes.

There's also Heidegger, who is arguably the godfather of existentialism.

I don't really think Dostoevsky should be so readily grouped in with them. Yes, he does have some very, often overtly philosophical passages in his work, and sometimes he does champion a sort of line of thought along their work, but he can go both ways. He strongly opposed the freethinkers and the idea of quantifying human happiness and turning the individual into a formula with no freewill, but he also strongly opposed "schismatic" individualism (the protagonist of Crime and Punishment is named "Raskolnikov", which means, "schismatic"; he falls into evil in cutting himself off from his humanity and the common conscience, which can be contrasted with Demons, where individuals are turned evil by "the herd"--not just the communist conspirators, but also the mob that murders).

Notes from Underground can, taken by itself, absolutely be read as the first existentialist novel. But, taken in the context of Dostoevsky's other post-exile works, it gets a little more complex than that.

I would agree insofar as Dostoevsky is not actually an existentialist or an individualist; however, I think his novels do touch upon existentialist themes, and are worth looking into for those who are interested in existentialism. The fact that he does not fully or wholeheartedly endorse freethinking individualist existentialism makes him all the more interesting, since he address similar questions but poses a challenge to these ideas. People interested in a philosophical movement or position should also examine criticism against it.

[Venerable Bede]

Mine so far are Stirner and Nietzsche. I am looking into other philosophers with similar ideas as well. Anyone know many philosophers on the subjects of individualism, Existentialism, and nihilism?

Sartre is the big name in existentialism. Heidegger inspired a lot of existentialist ideas although he himself distanced himself from the movement. Mackie lays out an epistemological argument for moral nihilism (specifically, cognitivist moral nihilism: error theory).

Camus's The Rebel is a worthwhile read talking about the history of thinkers and movements in this vein, notably a detailed analysis of Russian nihilism (something Dostoyevsky did through novels).

The Rebel, in a way, is, as Father Seraphim Rose pointed out, an intense expression of precisely the kind of nihilism Dostoevsky explored, since it makes rebellion the locus of being.

[The New Sea Territory]

I don't really think Dostoevsky should be so readily grouped in with them. Yes, he does have some very, often overtly philosophical passages in his work, and sometimes he does champion a sort of line of thought along their work, but he can go both ways. He strongly opposed the freethinkers and the idea of quantifying human happiness and turning the individual into a formula with no freewill, but he also strongly opposed "schismatic" individualism (the protagonist of Crime and Punishment is named "Raskolnikov", which means, "schismatic"; he falls into evil in cutting himself off from his humanity and the common conscience, which can be contrasted with Demons, where individuals are turned evil by "the herd"--not just the communist conspirators, but also the mob that murders).

Notes from Underground can, taken by itself, absolutely be read as the first existentialist novel. But, taken in the context of Dostoevsky's other post-exile works, it gets a little more complex than that.

I would agree insofar as Dostoevsky is not actually an existentialist or an individualist; however, I think his novels do touch upon existentialist themes, and are worth looking into for those who are interested in existentialism. The fact that he does not fully or wholeheartedly endorse freethinking individualist existentialism makes him all the more interesting, since he address similar questions but poses a challenge to these ideas. People interested in a philosophical movement or position should also examine criticism against it.

Honestly, you could get the same thing by reading the Russian nihilists themselves, or at least about them. Dostoyevsky's existential themes are partially inspired by his novels' material inspiration: Russian terrorism. The terrorists experienced and lived through or died because of these themes.

[The New Sea Territory]

Sartre is the big name in existentialism. Heidegger inspired a lot of existentialist ideas although he himself distanced himself from the movement. Mackie lays out an epistemological argument for moral nihilism (specifically, cognitivist moral nihilism: error theory).

Camus's The Rebel is a worthwhile read talking about the history of thinkers and movements in this vein, notably a detailed analysis of Russian nihilism (something Dostoyevsky did through novels).

The Rebel, in a way, is, as Father Seraphim Rose pointed out, an intense expression of precisely the kind of nihilism Dostoevsky explored, since it makes rebellion the locus of being.

Agreed. The difference being the perspectives of Camus and Dostoyevsky.

