"Western Philosophy Destroys Religions Manners & Morals"
- Thread starter Omar del Sur
- Start date
It is the truth.
Anyone who knows the history of Western philosophy should know this.
Who is the father of modern philosophy? It is considered to be Descartes. What did he teach? Skepticism. Anyone who has simply read the Wikipedia article on Descartes should know that he is famous for teaching skepticism and questioning religion.
What about Hume? Hume was famous for teaching skepticism and empiricism- that we should believe in that which is material and doubt that which is not material. Hume also was widely considered to be a thinly-veiled atheist.
Who was influenced by Hume? Kant.
What did Kant teach about religion? He basically taught the same thing as the mutazilites. Religion should only be based on "reason". If we followed Kant, we would reject the Quran and only follow "reason".
Kant like many philosophers promoted "the Enlightenment". What did the so-called Enlightenment teach?
That religion should be separated from the state. The state should be secular.
Who is the most influential philosopher of the past 200 years?
Who is it?
Obviously, it is Karl Marx. What did Marx teach? That religion should be abolished.
Who is the most influential after Marx in the last 200 years? Nietzsche.
Nietzsche literally called himself the antichrist and promoted atheism.
Okay. Who is the most famous philosopher of the previous century?
It is either Lenin or Jean-Paul Sartre.
What did Lenin teach? Forced abolition of religion.
What did Sartre teach? Existentialism.
What did Existentialism mean according to Sartre? According to Sartre in his book Existentialism is a Humanism, it meant trying to follow atheism to its logical conclusions. Sartre's philosophy was based on atheism.
The history of philosophy shows that philosophy has consistently attacked religion.
Someone might mention Kierkegaard. A less known Christian philosopher is Jacques Ellul.
Kirkegaard attacked ordinary Christianity and promoted for a watered-down Christianity. Ellul attacked the more orthodox Christianity and promoted for a watered-down liberal Christianity.
Pretty much all the big names in Western philosophy besides Thomas Aquinas and the scholastics either fall in one more of the following categories
A- were overtly or somewhat more subtly against religion
B- were supposedly Christian but were against orthodox Christianity and wanted a liberal, watered-down Christianity
C- were in favor of secularism and/or "Enlightenment" philosophy
It is not exaggeration to say that the so-called Enlightenment was against religion.
"Enlightenment" philosophy was backed by Freemasonry and was the theoretical basis of the French Revolution (also backed by Freemasonry), which murdered priests and sought to eliminate religion in France. It is part of the reason why France is so militantly anti-religious.
I forgot to mention- Bertrand Russell might be as famous as Lenin and Sartre.
And what did Russell teach? Atheism. They all three taught atheism.
And someone who knows a little about the history of philosophy might mention Leibniz. Leibniz was supposedly in favor of religion.
Leibniz, Benzelius, and the Kabbalistic Roots of Swedish Illuminism
link.springer.com
The academic article above discusses his links with Freemasonry and Rosicrucianism.
And what did Russell teach? Atheism. They all three taught atheism.
And someone who knows a little about the history of philosophy might mention Leibniz. Leibniz was supposedly in favor of religion.
Leibniz, Benzelius, and the Kabbalistic Roots of Swedish Illuminism
Leibniz, Benzelius, and the Kabbalistic Roots of Swedish Illuminism
The continuing controversy over Leibniz’s association with Rosicrucianism points to the difficulty of scholarly investigation of societies that were determinedly secret.1 However, as each new volume of the collected works appears, the evidence of his lifelong...
The academic article above discusses his links with Freemasonry and Rosicrucianism.
Imam Al-Ghazali was right to oppose the philosophers.
I have read Plato's Republic myself.
Plato taught that children should be separated from their parents and raised by the state so that the parents cannot pass on their "superstitions" to their children. According to Plato, your children should be separated from you so that you cannot pass your beliefs on to them- so that the state can brainwash them.
Also, all the women should be in common among the men. A woman should not be with one specific man- each woman should be intimate with multiple men- that is taught in Plato's Republic.
Plato taught that children should be separated from their parents and raised by the state so that the parents cannot pass on their "superstitions" to their children. According to Plato, your children should be separated from you so that you cannot pass your beliefs on to them- so that the state can brainwash them.
Also, all the women should be in common among the men. A woman should not be with one specific man- each woman should be intimate with multiple men- that is taught in Plato's Republic.
