The Entelechies of Atheism

I was going to call this “The End of Atheism,” just to tease everyone, but I was afraid the joke would be too subtle. By entelechy I mean what Aristotle meant, which is given in the Oxford English Dictionary as follows:

1. In Aristotle’s use: The realization or complete expression of some function; the condition in which a potentiality has become an actuality.

The entelechy of something is therefore the perfection of it, the final expression of its true nature.

I don’t think much of the uproar over “The New Atheists” because I see them as more ignorant and less honest than the old atheists. Lacking the cultural basis of the old atheists and an honest acceptance of radical secular humanism, the New Atheist leaders will quickly burn out and the low-IQ acolytes will revert to pantheism, due to their natural propensity for superstition and idolatry:

Richard Dawkins, in his book The God Delusion, has described Pantheism as “sexed-up atheism.”  [World Pantheism]

In other words, atheists are just repressed pantheists. I have previously expressed my belief that there are three natural default states for anti-Christians who are also anti-religious:

  • Radical secular humanism: “Man is the measure of all things. I am my own god and I can do whatever I want. Might makes right. PHENOMENAL COSMIC POWERS … Itty-bitty living space!”
  • Deism: “Something created the universe and all of life, giving it order and maybe even purpose. However, it doesn’t talk to me or listen to me and it doesn’t care what I do or what happens to me. I don’t know what it was and I don’t really want to know, because I’m satisfied just contemplating what was created.”
  • Pantheism: “The universe is self-created, self-ordering, and self-sustaining. Everything is cyclical and recurring; there is no first cause or final end. Humans come from nature and their souls return to the universal soul after death. Everything in nature has consciousness and everything is sacred.”

Radical secular humanism is usually considered to have its ultimate modern expression in Nietzsche’s writings, which is appropriate since he eventually went insane. Variant forms can be found among fascists, secular Nazis, Randian Objectivists, communist intellectuals, moralistic sociopaths, and atheist existentialists. In the past, Objectivists have shown up here and whined about being lumped in with Nazis; but despite the fact that they may quibble about the use of state power and who gets to be the Supreme Leader, they still agree on worshipping their own awesome selves.

I associate Deism with Tom Paine, Voltaire, John Davison, the Intelligent Design movement, the motto “In God We Trust,” politically acceptable civic religion, 19th-century Unitarians, lapsed Catholics, and a lot of almost-Christians who really hate being around judgmental pseudo-Christian WASP Republicans. Deism is for rationalists who love physical order or social order but not moral accountability; for materialists who don’t like quantum physics and string theory; and for “Pascal’s Wager” losers who don’t like Christians but are afraid to be called atheists.

Pantheism is the modern, socially acceptable form of heathenism. It encompasses New Age Spirituality, panpsychism, Green Nazis, neo-paganism, Unitarian-Universalism, shamanism, Hinduism, popular communism, Gaia-worship, Native American religion, and philosophical naturalism. It is anarcho-primitivist, irrationalist, collectivist, and morally incoherent. The numbing effect of pantheism among the general populace results in the degradation of technological ability and scientific inquiry, accompanied by the idolization of gadgets and the scientific priesthood. Furthermore, a pantheistic society devalues the individual and institutionalizes caste tyranny.

The radical secular humanists are relatively unpopular now in the USA. All their glorious eugenics plans have been disowned by their ungrateful intellectual stepchildren, and their twentieth-century projects are generally disparaged as anomalies of a perverse age.

For some reason, scientific atheists and conservative Christians seem to think that most Deists are Christians and all Christians are Deists; most of the arguing about atheism and religion involves Deist arguments. Sometimes they say “theist,” but if you don’t know who your god is, you don’t know what he wants from you, you don’t think he cares what you do or think, and you’ve never talked to him—you are a Deist. And if you don’t know or care about Jesus, you are not a Christian. Why should I care if my worldly rulers argue over whether to promote Deism as the state religion? The Christian obsession with the atheist/Deist debate is tiresome and irrelevant.

Scientific atheists and conservative Christians seem to be most resistant to the idea of atheists ultimately becoming pantheists. They just can’t believe that most so-called atheists are not smart enough or strong-willed enough to become Nietzschean alpha males, that most “freethinkers” just want to dissolve their egos into puddles of superstitious idolatry. Yet, World Pantheism is standing there with open arms, awaiting the crowds of low-church atheists yearning for anonymous Unity:

Are you sceptical about a “God” other than Nature and the wider Universe?