[United Marxist Nations]

My biggest influences philosophically wouldn't necessarily be people specifically, but ideas. The biggest influences would probably be from Orthodox Christianity (of course), but also major influences from existential nihilism, dialectical materialism, Berkeley's idealism, and a few others.

Just picked up Bishop Kallistos Ware's The Orthodox Way, which is a text which seeks to explain the intricacies of Eastern Orthodox metaphysical beliefs, largely, anyway. I have also been influenced by St Seraphim of Sarov's conversation on the purpose of a Christian life with regard to my ethical view.

Orthodox Christianity is about a person, though, Christ.

If you want a comprehensive overview of the Orthodox perspective, you might try Orthodox Christianity, by Metropolitan Hilarion.

I think Saint Ignatius Brianchaninov's words on ethics are good, which was, stop trying to seek to do right contrasted with wrong in a moral sense, just do God's will (Luke 17:10). Something of course very important for monastics to remember, but also for those of us in general: don't try to be a "good person," or do the "right thing," these can lead to be mislead. Just do the Lord's will--and don't do it impulsively either, but consider and weight your actions (or lack thereof) as much as possible with Scripture and the words of the Fathers.

I don't have the money to buy it now, but is it available in English? I assume you mean Metropolitan Hilarion in Russia, not ROCOR.

[Venerable Bede]

I don't really think Dostoevsky should be so readily grouped in with them. Yes, he does have some very, often overtly philosophical passages in his work, and sometimes he does champion a sort of line of thought along their work, but he can go both ways. He strongly opposed the freethinkers and the idea of quantifying human happiness and turning the individual into a formula with no freewill, but he also strongly opposed "schismatic" individualism (the protagonist of Crime and Punishment is named "Raskolnikov", which means, "schismatic"; he falls into evil in cutting himself off from his humanity and the common conscience, which can be contrasted with Demons, where individuals are turned evil by "the herd"--not just the communist conspirators, but also the mob that murders).

Notes from Underground can, taken by itself, absolutely be read as the first existentialist novel. But, taken in the context of Dostoevsky's other post-exile works, it gets a little more complex than that.

I would agree insofar as Dostoevsky is not actually an existentialist or an individualist; however, I think his novels do touch upon existentialist themes, and are worth looking into for those who are interested in existentialism. The fact that he does not fully or wholeheartedly endorse freethinking individualist existentialism makes him all the more interesting, since he address similar questions but poses a challenge to these ideas. People interested in a philosophical movement or position should also examine criticism against it.

Dostoevsky doesn't just fail to wholeheartedly endorse it, he actually is very much against freethinking; he portrays it always as either comedic, villainous, or tragic (some of his most noble characters are freethinkers, and that is often their tragic flaw). It's just that he also sees, and explores, how freethinking can be dangerous to the individual in the way Huxley understood.

[Venerable Bede]

I would agree insofar as Dostoevsky is not actually an existentialist or an individualist; however, I think his novels do touch upon existentialist themes, and are worth looking into for those who are interested in existentialism. The fact that he does not fully or wholeheartedly endorse freethinking individualist existentialism makes him all the more interesting, since he address similar questions but poses a challenge to these ideas. People interested in a philosophical movement or position should also examine criticism against it.

Dostoevsky doesn't just fail to wholeheartedly endorse it, he actually is very much against freethinking; he portrays always as either comedic, villainous, or tragic (some of his most noble characters are freethinkers, and that is almost their tragic flaw). It's just that he also sees, and explores, how freethinking can be dangerous to the individual in the way Huxley understood.

I also might point out that many of his most wicked and destructive characters are not freethinkers. The only major character who truly believes in God in Demons, kills innocent people (the other major character who touts God is sympathetic, but he also says he himself can't actually muster the belief).

[Conscentia]

Mine so far are Stirner and Nietzsche. I am looking into other philosophers with similar ideas as well. Anyone know many philosophers on the subjects of individualism, Existentialism, and nihilism?

Sartre is the big name in existentialism. Heidegger inspired a lot of existentialist ideas although he himself distanced himself from the movement. Mackie lays out an epistemological argument for moral nihilism (specifically, cognitivist moral nihilism: error theory).

