Yesss... me too.

He already did Deleuze

I think Dostoevsky is a big part of his upcoming book?

He isn’t, Tolstoy is a big part of the upcoming book.

@@untimelyreflections Ah! Mixed up my 19th-century Russian writers!

​@@untimelyreflections ah, what a shame, I adore dostoyevsky but can't stand tolstoy.

In his books he talks a lot about the Buddha, the Book of Manu, and some other Indian religious/philosophical traditions, but he doesn't say anything about Taoism that I can recall. He might have mentioned Confucius once (with nothing particularly complimentary to say) or I might be imagining things.

portugese

Thank you so much? 👍

I should mention the reason nobody diagnosed with autism is this mora or rationall is because diagnosis advances the child into the position of being a viable proxy when the mother experiences the assertion of some need she won't be able to avoid as an insulting stressor to her untreated postpartum (wish for the child to become "unborn"). Savior complex activated,, she stops rejecting attachment as long as he's sick or actively destroying himself in some way. Maternal attachment stops the IQ climb. Which is why nobody noticing until later if at all prompts hyperlexia and is the etiology of neurotic level 1 high-functioning whatever you want to call it Asperger's autism The overlap between autism and trait homosexuality is that first trimester androstenedione is an adrenal response to the anxiety of keeping an unwanted pregnancy which pairs individuals to partners of the same gender as a way of not imposing the alternative inefficiency of hypothetical sterility upon heterosexual partner fertility. So being unwanted and being murderously despised are highly correlated for obvious reasons and that's why the overlap. Transgender delusion is an attachment strategy in kids rejected for their physical sex (sea Chaz Bono, born CHASTITY🙄 when there was quite obviously only room for one vajayjay at Sonny and Cher's) and in kids rejected for their sexual orientation. As one may or may not be able to figure out lots of unwanted but unterminated pregnancies are babytrappers and pro-life zealots (who claim sanctity of life but never seem to oppose capital punishment as vigorously if at all (because what they're usually doing is externalizing regret about an abortion they have had in the way people too intellectually and morally enfeebled to integrate their own experience and allow other people room to make their own mistakes if that's what it will be for them). So not hard to imagine these moral giants who prove their virtue by blowing up clinics deciding it's fine to mutilate kids it would've been wrong to abort if they tell midean abusers such as these they're gay. Autistic females internalize displace rage toward their mother's as self-hatred, so tranny delusion is a natural fit for the exemplar self-harm population and is why they're so desperate for puberty blockers before 18 because duh they're still living under that parent's roof. And everybody's down with it because it will socially homogenize the visual appearance of heterosexuality. Is what it is. Y'all need to wake the fuck up wokeism is based on psychopathic pseudomorality that that distorts empathy as treating others as THEY wish to be treated. Psychopathic egosyntonia is predicated upon getting one over on others. See why gaslighting you about what empathy is and coercively dictating pronouns is like psychotic catnip? Does nobody think an "informant" named Deepthroat might've been Nixon punking us? Or that LBJ was responsible for JFK? Or GHWB was responsible for the attempt on Reagan? Or that the hit on Lennon was the dry run a month before he took office? Catcher in the rye? Holden caulfield? Maybe not currently on the Andover summer reading list but it's an East Coast prep School staple. Oswald Hinckley Lennon and Chapman all autistic. And Yoko Ono either not terribly bright or stuck in prolonged grief. Wonder if Jodie Foster (who Hinckley was stalking at GHWB's other alma mater) realizes the "I'll get you Foster" outburst at his trial was because he thought she'd called him and asked him to do it. Spinoza's god is pretty brilliant though almost schizotypal, but the so-called chosen people of their own made up god had been showing him his whole life that the only people who need imaginary guaranteed third-party forgiveness in an imaginary next life are the ones who are remorselessly unforgivable and refused to grow up in this real one. Had Nietzsche and Freud (also autistic, molested by his father) lived a little later I think between them they'd have figured out Hitler's master race obsession was a result of having been cruelly excluded in childhood as a quarterbreed by the original master race. The autistics who just kicked asperger out of the club because he euthanized autistic kids predictably were too busy claiming neurodiversity while tearing down other autistics over our asperger label to figure out Hitler euthanizing autistics was no different than externalizing the annihilation of his Jewishness. One could argue the ashkeNAZIc and sephardic tradition of agnostic entitlement to exploit the goyim that gave Western culture autism (by way of giving it to themselves) and christianity basically owning psychiatry and psychoanalysis is a type of homo Holocaust. Not an MD here and I can figure out tranny delusion is a chromosomal impossibility (which but for little more than a cointoss could've been my gay autistic junk being filleted and incinerated as surgical biohazard waste), and I'm quite certain their average 125 IQs can too. Child sacrifice is as endemic to humanity as regulation of masks of sanity at the expense of outgroups. I haven't given it any thought but certainly the only alternative would require the extinction of all carnivorous predators and sicking the pro-life bitches on anyone who eats a hamburger lmfao. Then first famine we really would go extinct. So this depraved world in which it is stupidity's (starring) role to ENDLESSLY misperceive the inevitability of its own dominance is exactly as it should be. It is objectively obvious that (im)moral absolutism is a non sequitur and that morality is de facto relative. Watch out for Symantec tricks like moral absolutism, faith as defined by religion, and democracy in artificially constrained (fully lobbied) two-party systems. The door has been wide open for the false implication that dissent within an informed populous never rises to a majority and so now everybody can vote their ideologies rather than their pocketbooks to distract them from increasing inequality and social welfare being an instrument of diplomatic clout against producer nations (which don't discourage production with welfare and tax the demand/consumption side instead). All governments regard their subjects as another resource to be managed so the best government is objectively the least necessary to protect you from your likeliest more oppressive conqueror. Naive or just not rational to there will be any government anywhere that does not always seek to increase its authority and expand its influence MAXIMIZING THE ADVANCEMENT OF ITS OWN INTERESTS AT THE EXPENSE OF YOURS. Politicians win their jobs by popularity pageant BECAUSE why just steal your wallet if you'll let them get a kick out of helping you look for it too. There is no free will and there is no god but there is certainly freedom of volition within each individual's sphere. In fact our motivated intention is the only universal domain of absolute personal discretion. If you want autonomy you have to forfeit discretion and waste your life looking in omnipotent magic.