QueenofKings
Kick in the door wavin the .44
I don’t remember the part about the women (it sounds truly disturbing). But I think the children was in reference to raising guardians of the community. Not just removing every child from their parents. In that regard it’s like saying to get a good Somali leader, who is a guardian of the nation we should remove potential candidates from their families who will otherwise infect them with qabyaalad. Not a bad idea on the surface, since qabyaalad and self interest is what’s mostly destroying Somalia. He does say these guardians should learn other stuff, so it’s not an anarchist upbringing he’s suggesting.
QueenofKings
Kick in the door wavin the .44
Thats an interesting stance, I haven’t thought If it from this perspective before. It defo shows a pattern of attacking religion.
QueenofKings
Kick in the door wavin the .44
Parts of stoicism are very appealing and not far off from Islamic theology but ultimately it too was anti religion no? ( I’ve only read Marcus Aurelius but I assume other stoics agree). It supported morality for morality which sounds nice but as a philosophical idea cannot replace organised religion.
"Plato's Republic introduces a city state defined by communism (the elimination of property and 'selfish' constraints such as the family) and common education - instilling of proper values through careful censorship: "we must supervise the makers of tales; and if they make a fine tale, it must be approved, but if it's not, it must be rejected""
"Socrates then discusses the requirement that all spouses and children be held in common."
www.sparknotes.com
"He proposes the following law: “The wives of our guardians are to be common, and their children are to be common, and no parent is to know his own child, nor any child his parent.” To accomplish this, the State should arrange orgiastic festivals throughout the year. At these festivals, anonymous partners will engage in sexual intercourse with each other. When a woman gives birth, she will not know who the father is. Furthermore, nurses will immediately take the baby away from the mother and place the baby among other newborns so that the mother will not know which baby is hers."
orwell1627.wordpress.com
"Socrates then discusses the requirement that all spouses and children be held in common."
The Republic Book 5: Parts 1 & 2 Summary & Analysis | SparkNotes
A summary of Book 5: Parts 1 & 2 in Plato's The Republic. Learn exactly what happened in this chapter, scene, or section of The Republic and what it means. Perfect for acing essays, tests, and quizzes, as well as for writing lesson plans.
www.sparknotes.com
"He proposes the following law: “The wives of our guardians are to be common, and their children are to be common, and no parent is to know his own child, nor any child his parent.” To accomplish this, the State should arrange orgiastic festivals throughout the year. At these festivals, anonymous partners will engage in sexual intercourse with each other. When a woman gives birth, she will not know who the father is. Furthermore, nurses will immediately take the baby away from the mother and place the baby among other newborns so that the mother will not know which baby is hers."
PLATO: The Republic [Book V]
In Book V of Plato’s Republic, Socrates asserts that men and women ought to receive the same education and ought to fulfill the same roles within society. In the context of Ancient Greece, wh…
orwell1627.wordpress.com
I've been saying for years that Plato was a communist and people talk like I'm a crazy person for saying that but it's clear if you know what's in Plato's Republic that he was outlining a sort of ancient communism.
"Plato: Architect of the New World Order
It was in his Republic that Plato articulated the basis of the future totalitarian state, ruled by the elite, or “philosopher kings”, or “guardians”, instructed in the Kabbalah. Essentially, The Republic provided the basis for all future Illuminati projects, including communism, the elimination of marriage and the family, compulsory education, the use of eugenics by the state, and the employment of deceptive propaganda methods.
According to Plato, “all these women shall be wives in common to all the men, and not one of them shall live privately with any man; the children too should be held in common so that no parent shall know which is his own offspring, and no child shall know his parent.” ii This belief is associated with a need for eugenics, as “the best men must cohabit with the best women in as many cases as possible and the worst with the worst in the fewest, and that the offspring of the one must be reared and that of the other not, if the flock is to be as perfect as possible.” More pernicious still is his prescription for infanticide: “The offspring of the inferior, and any of those of the other sort who are born defective, they will properly dispose of in secret, so that no one will know what has become of them. That is the condition of preserving the purity of the guardians’ breed.”
It is for this reason that Plato has been at the center of all esoteric philosophy ever since, and been extolled by all the leading philosophers of the Illuminati, for whom he articulated the vision of a New World Order, like Kant, Hegel, Nietzsche, and recently, Leo Strauss, the guru of the neo-conservatives that have embarked America in proxy wars in the Middle East on behalf of Israel."
It was in his Republic that Plato articulated the basis of the future totalitarian state, ruled by the elite, or “philosopher kings”, or “guardians”, instructed in the Kabbalah. Essentially, The Republic provided the basis for all future Illuminati projects, including communism, the elimination of marriage and the family, compulsory education, the use of eugenics by the state, and the employment of deceptive propaganda methods.