Yet do you feel an emotional need for a recognition of something greater than your own self or than the human race? …

Pantheism is older than Buddhism or Christianity, and may already count hundreds of millions among its members. Most Taoists are pantheists, along with many Chinese, Japanese and Western Buddhists, deep ecologists, pagans, animists, followers of many native religions, and many Unitarian Universalists. The central philosophical scriptures of Hinduism are pantheistic. Many atheists and humanists may be naturalistic pantheists without realizing it.

Scientific or natural pantheism is a modern form of pantheism that deeply reveres the universe and nature and joyfully accepts and embraces life, the body and earth, but does not believe in any supernatural deities, entities or powers.

[World Pantheism]

When some moron chooses to disable his intellect and his will in awe of the sacred cosmos, as revealed to him by a science reporter who is cribbing from a press release, that has nothing to do with the depredations of Darwin or Dawkins. Stop blaming those second-rate theologians for the adulterous irrationalism and lurching zombie mobbing of the typical “Friends of A.”

Everyone who wants to avoid accountability for their sadistic tendencies and victimization complex points to some big villain who personifies all of their own sinfulness, someone who put the “bad ideas” in their head and made them want to hurt other people, or someone who convinced them that slavery was a good thing. This denial of personal sin is sickening. If someone is vicious, immature, addicted, egotistical, malicious, thieving, hypocritical, and adulterous, it isn’t the fault of Darwin or Nietzsche or anyone else in the world; it is their own fault for seeking salvation in the world and for rejecting God’s grace, so that God has handed them over to suffer in their depravity.

Advertisements

7 thoughts on “The Entelechies of Atheism

  1. … They just can’t believe that most so-called atheists are not smart enough or strong-willed enough to become Nietzschean alpha males…

    As Nietzsche wrote:

    27. It is difficult to be understood, especially when one thinks and lives gangasrotogati [Footnote: Like the river Ganges: presto.] among those only who think and live otherwise–namely, kurmagati [Footnote: Like the tortoise: lento.], or at best “froglike,” mandeikagati [Footnote: Like the frog: staccato.] (I do everything to be “difficultly understood” myself!)–and one should be heartily grateful for the good will to some refinement of interpretation. As regards “the good friends,” however, who are always too easy-going, and think that as friends they have a right to ease, one does well at the very first to grant them a play-ground and romping-place for misunderstanding–one can thus laugh still; or get rid of them altogether, these good friends– and laugh then also!

    – Beyond Good and Evil (Nietzsche)

    Was there ever an author that lent themselves more to an intended misunderstanding by their readers than Friedrich Nietzsche?

    • In fairness to Freddie, I tried to refer to him indirectly, in terms of how he was interpreted. In fact, when I composed the term “Nietzschean alpha male,” I was thinking of The Nietzscheans, not any particular reference to Freddie’s writings. A charitable understanding of Freddie was that he just wanted to help folks be all they could be, kind of like a drill sergeant.

      As to whether we can say that the misunderstanding of Freddie was intended by him or by his readers, I think the answer is yes, we can. Let us go back to the English Gutenberg.org text that you quoted from. In entry #42, Freddie writes,

      42. A new order of philosophers is appearing; I shall venture to baptize them by a name not without danger. As far as I understand them, as far as they allow themselves to be understood–for it is their nature to WISH to remain something of a puzzle–these philosophers of the future might rightly, perhaps also wrongly, claim to be designated as “tempters.” This name itself is after all only an attempt, or, if it be preferred, a temptation.

      Oh, yeah–there’s a reason why Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, and Heidegger all get mentioned together; it’s because they are all deliberately obscure. Nevertheless, it is valid to speak of “Nietzschean” ideas–like “Darwinian” ideas or “Christian” ideas–that may have only a tenuous connection with their namesake, but which can be attributed to their latter-day enthusiasts.