No evidence he ever read him though I don't think? Not mentioned in his notes and didnt appear to own a copy of his book.

Amazing idea

Thank you! Have you checked out the conversation I had with Weltgeist? It was pretty good I think.

@@untimelyreflections Yes sir, I saw it, super interesting and enlightening.

That is not that far off from very traditional Christian thinking. Not protestant but more in line with Catholic and Orthodox thought. God is not a substance or a being but rather is Being itself. God is that which is; the ultimate is, if you will. The thing by which all other things are possible. Even the name Yaweh literally means "I am." The difference though is that we still are not God.

@@nickchavez720 Talk like this is ONE among hundreds of reasons why I stopped believing, I have no idea what all you said here means, and I have a good sense that YOU don't either, it is all feelings from what I can gather a very "meaningful" voodoo word salad. ========== ""God is not a substance or a being but rather is Being itself. God is that which is; the ultimate is, if you will. The thing by which all other things are possible"" What the hell is all that abut if not contradictions in term or oxymorons, and they do elicit FEELINGS for sure, but mean... WHATEVER you want them to mean. There is a reason church leaders ask of their "sheep" that they must suspend reason to be a able to believe, but for me no thank you, I keep my reason. Sorry my man, no sale.

Third comment on this, so I’ll respond. Nietzsche actually said Spinoza was his precursor, the title is a direct quote. He said no such thing about Stirner. And, to be honest, the similarities between the two I find to be exaggerated. That said, I may yet do an episode about Stirner.

In an edition of "The ego and its own" by Adelphi at the end there's a paragraph about Stirner and Nietzsche, in which there's a testimony of Ida Overback saying that she remembers two conversations where Nietzsche cited Stirner, telling her that he shouldn't have, because one day he would have been accused of plagiarism of Stirner's works

@@untimelyreflections I mean thats a cool idea for an episode. Stirner and how the similarities with N. are exaggerated.

@@untimelyreflections I'd like that too; I know nothing about the guy aside from a brief allusion to him in Eumeswil and I'm not sure yet if it's worth picking up some of his works.

Stirner’s philosophy, rather than a clear precursor, bears only a cursory resemblance to Nietzsche.

The main reason historically in Europe was primarily religion. Specific Islamic leaders within North Africa and The Middle East were more fanatically opposed to Jewish people but in general they were much less hostile than today (Bayezid II even offered the Jewish people refuge after the Alhambra Decree). Due to strict laws enforced by the Catholic Church, Jewish people often were only able to become financially successful as bankers and money lenders which contributed to their negative reputation.

@@thenablade858 Yes.. but why specifically the Jews?? I mean the churches are normally against all other groups or sectors that challenge or their authority... but I don't se why specifically the jews?? Were the jews at some point in history in the position of control or power of Islam or Catholic church?? and if so, did they also treat other religions as they are treated now?? I never knew from experience that jews were discriminated, and even when I lived in the USA I never personally saw it, but of course I dis read how the State of Israel was CREATED by British decree, Prof. Chomsky and all that... I also read some writers who seem to focus on this issue in their novels... I just have never seen it personally. But taking all I read or listen to on it, I can see how it would crate a sense of paranoia for them as a group even in places where there is no obvios discrimination against them... I met a few jewish people and to me they SEEM like anyone else, specially if you talk to them as anyone else, but that is with all people in general. Even The Sex divide is eliminated if you talk to women 90% like you talk to guys... and they seem to appreciate it. But is this so that they could ONLY be bakers or money lenders?? I see in different countries that the immigrant population can ONLY be merchants since they have no legal documentation and so... but I don't see any immigrant populations NOW that can ONLY become bankers... I wish this subject weren't so politically charged so we all could discuss it openly. Can it be that this is perpetuated bc it is the people in the bible, with all their stories etc... can it be that simple??