According to Plato, “all these women shall be wives in common to all the men, and not one of them shall live privately with any man; the children too should be held in common so that no parent shall know which is his own offspring, and no child shall know his parent.” ii This belief is associated with a need for eugenics, as “the best men must cohabit with the best women in as many cases as possible and the worst with the worst in the fewest, and that the offspring of the one must be reared and that of the other not, if the flock is to be as perfect as possible.” More pernicious still is his prescription for infanticide: “The offspring of the inferior, and any of those of the other sort who are born defective, they will properly dispose of in secret, so that no one will know what has become of them. That is the condition of preserving the purity of the guardians’ breed.”
It is for this reason that Plato has been at the center of all esoteric philosophy ever since, and been extolled by all the leading philosophers of the Illuminati, for whom he articulated the vision of a New World Order, like Kant, Hegel, Nietzsche, and recently, Leo Strauss, the guru of the neo-conservatives that have embarked America in proxy wars in the Middle East on behalf of Israel."
Brainwashed Muslims put these supposedly so refined philosophers on a pedestal. It is part of this larger phenomena of Muslims thinking so highly of Western culture and feeling a lack of confidence in their own religion and culture. These sinister philosophers are not so worthy of admiration as people think.
Abu Sa'id al-Khudri reported Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) as saying:
You would tread the same path as was trodden by those before you inch by inch and step by step so much so that if they had entered into the hole of the lizard, you would follow them in this also. We said: Allah's Messenger, do you mean Jews and Christians (by your words)" those before you"? He said: Who else (than those two religious groups)?
Abu Sa'id al-Khudri reported Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) as saying:
You would tread the same path as was trodden by those before you inch by inch and step by step so much so that if they had entered into the hole of the lizard, you would follow them in this also. We said: Allah's Messenger, do you mean Jews and Christians (by your words)" those before you"? He said: Who else (than those two religious groups)?
Not true, Marx did not say that religion should be abolished. This is what he actually says:
''Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.
The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.
Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers on the chain not in order that man shall continue to bear that chain without fantasy or consolation, but so that he shall throw off the chain and pluck the living flower. The criticism of religion disillusions man, so that he will think, act, and fashion his reality like a man who has discarded his illusions and regained his senses so that he will move around himself as his own true Sun. Religion is only the illusory Sun which revolves around man as long as he does not revolve around himself''
He doesn't say that religion is inherently bad either he just says that religion is used by people who are suffering and use religion as a way to relieve themselves of their suffering. This could explain why people in richer countries tend to be more atheist compared to poorer countries. In lots of marginalized communities, religion is closely intertwined with culture and so I personally won't forgo the only aspect of my identity I associate most with because of my political views but I will point out the mistakes I see in your argument because I don't want people to be misinformed. I am not well aware of most other philosophers you have listed so won't be able to argue with you on the rest.
Yes he did.
"It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness."
I know people who lived in the Soviet Union. One of the people I know from there (from one of the Muslim central Asian countries- I think Tajikistan or Uzbekistan) was telling me how people used to have to pray salaat in secret and how they were scared to be caught praying salaat. But he described it as the older people who were praying in secret- the younger people had been brainwashed.
Another brother, from Tajikistan (very good Muslim brother btw) was telling me how they had classes for children that were teaching the children atheism.
Anyone can look up the history of religion in the Soviet Union. Their whole aim was the total abolition of religion. Islam is still here but the Soviet Union isn't!
If I can point to a Japanese person who doesn't eat sushi, does that mean it's wrong to say that Japanese people eat sushi?
I think you're being deliberately obtuse! Clearly, as a philosopher I won't name once wrote in a paper - the title of which I won't give, at a date I won't give, in a language I will not cite, in a dimension of inherent morals man dare not wot of - the morality of the turtle is impossible because of the inheritance taxes levied on the tree by the immoral government of the anarchists who ruled the Eire-Sioux Confederation for a thousand golden years of unbridled prosperity, in which time there were no laws, and milk and honey flowed - as, I might add, they would nowadays if only the inheritantly undemocratic democratic government of this country would allow right-thinking anarchists the right to beat their children into coal mines, fight their dogs for kicks and any other half-baked ideas we want to inflict on others. Additionally, I refuse to believe that the tree doesn't retain a moral structure because of the second law of the inherent mores of the situation!
