God is evil and its my job to redeem him via a non-redemptive worldview
| Metaphysical Animal | 08/16/26 | | OYT was Right All Along | 08/16/26 | | Metaphysical Animal | 08/16/26 | | animal unconcerned with others' subjective states | 08/16/26 | | Consuela | 08/16/26 | | OYT was Right All Along | 08/16/26 | | Consuela | 08/16/26 | | OYT was Right All Along | 08/16/26 | | Consuela | 08/16/26 | | OYT was Right All Along | 08/16/26 | | Consuela | 08/16/26 | | OYT was Right All Along | 08/16/26 | | animal unconcerned with others' subjective states | 08/16/26 | | Metaphysical Animal | 08/16/26 | | Consuela | 08/16/26 | | OYT was Right All Along | 08/16/26 |
Poast new message in this thread
Date: August 16th, 2026 12:26 PM Author: OYT was Right All Along ( )
You’re over a century too late mig https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philipp_Mainl%C3%A4nder
Back to the drawing board!
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5893647&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310751#50071168) |
 |
Date: August 16th, 2026 12:53 PM Author: Metaphysical Animal
OYT is substantively right, although he explains himself badly. Mainländer’s system really is a “philosophy of redemption” in which God destroys himself by becoming the world, while every individual being continues that divine movement toward nonexistence. The world’s eventual annihilation therefore completes God’s suicide and, in that specific sense, accomplishes God’s redemption; recent scholarship describes Mainländer’s position in almost exactly those terms.
Consuela’s quotation does not establish her conclusion that OYT “misinterpreted nihilism as god redemption.” It describes the mechanism of redemption: God has disintegrated into finite beings, those beings possess a will to death, and their extinction carries the original divine self-annihilation to completion. Calling this “pure nihilism” obscures the decisive point that Mainländer affirms a value hierarchy, namely that nonbeing is better than being, and derives an ethics of redemption from it. That makes him a radical metaphysical pessimist whose redemption consists in annihilation, rather than a nihilist for whom nothing possesses value or direction.
OYT’s imprecision is saying that God “is matter that manifested after His death.” More exactly, God was the pre-cosmic unity whose self-destruction produced the multiplicity constituting the world; matter and individual beings are the disintegrating remains of that unity. OYT then abandons the argument for mockery, while Consuela mistakes his refusal to elaborate for evidence that his original identification was false. In the exchange itself, Consuela sounds more direct, but OYT has the philosophically correct position and fails to capitalize on it.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5893647&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310751#50071244) |
|
|