@@ggrthemostgodless8713 Regardless of their other problematic tendencies, the initial one of residing in a country not your own, starts them on the wrong foot.

@@mathewgurney2033 Ok, that MIGHT BE a good starting fact or point... so if not where they now live, where is THEIR country?? I know from open sources of info on this that Israel was DECLARED a nation in 1949 or so, claiming this or that... but you say that is not their nation, so WHERE is their nation??

@@ggrthemostgodless8713 They never built one, they have lived in everyone else's for centuries. They are wanderers who rely on everyone else to host them. They don't need many other negative characteristics to be hated, when they start from that point of being a burden.

No, if you watched the video, you’d know the director quote from Nietzsche is “precursor”.

How is Yoga related? Which schools of Yoga? And how can an Abrahamic Thinker simply "circle in" on the more esoteric and vedantic doctrines of Astika and Nastika [and even mahayana] schools? I think you are making haphazard parallelisms based on semblance connections, which are vacuous, considering no historical or textual connection exists between. I think Spinoza would have had absolutely no knowledge of Buddhism, nor would the majority of Europe at this time. There is simply no empirical connection. Only imaginary.

@@Isotope_911 Calm down there, no need to respond so histrionically. Spinoza came to Buddhist conclusions through a western lens without any prior knowledge of the philosophy. One can not be blind to the similarities of his doctrine and the Mahayana Vijñānavāda, the view of Guatama as Tathāgatagarbha or the vijñapti-mātra. There are, as of course as well documented, lots of parallells between late Nietzchian philosophy and early Buddhism, but The parallels to Spinoza appear more obvious. It's not the least far-fetched nor uncommon for practicing philosophers to come to similar conclusions despite the lack of awareness of each other.

@@IlIlIlIlIlIlIllIlIII I'm just critiquing haphazard thinking. Parallelomania is real, and it endangers the particulars and foregoes the specific parts of thinkers, unappreciative of their background context. If you reduce a two separate thinkers to semblances, then you do a disservice to both thinkers. Let alone comparing Spinoza's conclusions to entire schools or periods of Indian and Buddhist thought - thereby you reduce Spinoza and entire swathes of Eastern thinkers and mystics to the mere appearances of their respective doctrines.

@@Isotope_911 I disagree with the notion that comparison through drawn parallels equals disservice - I would argue for the contrary; that it's a compliment to them both, in this case specifically to Spinoza due to the immense history and development of Buddhism. It doesn't have to mean anything, and there are no inherent conclusions to be drawn from their undeniable similarities, other than the notion that it (in my opinion) is an interesting observation. I hadn't heard of the comparison before since I'm not well versed in Spinoza, but a quick search reveals the fact that I'm far from alone in this observation.

​@@IlIlIlIlIlIlIllIlIIIhes far from zen

Envy is powerful

Hmm

lmao no

why tho? @@socialswine3656

I occasionally read or listen to "philosophy people" with degrees and whatnot discussing Nietzsche, but it always feels odd. I get the impression that either they or I have completely misunderstood everything the guy said. I do not get that sense from BAP. I don't believe he mentions Nietzsche by name in Bronze Age Mindset, but my first thought upon finishing it was that he had read Nietzsche's work and interpreted it more or less the same way I did. Would one of you very smart and self-assured philosophy scholars enlighten me as to what I'm missing?

I would say he was more of a precursor to modern determinism than buying in to a theological predestination. The difference is one is the result of a metaphysical will while the other is the result of physical fate where it could not be any other way.

@@shaunkerr8721 Well said. The determinism of John Calvin & co. differs greatly from the determinism of a typical modern physics student.

Bro I hate to break it to you but you don't know that when you're reading either

You are mistaken. His pantheism differs dramatically from the insistence on the part of the religions of his time and place on the indisputable existence of a personal god - like a sort of tribal patriarch writ large - endowed with a will and intentions. His magnum opus, The Ethics, is a bit forbidding. Try the TTP (Tractatus Theologico-Politicus - if you can find a translation.

@Brooder85: I think that's true, having been a Spinoza fan for a long while. Though I do wonder if he would have been a "spiritual atheist" in our own time. Perhaps the concept of God had to be so radically redefined in his system because he felt attached to it (as a 17th century person), but in the 21st century there would be other options for him.

I always find it ironic who atheists try to paint as religious thinkers. Knowing nothing about religion or its doctrines.

I think Spinoza is best understood as a non- dualist. There is no separation from the Indivisible Absolute and the sum of things except one of degree and kind. Spinoza was perhaps closer to Advaita than modern Western thought, from the Stoics and until the Quantum physicists.

@michaelkingsbury4305 those are a lot of words for "atheist"