Camus's The Rebel is a worthwhile read talking about the history of thinkers and movements in this vein, notably a detailed analysis of Russian nihilism (something Dostoyevsky did through novels).

If you search "Mackie", all you get is a company that makes music equipment. The philosopher doesn't make the first page of Google. You should specify J. L. Mackie.

Have you read his work? Is it interesting?

[Himmlertal]

Even if I don't agree with Socrates or many of the ancient Greek philosophers, their philosophies are worth studying because arguments against them are as tired or thorough. I don't think there's any reason to study Christ. Christianity has been attacked from nearly every possible angle. It's beating a dead horse at this point.

If Nihilism was attacked from every possible angle, but every "attack" was little more than "if life is meaningless then kill urself" then that doesn't mean Nihilism ist tott. Even though Christianity is not perfect, there obviously are many valid teachings. It seems to me that you are just afraid to discuss Christianity due to your own personal bias as an egoist and (unless the norse stuff is entirely RP) odinist.

What Rebel Absurdity is really getting at in all but name is Zizek's use of Lacan's theory of surplus-enjoyment. Essentially, nationalistic ideologies use the mask of collectivism as an appeal to ego, through anti-egalitarianism: at the expense of other groups, I and my group thrive. This sort of narrow egoism requires the submission and denouncement of ego to allow for enjoyment. That's what surplus-enjoyment is: the enjoyment arising from the denial of enjoyment. Nietzsche made this point while mocking Christian asceticism, syaing that the ascetic experiences a "veritable voluptuousness" in his own self-violation.

Narrow egoism is a concept coming from The Right to Be Greedy, which is primarily an argument against capitalist egoism from a Stirnerite perspetive. It is more or less egoism where the ego is divided: capitalist egoism is narrow because it only allows for materialistic selfishness, alienating the egoist from other people, which are other objects of self appropriation. Mixed in with capitalist egoism is a form of self-denial and self-renunciation. Nationalism, as Rebel reads it through Zizek, Lacan and Adorno, effectively does the same thing. The surplus-enjoyment of nationalism is a selfishness mixed with its own denial, by alienating the egoist and directly subordinating the egoist to a spook: the race/nation.

I'm not against people acting in their self interest. I'm for people acting solely in their self-interest, rather than acting only an small bits of their masochistic self-interest reflected through various ideologies. Christian asceticism, capitalism entreprenuership and ethnic nationalism all have aspects of self-interest at play, but this is deeply entangled to a form of self-denial I reject.

Sadly, I don't have all the books on hand like I usually do to cite all of this. However, I'm drawing mostly from The Sublime Object of Ideology, The Right to Be Greedy, and 137 from Human, All Too Human if a quick google search was correct.

So is it morally wrong to better one's own group at the expense of another? My in-group is much, much more valuable to me than any foreigner both sentimentally and practically.
Submission happens in any situation where there is competition. Whether its in a nation or a mess of like-minded anarchists, you will back down from something. That might be because you are below someone in a heighrachy and fear punishment for your insolence, above someone in a heighrachy and fear mutiny for your tyranny or you are near someone's car and fear getting stabbed for trying to take it. In Stirner's terms, everything is my property but I don't have control over most of it.
As for the denouncement of ego, doesn't that go to show that Christianity and its asceticism is right while egoism is trash? Gays act on their own ego by indulging their carnal desires without restraint and suffer absurdly high rates of both STIs and suicide. Just like every other hedonistic group: Destruction of the body and depression everywhere. Christians, on the other hand, restrain themselves and submit to their idol, yet mostly live long, happy lives. Nationalism only contradicts the ego if the ego contradicts the Universe.

I'm not entirely sure what you meant by the capitalism bit. Are you saying that capitalist selfishness causes you to pick fights with people? That is entirely the fault of the individual. You don't have to trample everybody you come across. Just those that are unimportant. And with the "self-denial and self-renunciation" is that something about constraining oneself by respecting others' property rights?
As for the nation, that "spook" is what keeps you alive. People band together, and if you are alive then you probably have something another band of people wants. An invading army isn't going to give a vegan's fart about your spooks and ego, so unless you want to get shot or assimilated, then you'll need your own band to physically fight them.
Race is probably the least spooky thing in this thread. Unlike nations and egos, it is sonething physical made of atoms. It is instinctive for any organism to protect its own bloodline, thus there is nothing wrong with wanting to protect one's race.