      In the case of Freddie, I do not relent on my contention that he was a radical secular humanist, of a type that is unpalatable to the liberal atheist girlie-men of today, whom Freddie would have described thus:

      44. [excerpted]
      Briefly and regrettably, they belong to the LEVELLERS, these wrongly named “free spirits”–as glib-tongued and scribe-fingered slaves of the democratic taste and its “modern ideas”: all of them men without solitude, without personal solitude, blunt honest fellows to whom neither courage nor honourable conduct ought to be denied, only, they are not free, and are ludicrously superficial, especially in their innate partiality for seeing the cause of almost ALL human misery and failure in the old forms in which society has hitherto existed–a notion which happily inverts the truth entirely! What they would fain attain with all their strength, is the universal, green-meadow happiness of the herd, together with security, safety, comfort, and alleviation of life for every one, their two most frequently chanted songs and doctrines are called “Equality of Rights” and “Sympathy with All Sufferers”–and suffering itself is looked upon by them as something which must be DONE AWAY WITH. We opposite ones, however, who have opened our eye and conscience to the question how and where the plant “man” has hitherto grown most vigorously, believe that this has always taken place under the opposite conditions, that for this end the dangerousness of his situation had to be increased enormously, his inventive faculty and dissembling power (his “spirit”) had to develop into subtlety and daring under long oppression and compulsion, and his Will to Life had to be increased to the unconditioned Will to Power–we believe that severity, violence, slavery, danger in the street and in the heart, secrecy, stoicism, tempter’s art and devilry of every kind,–that everything wicked, terrible, tyrannical, predatory, and serpentine in man, serves as well for the elevation of the human species as its opposite–we do not even say enough when we only say THIS MUCH, and in any case we find ourselves here, both with our speech and our silence, at the OTHER extreme of all modern ideology and gregarious desirability, as their antipodes perhaps? What wonder that we “free spirits” are not exactly the most communicative spirits? that we do not wish to betray in every respect WHAT a spirit can free itself from, and WHERE perhaps it will then be driven? And as to the import of the dangerous formula, “Beyond Good and Evil,” with which we at least avoid confusion, we ARE something else than “libres-penseurs,” “liben pensatori” “free-thinkers,” and whatever these honest advocates of “modern ideas” like to call themselves.

      So, what is the New Atheist meme from the point of view of Freddie? A nothing-burger. And so we, too, should regard any atheism which can’t deal honestly with real humanity.

  2. Pingback: Todos Somos Amigos « Brainbiter

  3. Ha!

    This… wasn’t exactly what I was getting at.

    If you want to refer to how Fred has been misinterpreted, then I suppose that’s different, and I withdraw my criticism.

    However, you’ve still missed what it is about Fred that makes him so… tricky.

    Considering Beyond Good and Evil as a whole… Not sure if you’ve read it. If you haven’t, you really should. It’s a brilliantly constructed book.

    It would be easy to give a superficial reading of Beyond Good and Evil. It’s tricky. He spends a section at the beginning of the book criticizing the THE BELIEF IN ANTITHESES OF VALUES*. However, at the end of that very same book, he spends a great deal of time constructing an antithesis of value between master morality (the Nietzschean alpha males described above)**.

    At first glance, the structure of the book appears to refute itself. Fred even points this out towards the end^. What are we to make of this?

    That the novel is poor and self-contradictory, perhaps? Well… Maybe. But then consider another of Nietzsche’s works that exhibits the same pattern, On Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense.

    http://faculty.uml.edu/enelson/truth&lies.htm

    Fred seems to like these patterns. Is he really so… clumsy? If not, what is he getting at?

    The biggest influence Nietzsche has had over me has not been to shape my opinions to a novel set of facts. No, definitely not. Fred contradicts himself far too often for me to make the frequent (and insulting) mistake of taking him at his word!

    It could even be argued that to agree with Nietzsche would be an even greater insult to Nietzsche then to disagree with him, or even condemn him!

    Nietzsche’s real talent lay in the beautifully complex and interrelated sculptures he would meld^^ – the art of perspective was his domain. He isn’t persuasive in the sense that he can convince people that his views are correct. As we can see, his views are rarely consistent enough for that. Instead, he’s persuasive in the sense that, in reading his works, it is almost impossible not to come to look at things in a different way. He presents new ways of seeing.

    129. The devil has the most extensive perspectives for God; on that account he keeps so far away from him:–the devil, in effect, as the oldest friend of knowledge.

    – Beyond Good and Evil, Friedrich Nietzsche

    So to compare something Nietzsche said as if it somehow invalidates the approach of the ‘New Atheists’ is to entirely miss the point of Nietzsche. Nietzsche wasn’t about truth, praise, or even condemnation.

    It’s always struck me as very curious, how so many theists of various stripes always jump to invoke Nietzsche against the ‘New Atheists’. To invoke Nietzsche against anything requires a certain… literal mindedness, a certain blindness to the intricacy, an inability to read between the lines.

    Do atheists share these traits? Surely, they do. I don’t mean to single out theists for any special condemnation on this count – Nietzsche is forgivably tricky.

