>>511216760

it's interesting how little people can defend what they have dedicated their life to doing. I see all these people bragging about being well versed in hegel's philosophy and whatnot on social media and it's absurd to me that they brag about nothing. I mean who else chokes and fumbles when they are questioned with the legitimacy of their hobby? if someone fishes they get fish, if they play the guitar they can play you a song. if you spend a decade studying hegel and dostoevsky, then... well you are retarded for questioning what they have to show for it.

when you have a thousand hours in counterstrike it speaks for itself, it was fun so it's done. when it comes to book an objectively boring and exhausting activity especially the type that is held in high esteem on this board, there has to be a reason that justifies doing it. but people just succumb to silence or spurt nonsense when faced with this problem. weird?

Reminder that the autists stimming themselves by repeating the same nonsensical vitriol about Peterson, thread after thread for year after year, are pathetic ideologues and resentful idiots. His best feature is that he gets them to out themselves as such.

>libtard /lit/
Seethes that Peterson turns them into reactionaries by pointing out their bullshit.
>pseud /lit/
Thinks cynically dunking on mass media meant for a general audience is a sign of intelligence.
>chud /lit/
Thinks he's part of a Jewish conspiracy preventing them from having sex.
>tranny /lit/
Thinks he's a "literal nazi."

>>24474814
Well, see, that’s not quite the question you think it is, and it certainly isn’t the question you think you’re asking, which, in itself, is a fascinating psycho-social phenomenon worth unpacking. Because when you say “Christian,” what precisely do you mean? Are we talking about the creedal formulations of Nicene orthodoxy, or are we invoking something more Jungian—an archetypal alignment with the logos that structures Being itself?

You see, I’m very hesitant to place myself in a box that has been so historically—and might I say metaphysically—flattened by centuries of institutionalization, doctrinal corruption, and, yes, Enlightenment rationalism, which, for all its merits, has severed us from the sacral substrate of narrative meaning. And so, to say “I am a Christian” is, in a certain sense, to reduce the richness of a multi-dimensional phenomenological experience to a mere label, which is precisely the kind of categorical reductionism that gave rise to totalitarian ideologies in the 20th century.

Moreover, if we interpret Christ not merely as a historical figure—but as the personification of the transcendent logos, the metaphysical principle through which chaos is ordered into habitable being—then the question becomes less about whether I believe in Christ and more about whether I act in accordance with that incarnated pattern of meaning. And that is not a yes or no question. That is a lifelong wrestling with Being, like Jacob with the angel, which itself is a symbolic template for the moral striving of the individual across time.

So am I a Christian? Well, I strive to live as if God exists, which I believe is the highest ethical commitment a person can make in this fragmented postmodern wasteland. But whether I am one, in the propositional sense, as though that could be answered like a census checkbox—well, that’s precisely the kind of binary framework that collapses the mystery of Being into bureaucratic banality.