https://youtu.be/pp0E1gb80WQ?t=4756
(timestamp late)
First time I've heard a good explanation of the yeshuan self-sacrifice. Even so, he phrases it wrong.
God punishes himself for failing to foresee eve would kill the dog. For failing to prevent it, for failing to protect the dog.
Here's a time the leftists aren't totally wrong.* When you're dealing with God, there's a power imbalance. You can't do anything, anything at all, unless he gives you permission. All responsibility percolates to God, regardless of what you do or how you do it.
Then jiang says, "She will feel so much remorse she will never doubt God again." This is cluster B. If God punishes himself because it was his own fault, then eve's remorse or lack thereof is irrelevant. Why should she feel remorse for something she didn't cause? The thing she learns, via role model, is to punish herself if she messes up. Should she ever have the opportunity to make a decision in the first place.
In this particular example, God should have explained himself better. She did it because she didn't understand, but let's really go out on a limb here and suggest that God has transcendent, incomprehensibly good teaching skills. Glorious and divine, you might say. If eve didn't understand it's because God didn't use these skills.
Jiang is ontologically committed to the idea that God can't teach. This is atheism: denying the divinity of the divine. I use the term yaleism for jiang's particular species of atheism.
For completeness, I will also mention that God could have fenced the dog away. Perhaps given eve a fake toy dog, so she could be tricked into thinking she killed it. Teaching doesn't have to come in the form of words - and if I can think of that, a fortiori God can think of it. There are numerous ways to demonstrate harm is harmful without permitting any harm to genuinely occur.
The dog that didn't bark: why does God have to create someone as twisted as eve in the first place? "No God, infinite love isn't enough for me. I need more than that." Holy shit woman what is wrong with you. Let's explicit say the word Envy here; when it isn't enough that you have enough, when it is only enough that others are deprived.
I believe nobody tries to explain why such creation is necessary because you can't even pretend there's a justification. It occurs to me that this is the problem, so, what, am I the smartest sapient text box that ever lived; or did it a fortiori occur to all the geniuses before me, they merely hope it doesn't occur to you?
Unless, inevitably, euhemerism. If there is no god here, but only distinctly incomplete mortals, then it makes sense when god dad screws up. However, also, god dad doesn't have infinite love &c...
Socrates was the only wizard who was willing to say [I don't know], which is why, and why we know, he is the only virtuous wizard recorded in history. That's all they had to do. Say, yeah this is a problem and we don't know why it had to be created this way. They're incomprehensibly evil if they can't say [I don't know] and they're incomprehensibly evil if they did know.
Holy shit you [wise] elders, what the fuck is wrong with you. If you were trying to be as evil as it is possible to be, well, congratulations. You win.
A fortiori, the godel incompleteness theorem. "We don't know because we do know we can't know." Not [know], it's a [no].
No.
Not at all.
You don't know not because Reality is incomplete but because you are incomplete. We add Pride to the list next to Envy.
The fact jiang uses eve, a woman, in his example, is not a coincidence. If women are doing something, it is because men are allowing her to do it. Women, fundamentally, cannot cause soycial problems without men's explicit written permission. Blaming them for anything is genuinely retarded.
Hunter-gatherers beat their women, but this is largely for the woman's sexual pleasure. If you're doing it for punishment you're a degenerate coward. If she does something you don't like, find the man that told her to and punch him instead. Beat him, shun him, outlaw him. If you don't, then anything else you do constitutes consent to her misbehaviour.
*P.S. This can only happen because rightoids are a kind of leftist. During left-on-left violence, sometimes the left can win.
P.P.S. Jiang claims you have to learn for yourself and not follow a priest or prophet. He does not explain, because the reason is omnievil, Romans 3:10, which is heresy against yaleism. "Everyone is evil so obey the priests." "The priest is also cursed, I mean, evil." "That's bad." "Yes, the blind leading the blind." Mortals maintain their divine spark specifically so they may do the opposite of what it says, priests and jesuses included.
No comments:
Post a Comment