    But it is still curious to me… It requires a superficial mind to invoke Nietzsche against anything. But at the same time, a superficial mind should find in Nietzsche’s works a far greater weight of condemnation against theism than atheism.

    So I’m confused as to why so many theists seem to think of Nietzsche as some kind of ally in the most recent culture-clash between believers and atheists? To call him an ally of either side would, of course, be a mistake. But for the theists to claim him for one of their own…

    Outside of desperation, I completely fail to understand what would motivate a theist to claim Nietzsche as an ally in the first place.

    *2. “HOW COULD anything originate out of its opposite? For example, truth out of error? or the Will to Truth out of the will to deception? or the generous deed out of selfishness? or the pure sun-bright vision of the wise man out of covetousness? Such genesis is impossible; whoever dreams of it is a fool, nay, worse than a fool; things of the highest value must have a different origin, an origin of THEIR own–in this transitory, seductive, illusory, paltry world, in this turmoil of delusion and cupidity, they cannot have their source. But rather in the lap of Being, in the intransitory, in the concealed God, in the ‘Thing-in-itself– THERE must be their source, and nowhere else!”–This mode of reasoning discloses the typical prejudice by which metaphysicians of all times can be recognized, this mode of valuation is at the back of all their logical procedure; through this “belief” of theirs, they exert themselves for their “knowledge,” for something that is in the end solemnly christened “the Truth.” The fundamental belief of metaphysicians is THE BELIEF IN ANTITHESES OF VALUES. It never occurred even to the wariest of them to doubt here on the very threshold (where doubt, however, was most necessary); though they had made a solemn vow, “DE OMNIBUS DUBITANDUM.” For it may be doubted, firstly, whether antitheses exist at all; and secondly, whether the popular valuations and antitheses of value upon which metaphysicians have set their seal, are not perhaps merely superficial estimates, merely provisional perspectives, besides being probably made from some corner, perhaps from below–“frog perspectives,” as it were, to borrow an expression current among painters. In spite of all the value which may belong to the true, the positive, and the unselfish, it might be possible that a higher and more fundamental value for life generally should be assigned to pretence, to the will to delusion, to selfishness, and cupidity. It might even be possible that WHAT constitutes the value of those good and respected things, consists precisely in their being insidiously related, knotted, and crocheted to these evil and apparently opposed things–perhaps even in being essentially identical with them. Perhaps! But who wishes to concern himself with such dangerous “Perhapses”! For that investigation one must await the advent of a new order of philosophers, such as will have other tastes and inclinations, the reverse of those hitherto prevalent–philosophers of the dangerous “Perhaps” in every sense of the term. And to speak in all seriousness, I see such new philosophers beginning to appear.