Unfortunately we are not omnipotent gods. There is a limit to our power and our resources and consequently sacrifices will need to be made in order to reach our maximum potential. Asceticism, capitalism and nationalism are all methods to maximise potential in one aspect or another, but each require sacrifice.

[The New Sea Territory]

Sartre is the big name in existentialism. Heidegger inspired a lot of existentialist ideas although he himself distanced himself from the movement. Mackie lays out an epistemological argument for moral nihilism (specifically, cognitivist moral nihilism: error theory).

Camus's The Rebel is a worthwhile read talking about the history of thinkers and movements in this vein, notably a detailed analysis of Russian nihilism (something Dostoyevsky did through novels).

If you search "Mackie", all you get is a company that makes music equipment. The philosopher doesn't make the first page of Google. You should specify J. L. Mackie.

Have you read his work? Is it interesting?

I have not (yet) read him directly. He is on a list of people for me to read. When I finish Hegel's Phenomenology, I'll probably look into buying one of his books.

His ideas, though, are what I was more concerned with. Specifically, the argument from queerness, a powerful argument for moral nihiilism.

[United Marxist Nations]

Unlike studying edgelords that think they're dogs, die of syphilis or steal things for shits and giggles? Wait, nevermind. But why would Socrates be interesting then?

Even if I don't agree with Socrates or many of the ancient Greek philosophers, their philosophies are worth studying because arguments against them are as tired or thorough. I don't think there's any reason to study Christ. Christianity has been attacked from nearly every possible angle. It's beating a dead horse at this point.

You know, you can study a philosophy for more than reasons to attack it.

[Venerable Bede]

Even if I don't agree with Socrates or many of the ancient Greek philosophers, their philosophies are worth studying because arguments against them are as tired or thorough. I don't think there's any reason to study Christ. Christianity has been attacked from nearly every possible angle. It's beating a dead horse at this point.

But the same could be said of Marx.

[The Rich Port]

Even if I don't agree with Socrates or many of the ancient Greek philosophers, their philosophies are worth studying because arguments against them are as tired or thorough. I don't think there's any reason to study Christ. Christianity has been attacked from nearly every possible angle. It's beating a dead horse at this point.

But the same could be said of Marx.

It doesn't get any more "revolutionary" when it comes to secular philosophers than Marx.

What, exactly, is unique about Jesus except for the fact he compiled a lot of humanist philosophies into one model? Poorly, at that?

[The New Sea Territory]

If Nihilism was attacked from every possible angle, but every "attack" was little more than "if life is meaningless then kill urself" then that doesn't mean Nihilism ist tott. Even though Christianity is not perfect, there obviously are many valid teachings. It seems to me that you are just afraid to discuss Christianity due to your own personal bias as an egoist and (unless the norse stuff is entirely RP) odinist.

Afraid? No. I think European philosophers have spent four hundred years arguing against Christianity, and there is little left to say about it.

I'm not an odinist. Not to get to off-topic in semantics, but Odin is one of many gods I believe in. He is certainly the father of the Aesir, and one of the primary dieties in Germanic polytheism, but my spirituality is not a cult of one person like Christ-ianity. Also, I see the term "Odinism" often associated with either white nationalists or people who don't really know their history too well. I try to stay more reconstructionist.

So is it morally wrong to better one's own group at the expense of another?

I don't know where I referenced any moral or ethical argument. My critique of nationalism, like my critique of capitalist egoism, is an immanent critique. I think nationalism isn't egoistic enough for me, that's why I'm not a nationalist.

The end goal of my dialectical movement in thought is the most coherently egoistic philosophy possible.

My in-group is much, much more valuable to me than any foreigner both sentimentally and practically.

Agreed. I just interpret in-group, innengardh in heathen terms, to be my immediate family, not an abstraction of "white people" or "America".

Other white people and other Americans mean very little to me, if we're going solely by their nationality and ethnicity. They are just as much the utangardh as someone black or Lithuanian. This is because my concept in in-group and out-group has to do with nothing but my relation with that person, which is the only thing that really matters to me.

