I think most of the weird ideas today come from the Utilitarians of the 19th century. A lot of people blame the Enlightenment, particularly John Locke and the Libertarians for the whole "you can do anything you want as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else" idea, but that is simply not true.
If you read John Lockes Two Treaties of Government, or really any other Libertarian work from the time then you'll notice that it's full of statements of duty. Duty both to your family and country, as well as your religion. There are plenty of things that Locke says you can't or shouldn't do for what may seem like arbitrary reasons to most modern people.
This all came crashing down when Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill opened their fat retarded mouths. They created the idea of the harm principle; that you can so whatever you want as long as it doesn't harm other people. They also walked back on ideas of universal rights and natural law (due to being atheists) and Bentham went so far as to call the idea of innate rights "Nonsense Upon Stilts" in a book of the same title.
The Utilitarians were often at the forefront of "progressive" movements, far more than Liberals ever were. Abolitionists, women's rights, and even some animal's rights and gay rights movements were led or composed mostly of Utilitarians.
I wonder where atheism came from because I can't think of any liquor of existence before 1700. It seems to be all rooted from a bunch of autistic peasants whom had a few bad childhood moments involved with the church and decided to take it out on the world.
Nietzsche made it popular and the Utilitarians (especially Bentham) made it all libtarded. Pseudo atheism had been around in the form of Voltaire and Machiavelli, but their works were not primarily about atheism so you didn't always notice it unless you paid close attention.
I think atheism is, more than anything else, a product Deists Enlightenment authors like Hobbes who began to detach God from every day life. Even though these same authors said atheists can't be trusted to uphold the social contract, they still inadvertently paved the way for "separation of church and state" even when their own works were explicitly against such a thing (for example: advocating for an official civic religion). This led to generally increased hubris and eventually people like the Utilitarians and Marxists began to supplant the idea of "God given rights" with "human rights" that just exist because people collectively agreed they should.
This is basically half reason for the Socratic method. And if the ancient Greeks, so in touch with the Earth compared to modern man, were angry enough to make him kill himself, imagine what people today will do. (Do not argue about high ideas with normies. They are neither capable nor desiring of matching your discussion)
The Liberal order successfully liberated abstract ideas from their origin. It separated the declarative from the ostensive-imperative. So much so that even common non-secular thought can no longer ground itself. Our ideas instead compete in an equal marketplace where everything is entertained except ideas which call in to question liberal democracies legitimacy.
I never considered that the view of each man as a unique image of God was the source of humanism. This makes me question whether bad translation of the Bible can be blamed. The Greek word used for “image” is actually closer to “icon” (literally “eikon”). I always took this to mean men are formed of the same inseparable substance as God at the empirical level of reality, as in Atma in Paramatma. Methinks the West would greatly benefit from a revive in monadic understanding!
I think most of the weird ideas today come from the Utilitarians of the 19th century. A lot of people blame the Enlightenment, particularly John Locke and the Libertarians for the whole "you can do anything you want as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else" idea, but that is simply not true.
If you read John Lockes Two Treaties of Government, or really any other Libertarian work from the time then you'll notice that it's full of statements of duty. Duty both to your family and country, as well as your religion. There are plenty of things that Locke says you can't or shouldn't do for what may seem like arbitrary reasons to most modern people.
This all came crashing down when Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill opened their fat retarded mouths. They created the idea of the harm principle; that you can so whatever you want as long as it doesn't harm other people. They also walked back on ideas of universal rights and natural law (due to being atheists) and Bentham went so far as to call the idea of innate rights "Nonsense Upon Stilts" in a book of the same title.
The Utilitarians were often at the forefront of "progressive" movements, far more than Liberals ever were. Abolitionists, women's rights, and even some animal's rights and gay rights movements were led or composed mostly of Utilitarians.
I wonder where atheism came from because I can't think of any liquor of existence before 1700. It seems to be all rooted from a bunch of autistic peasants whom had a few bad childhood moments involved with the church and decided to take it out on the world.
Nietzsche made it popular and the Utilitarians (especially Bentham) made it all libtarded. Pseudo atheism had been around in the form of Voltaire and Machiavelli, but their works were not primarily about atheism so you didn't always notice it unless you paid close attention.
I think atheism is, more than anything else, a product Deists Enlightenment authors like Hobbes who began to detach God from every day life. Even though these same authors said atheists can't be trusted to uphold the social contract, they still inadvertently paved the way for "separation of church and state" even when their own works were explicitly against such a thing (for example: advocating for an official civic religion). This led to generally increased hubris and eventually people like the Utilitarians and Marxists began to supplant the idea of "God given rights" with "human rights" that just exist because people collectively agreed they should.
This is basically half reason for the Socratic method. And if the ancient Greeks, so in touch with the Earth compared to modern man, were angry enough to make him kill himself, imagine what people today will do. (Do not argue about high ideas with normies. They are neither capable nor desiring of matching your discussion)
The Liberal order successfully liberated abstract ideas from their origin. It separated the declarative from the ostensive-imperative. So much so that even common non-secular thought can no longer ground itself. Our ideas instead compete in an equal marketplace where everything is entertained except ideas which call in to question liberal democracies legitimacy.
I never considered that the view of each man as a unique image of God was the source of humanism. This makes me question whether bad translation of the Bible can be blamed. The Greek word used for “image” is actually closer to “icon” (literally “eikon”). I always took this to mean men are formed of the same inseparable substance as God at the empirical level of reality, as in Atma in Paramatma. Methinks the West would greatly benefit from a revive in monadic understanding!