    – Beyond Good and Evil, Friedrich Nietzsche

    **260. In a tour through the many finer and coarser moralities which have hitherto prevailed or still prevail on the earth, I found certain traits recurring regularly together, and connected with one another, until finally two primary types revealed themselves to me, and a radical distinction was brought to light. There is MASTER-MORALITY and SLAVE-MORALITY,–I would at once add, however, that in all higher and mixed civilizations, there are also attempts at the reconciliation of the two moralities, but one finds still oftener the confusion and mutual misunderstanding of them, indeed sometimes their close juxtaposition–even in the same man, within one soul. The distinctions of moral values have either originated in a ruling caste, pleasantly conscious of being different from the ruled–or among the ruled class, the slaves and dependents of all sorts. In the first case, when it is the rulers who determine the conception “good,” it is the exalted, proud disposition which is regarded as the distinguishing feature, and that which determines the order of rank. The noble type of man separates from himself the beings in whom the opposite of this exalted, proud disposition displays itself he despises them. Let it at once be noted that in this first kind of morality the antithesis “good” and “bad” means practically the same as “noble” and “despicable”,–the antithesis “good” and “EVIL” is of a different origin. The cowardly, the timid, the insignificant, and those thinking merely of narrow utility are despised; moreover, also, the distrustful, with their constrained glances, the self- abasing, the dog-like kind of men who let themselves be abused, the mendicant flatterers, and above all the liars:–it is a fundamental belief of all aristocrats that the common people are untruthful. “We truthful ones”–the nobility in ancient Greece called themselves. It is obvious that everywhere the designations of moral value were at first applied to MEN; and were only derivatively and at a later period applied to ACTIONS; it is a gross mistake, therefore, when historians of morals start with questions like, “Why have sympathetic actions been praised?” The noble type of man regards HIMSELF as a determiner of values; he does not require to be approved of; he passes the judgment: “What is injurious to me is injurious in itself;” he knows that it is he himself only who confers honour on things; he is a CREATOR OF VALUES. He honours whatever he recognizes in himself: such morality equals self-glorification. In the foreground there is the feeling of plenitude, of power, which seeks to overflow, the happiness of high tension, the consciousness of a wealth which would fain give and bestow:–the noble man also helps the unfortunate, but not–or scarcely–out of pity, but rather from an impulse generated by the super-abundance of power. The noble man honours in himself the powerful one, him also who has power over himself, who knows how to speak and how to keep silence, who takes pleasure in subjecting himself to severity and hardness, and has reverence for all that is severe and hard. “Wotan placed a hard heart in my breast,” says an old Scandinavian Saga: it is thus rightly expressed from the soul of a proud Viking. Such a type of man is even proud of not being made for sympathy; the hero of the Saga therefore adds warningly: “He who has not a hard heart when young, will never have one.” The noble and brave who think thus are the furthest removed from the morality which sees precisely in sympathy, or in acting for the good of others, or in DESINTERESSEMENT, the characteristic of the moral; faith in oneself, pride in oneself, a radical enmity and irony towards “selflessness,” belong as definitely to noble morality, as do a careless scorn and precaution in presence of sympathy and the “warm heart.”–It is the powerful who KNOW how to honour, it is their art, their domain for invention. The profound reverence for age and for tradition–all law rests on this double reverence,– the belief and prejudice in favour of ancestors and unfavourable to newcomers, is typical in the morality of the powerful; and if, reversely, men of “modern ideas” believe almost instinctively in “progress” and the “future,” and are more and more lacking in respect for old age, the ignoble origin of these “ideas” has complacently betrayed itself thereby. A morality of the ruling class, however, is more especially foreign and irritating to present-day taste in the sternness of its principle that one has duties only to one’s equals; that one may act towards beings of a lower rank, towards all that is foreign, just as seems good to one, or “as the heart desires,” and in any case “beyond good and evil”: it is here that sympathy and similar sentiments can have a place. The ability and obligation to exercise prolonged gratitude and prolonged revenge–both only within the circle of equals,– artfulness in retaliation, RAFFINEMENT of the idea in friendship, a certain necessity to have enemies (as outlets for the emotions of envy, quarrelsomeness, arrogance–in fact, in order to be a good FRIEND): all these are typical characteristics of the noble morality, which, as has been pointed out, is not the morality of “modern ideas,” and is therefore at present difficult to realize, and also to unearth and disclose.–It is otherwise with the second type of morality, SLAVE-MORALITY. Supposing that the abused, the oppressed, the suffering, the unemancipated, the weary, and those uncertain of themselves should moralize, what will be the common element in their moral estimates? Probably a pessimistic suspicion with regard to the entire situation of man will find expression, perhaps a condemnation of man, together with his situation. The slave has an unfavourable eye for the virtues of the powerful; he has a skepticism and distrust, a REFINEMENT of distrust of everything “good” that is there honoured–he would fain persuade himself that the very happiness there is not genuine. On the other hand, THOSE qualities which serve to alleviate the existence of sufferers are brought into prominence and flooded with light; it is here that sympathy, the kind, helping hand, the warm heart, patience, diligence, humility, and friendliness attain to honour; for here these are the most useful qualities, and almost the only means of supporting the burden of existence. Slave-morality is essentially the morality of utility. Here is the seat of the origin of the famous antithesis “good” and “evil”:–power and dangerousness are assumed to reside in the evil, a certain dreadfulness, subtlety, and strength, which do not admit of being despised. According to slave-morality, therefore, the “evil” man arouses fear; according to master-morality, it is precisely the “good” man who arouses fear and seeks to arouse it, while the bad man is regarded as the despicable being. The contrast attains its maximum when, in accordance with the logical consequences of slave-morality, a shade of depreciation–it may be slight and well-intentioned–at last attaches itself to the “good” man of this morality; because, according to the servile mode of thought, the good man must in any case be the SAFE man: he is good-natured, easily deceived, perhaps a little stupid, un bonhomme. Everywhere that slave- morality gains the ascendancy, language shows a tendency to approximate the significations of the words “good” and “stupid.”- -A last fundamental difference: the desire for FREEDOM, the instinct for happiness and the refinements of the feeling of liberty belong as necessarily to slave-morals and morality, as artifice and enthusiasm in reverence and devotion are the regular symptoms of an aristocratic mode of thinking and estimating.– Hence we can understand without further detail why love AS A PASSION–it is our European specialty–must absolutely be of noble origin; as is well known, its invention is due to the Provencal poet-cavaliers, those brilliant, ingenious men of the “gai saber,” to whom Europe owes so much, and almost owes itself.