Submission happens in any situation where there is competition.

Competition is not in my self-interest, typically. This can be explained in a purely biological sense with something like mutual aid.

Whether its in a nation or a mess of like-minded anarchists, you will back down from something.

If it keeps me alive. Self-sacrifice for my own egoism would effectively make a spook out of the ego.

That might be because you are below someone in a heighrachy and fear punishment for your insolence, above someone in a heighrachy and fear mutiny for your tyranny or you are near someone's car and fear getting stabbed for trying to take it. In Stirner's terms, everything is my property but I don't have control over most of it.

A pretty poor, unhegelian reading of Stirner. Stirner-out-of-historical-context, like most of /leftypol/ and Randroids that talk about him.

"Everything being my property" is actually the basis of critique of narrow egoism. Everything being my property, my object of appropriation, allows me to say that capitalist egoists, nationalists, and ascetics are narrow, because they only focus on certain aspects of themselves, and certain forms of pleasure (materialistic pleasures, sadistic pleasures, masochistic pleasures, respectively) In the denial of broader egoism, they are self-denying. They are in contradiction, and that's the basis of narrow egoism's dialectical progression to communist egoism.

As for the denouncement of ego, doesn't that go to show that Christianity and its asceticism is right while egoism is trash?

"Right"? There is no "right", only more and less selfish. If you want to be less selfish, there's nothing stopping you.

Gays act on their own ego by indulging their carnal desires without restraint and suffer absurdly high rates of both STIs and suicide. Just like every other hedonistic group: Destruction of the body and depression everywhere. Christians, on the other hand, restrain themselves and submit to their idol, yet mostly live long, happy lives.

What a grand oversimplification.

Nationalism only contradicts the ego if the ego contradicts the Universe.

I don't give a shit about the Nation or the Race. They are other Sachen, to use the Hegelian term Stirner was fond of. I care only about my Sache. The opening line to The Ego and Its Own is a quote from Goethe, "Ich hab mein Sach auf nichts gestellt", meaning "I have set my cause on nothing". The nothing here is referring to Stirner's conception of self, the creative nothing. If there's one thing to draw from Stirner, it is that he hated when people followed causes for anything but themselves; Nationalism, and other narrow egoisms, are only indirectly or subconsciously selfish....they rest their cause on something besides the self: a spook.

I'm not entirely sure what you meant by the capitalism bit. Are you saying that capitalist selfishness causes you to pick fights with people?

No, it's based of the Marxist theory of alienation and the Situationist theory of the Spectacle, which is an elaboration of Marxist alienation.

Put simply, capitalist egoism is only concerned with projections of self onto material goods (money, etc).

And with the "self-denial and self-renunciation" is that something about constraining oneself by respecting others' property rights?

That is a more immediate example of restriction in capitalism, yes, but not the one I was talking about.

The alienated capitalist has distanced himself from the society which gives him his socially constructed sense of value and self (because he projects his notion of self onto material goods he obviously isn't working for, but exploiting others via wage labor). This is why, in Randian fiction, you see all the capitalists run away from society to form Galt's Gulch: they are incapable of maintaining their status in society because their egoist path alienates themselves from society.

Randian egoism and similar capitalist egoisms are only perfected alienation.

As for the nation, that "spook" is what keeps you alive. People band together, and if you are alive then you probably have something another band of people wants. An invading army isn't going to give a vegan's fart about your spooks and ego, so unless you want to get shot or assimilated, then you'll need your own band to physically fight them.

You're asusming when nationalists talk about "the Nation", they are referring to the actually existing state and its inhabitants. They are not. It's an abstraction of that, a lofty group ideal, which nationalists use to justify anything, even direct harm to the actually-existing members of the nation (see: Nazi detaining of German communists, because killing actually-existing Germans was necessary in their mind to protect their abstract notion of a pure Germany)

Race is probably the least spooky thing in this thread. Unlike nations and egos, it is sonething physical made of atoms. It is instinctive for any organism to protect its own bloodline, thus there is nothing wrong with wanting to protect one's race.

