[…] Our culture is quick to use the word “love”, but what it mostly means is either “preference” or “lust”. […]
In a discussion with Bernardo Kastrup (around 1:30:00), Chris Langan said that love is somehow necessary so that people continue to exist. This is not love though, but simply lust. Especially nowadays, with all the broken marriages and births out of wedlock, we are seeing that this is true.
Langan, however, even uses a kind of technical term ETS (emo-telic syntax! I am not joking!), which apparently — I am now paraphrasing him — causes us to behave in certain ways, to unite our destinies in order to do things like marry and have children, which reality needs in order to renew the cycle of life. Which I found hilarious. It is lust, Mr. Langan! That is all!
To quote Nils M. Holm:
[…] Our culture is quick to use the word “love”, but what it mostly means is either “preference” or “lust”. […]
Exactly.
Further, no one needs to have children, there is no law that forces us. The Bible, God, even recommends celibacy. To me, it almost seems like a crazy attempt to justify one’s existence. Reality and the truth are, as almost always, depressing: I only live because of the wicked lust of my psychopathic, useless father (who, of course, did not care about my existence anyway.) No great reason or so. We live because of animal desire. That is all (unfortunately.)
Langan’s position becomes even more ludicrous given that he (rightly) is a supporter of eugenics. As am I. It doesn’t matter how in “love” someone is because of his mind having been hijacked by the ETS: he still has no right to have children if he is genetically ill, like my father. We sterilize him and spare poor souls like mine this horrific existence I never asked for in the first place.
Needless to say that in the past as well as other cultures until today, so-called “love“ did not play much of a role in terms of marrying and having children.
Kastrup at least accepted that reality is mostly full of suffering, love does not seem fundamental to him at all. To me neither. To be honest, though, I stopped watching after Langan’s shallow response. However, Kastrup completely erred on Buddhism and Christianity being similar, even claiming that meaning is built-in or some other nonsense.
He completely ignored the problem of evil, even going so far as to say that we are not as important as we think we are, which would be what both Buddhism as well as Christianity tell man. This could not be further from the truth, since Christianity actually places almost too much importance on us; and Langan, at least, disagreed and rightly mentioned the importance of morality.
How would Kastrup argue against suicide, for example? They both acknowledged Schopenhauer and his work, who, however, did not have real reasons against suicide either. Only God and eternal damnation are a good reason not to commit suicide. Otherwise, why would I, suffering from mental illnesses as well as a paining and ugly hunched back, continue to live? Let alone those who battle with afflictions that are worse?
Because Kastrup tells us that we really are not that important? Well, yes, if this is the case, why not implement suicide on demand world-wide?
Unfortunately, Kastrup’s political views are all pretty much politically correct—unlike Langan’s—, as he bought into all of the recent narratives. Which I will not name, should be obvious enough what we had to endure in the last few years. I would still read his book on Schopenhauer, I guess; after all, Keith Woods did recommend it.
Anyway, my main point is that Langan tried to rationalise an animalistic drive that cannot be explained or defended; ironically Schopenhauer, about whom they talked about at length, did see “love” the way I do. For him, too, our origins were a kind of slap in the face, an affront.
In his interview with Curt Jaimungal (around 3:35:50), he says we need to look into eugenics and asks those who reject it by calling it horrible “how can you sentence a child to that?” (to be born with a genetic disability.)
Yet, in his discussion with Bernardo Kastrup he says “[…] the job of your identity is not only to enjoy life, as you were put here to do […]” (around 2:06:00.)
So, how do you enjoy it, if you are born with genetic illnesses? Further, they both acknowledged Schopenhauer, who actually wrote that by observing this world, man’s quest for happiness seems foolish and wrong-headed, given how suffering, pain and misfortune are overwhelmingly part of his life.
While I reject neither eugenics nor God, I would argue that Langan assumes too much; he cannot deny that his upbringing and cultural background influences his CTMU. For example, so-called love, in the past, was not much of a reason to marry. There still exist countries where polygamy is the norm.
Regarding his claim that we are to enjoy life, it seems rather American. Would Prussians have said this? It reminds me of Vox Day, who, in one of his Darkstreams, once said if you do not reproduce you are not doing the one thing you were put on earth to do.
As I wrote several times on these pages, I am the result of my useless father’s wicked lust; this drive did not exist in Garden Eden.
Regarding Kastrup, he is completely unable to answer the problem of suicide, which cannot be ignored. Langan, at least, is, since he accepts God and eternity, though in a way I do not subscribe to, nor do I understand his metaphysics. Which certainly cannot be required to be saved from Hell, as hardly anyone would understand it.
Personally, I do not care, to paraphrase Kastrup, if I lay on my deathbed and showed remorse about not having suffered through certain painful episodes in my life because I did not want to be challenged (or whatever; there is a lot of mumbo jumbo in his answers.)
When I am dead, I am dead. Who cares? The question is: does an eternal Hell exist? Do I end up there if I commit suicide? Because if not, then I would do it, given that I loathe my existence.
Nicolás Gómez Dávila knew best:
“Life” (in emphatic quotation marks) is the consolation of those who do not know how to think.
The problem is not sexual repression, nor sexual liberation, but sex.
The importance it attributes to man is the enigma of Christianity.
It is not worth talking about even one erotic topic with someone who does not feel the unalterable baseness of erotism.
What is difficult is not to believe in God, but to believe that we matter to Him.
Sex does not solve even sexual problems.
It is above all against what the crowd proclaims to be “natural” that the noble soul rebels.