    – Beyond Good and Evil, Friedrich Nietzsche

    ^296. Alas! what are you, after all, my written and painted thoughts! Not long ago you were so variegated, young and malicious, so full of thorns and secret spices, that you made me sneeze and laugh–and now? You have already doffed your novelty, and some of you, I fear, are ready to become truths, so immortal do they look, so pathetically honest, so tedious! And was it ever otherwise? What then do we write and paint, we mandarins with Chinese brush, we immortalisers of things which LEND themselves to writing, what are we alone capable of painting? Alas, only that which is just about to fade and begins to lose its odour! Alas, only exhausted and departing storms and belated yellow sentiments! Alas, only birds strayed and fatigued by flight, which now let themselves be captured with the hand–with OUR hand! We immortalize what cannot live and fly much longer, things only which are exhausted and mellow! And it is only for your AFTERNOON, you, my written and painted thoughts, for which alone I have colours, many colours, perhaps, many variegated softenings, and fifty yellows and browns and greens and reds;– but nobody will divine thereby how ye looked in your morning, you sudden sparks and marvels of my solitude, you, my old, beloved– EVIL thoughts!

    – Beyond Good and Evil, Friedrich Nietzsche

    ^^Of course, in order to be supported by such a foundation, his construction must be like one constructed of spiders’ webs: delicate enough to be carried along by the waves, strong enough not to be blown apart by every wind. As a genius of construction man raises himself far above the bee in the following way: whereas the bee builds with wax that he gathers from nature, man builds with the far more delicate conceptual material which he first has to manufacture from himself. In this he is greatly to be admired, but not on account of his drive for truth or for pure knowledge of things.

    – On Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense, Friedrich Nietzsche

  4. Bloody typos. My kingdom for an edit function.

    … he spends a great deal of time constructing an antithesis of value between master morality (the Nietzschean alpha males described above)** and slave morality.

  5. Is Freddie really being used by theists against atheists? How delicious. I really thought it was original to see Vox do it, and I can’t imagine any other Christian publicly quoting Freddie approvingly.

    I read “Beyond Good and Evil” over and over when I was a teenager, wearing it out like a favorite cassette tape. I believe it came after reading Bertrand Russell and John Stuart Mill, when I thought that liberal atheism was cool. Then I read “Beyond Good and Evil,” and I came to the conclusion that political liberalism was for squids. Really, there was no difference in my mind between reading this book and listening to an album by Aerosmith or Sammy Hagar. I imagined writing heavy metal music to that poem that is included at the end of the Kaufmann edition.

    Was that because I agreed with Freddie on everything? Hardly. However, while reading him I became convinced that it was hypocritical to be an atheist just to have an excuse to beat up on religious hypocrites. I acquired a vision of “hard atheism,” in which I make the choices, I execute the rational plan, and I accept all the glory. I looked down on all those people whining about how bad the world is, how tough it is to submit to authority, how mean the Christian God is, crying “boo hoo hoo, oh Saint Marx please please save us from the The White Hetero Patriarchy.” [barfing sound]

    So, that’s the source of my first atheist entelechy, based on my own thought process as an atheist. And, as I am partly educated from the postmodernist perspective, I have no scruples about plucking out some of Freddie’s disconnected aphorisms to suit my own purposes. To accept Freddie as an authoritative support for any particular point of view requires a certain inability to read the actual text, and that is exactly what I expect from the typical netizen. Not from you, of course, sir; you are enough of a gentleman to quote your sources directly.

    I’m not quite certain, though, why you address me as though I were a Hegelian. You see, I don’t believe that antitheses represent mutually opposed essences. Any set of antitheses comprise a dynamic equilibrium, in which the movements of the parts are directed by the same forces. What they have in common is interdependency, a center of gravity, and dynamic equivalence. Because people love such balanced systems, they tend to create them and then constantly readjust them to maintain equilibrium. It is all quite synthetic and idealistic, like an ecological fairy tale about perfectly conserved species and eternally uniform weather patterns.

Instigate some pointless rambling

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s