The majority of academic fields you've just tread across with this statement (biology, sociology, philosophy, etc) disagree with you.

Unfortunately we are not omnipotent gods. There is a limit to our power and our resources and consequently sacrifices will need to be made in order to reach our maximum potential. Asceticism, capitalism and nationalism are all methods to maximise potential in one aspect or another, but each require sacrifice.

....and in their "sacrifice", a euphemism for internal contradiction, they deny self. "Nothing is more to me than myself", thus I oppose them.

This doesn't mean they don't have their place. Like Marx argued that capitalism was necessary before the establishment of socialism, I feel narrow egoism is a necessity before its sublation. The aufheben of this internal contradiction is a new form of egoism.

[The New Sea Territory]

Even if I don't agree with Socrates or many of the ancient Greek philosophers, their philosophies are worth studying because arguments against them are as tired or thorough. I don't think there's any reason to study Christ. Christianity has been attacked from nearly every possible angle. It's beating a dead horse at this point.

You know, you can study a philosophy for more than reasons to attack it.

Why?

If I'm not converting to Christianity or criticizing Christianity, and I'm not otherwise interested in what Christ had to say, why should I study it?

[United Marxist Nations]

You know, you can study a philosophy for more than reasons to attack it.

Why?

If I'm not converting to Christianity or criticizing Christianity, and I'm not otherwise interested in what Christ had to say, why should I study it?

Historical significance, for one.

[The New Sea Territory]

Why?

If I'm not converting to Christianity or criticizing Christianity, and I'm not otherwise interested in what Christ had to say, why should I study it?

Historical significance, for one.

Ok, then I feel I know enough about Christianity in that respect. You don't have to be an training theologian to know the major points of Christian history.

In fact, I think being a theologian would probably blind you to the realities of Christianization, due to biases.

[United Marxist Nations]

Historical significance, for one.

Ok, then I feel I know enough about Christianity in that respect. You don't have to be an training theologian to know the major points of Christian history.

In fact, I think being a theologian would probably blind you to the realities of Christianization, due to biases.

Maybe not to know the major points of Christian history, but it would certainly help in understanding major points of Christian practice, worship, etc. I mean, just about every part of Orthodox practice has some esoteric reason; however, we have our intellectuals preserve these esoteric reasons, rather than have everyone memorize them.

[The New Sea Territory]

Ok, then I feel I know enough about Christianity in that respect. You don't have to be an training theologian to know the major points of Christian history.

In fact, I think being a theologian would probably blind you to the realities of Christianization, due to biases.

Maybe not to know the major points of Christian history, but it would certainly help in understanding major points of Christian practice, worship, etc. I mean, just about every part of Orthodox practice has some esoteric reason; however, we have our intellectuals preserve these esoteric reasons, rather than have everyone memorize them.

I agree there, but how does the esoteric reaosning behind practice relate to history (outside of various schisms or conflicts over differences in practice)?

[United Marxist Nations]

Maybe not to know the major points of Christian history, but it would certainly help in understanding major points of Christian practice, worship, etc. I mean, just about every part of Orthodox practice has some esoteric reason; however, we have our intellectuals preserve these esoteric reasons, rather than have everyone memorize them.

I agree there, but how does the esoteric reaosning behind practice relate to history (outside of various schisms or conflicts over differences in practice)?

Well, you mentioned a lot of it in your mention of schism and conflict, but there is also a lot of ways that Christian practice wove itself into the fabric of society.

Also, forgive me, but, to be frank, I kind of expected you to just sort of have more of just a general curiosity. I mean, I may not be a Marxist, but I still try to keep up with Marxist ideology.

[Mattopilos]

I agree there, but how does the esoteric reaosning behind practice relate to history (outside of various schisms or conflicts over differences in practice)?

Well, you mentioned a lot of it in your mention of schism and conflict, but there is also a lot of ways that Christian practice wove itself into the fabric of society.

Also, forgive me, but, to be frank, I kind of expected you to just sort of have more of just a general curiosity. I mean, I may not be a Marxist, but I still try to keep up with Marxist ideology.

Hence, I will be reading Marx's works, even if I am not the biggest fan of his idea of communism and such.