Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Hedonist Liberalism and Naturalism/Paganism

Hedonist Liberalism and Naturalism/Paganism
September 02, 2010, 01:59:21 PM
Some days ago, an atheist friend told me about a modern philosopher that he really admires named Zlavoj Zizek. He told me to read about him, his interviews etc etc and that he has many interesting ideas and a new analysis on marxism etc etc. I was suspicious to this Zizek as I knew that one of his interviews was published in a mainstream centre-left liberal newspaper here in Greece.

I wasn't surprised at all when I saw what this man was all about, but there were some remarkable things he said. More or less this man is openly against Paganism because he identifies it with a religious view of nature and for the same reasons he is suspicious of the ecologists. I read an interview in Greek and this man said that we should detach ourselves from nature more.

Wikipedia says:
Žižek is an atheist. He believes the universalist aspect of Christianity should be secularized into militant egalitarianism, against "pagan notion of destiny".[18]

In 2006, Žižek wrote an opinion piece published in the New York Times calling atheism a great legacy of Europe, and voiced his support for the propagation of atheism in the continent.


Seems to me that it is for one more goddamn time a recycled opinion from the enlightment. The secularization of christian morality. At least what I admired about Zizek is that he has clear thought, he can identify the connection between liberalism and anti-nature, he is almost openly anti-nature. I mean I admire that like I admire some friends of mine who are Communists and Christians at the same time, these people are closer to the clarity of Ted Kaczynski (than to atheist soft-hearted liberals barking about gay dwarves' rights) because they understand that Christianity and Communism are basically the same moral code. That's smart, but however it remains destructive both Zizek and the Communists.

All this sparked my thoughts about the connections between liberalism and anti-nature and hedonism. I always thought that the way from braindead liberalism to paganism could be divided in 4 states of mind. One might go through all these steps philosophizing and trying to delete useless modern rubbish from his mind, but if he/she were the son/daughter of a pagan family of philosophers probably wouldn't need to undertake this painful and meaningless journey into and out of the void.

These are the four stages, I give a small parable in the fist three, concerning a tribe of hungry humans (the parallel of the food desired is happiness).


1. The Unphilosophised Person

The idiot, usually of complete mainstream democratic leanings politically, copy-paste of what his country is (center-right, center, center-left) or whatever claims to be anyway. Here in Greece most of these people simply are what their parents are even from a young age. Their teenage revolution is soft, or non existent. They have absolutely no answer for their misery or society's. They speak only through popular phrases interconnected with random words.

Parable: The human that stands with his mouth open, waiting for food, or searching the nearby bushes, getting frustrated, wondering why there is no food, maybe bashing the other human nearby because of the stress and frustration of hunger.

2. The Reactionary Person (Liberal)

The slightly-smarter-than-idiot who finds that mainstream politics and mainstream thought cannot uphold the whole morally "good" values that we all (?) have. (Therefore this person doesn't question the core values of modernity at all, but questions the method and the corruption of those who execute the method, often correctly). This person believes that if we liberate ourselves from every opression we will be happy and live blissful lives, his higher point of philosophy is bashing the conservative as narrow-minded (although most of modern conservatives are truly close minded and total morons, the liberal bashes them because they ARE conservatives not because he examined each one of them and found them to be morons). In his imaturity, the liberal finds no reason for the negativism towards homosexuals, lesbians, blacks, transexuals whatever. He is probably correct in that because he is astonished by the bigotry towards these people and to him it seems that it has no reason and that it is animal-like and chaotic and mostly it is, how many of those bigots have a healthy plan for the society (for example place homosexuals, perverts or whatever in a certain part of the town and let other people grow their kids as they wish).

Parable: The human that recognises that the method of the tribe to attain food is completely wrong or even non-existant and that most humans in the tribe are narrow-minded and idiots. But he does not offer a real-world but rather a utopian method, possibly even more dangerous than the mainstream method.

3. The Machine-like Brain (Radical Materialist-Hedonist)

The relatively smart, but overly-specialized person who is of liberal leanings but has a big difference: He recognizes the mechanism of life and begins to understand natural selection. However, he understands how and when, but doesn't understand why. So he totally rejects natural selection as painful. This person is post-politics and probably quasi-authoritarian. In that he realises that all the tsunami of opinions and offered solutions of the crowd have absolutely no point and only offers peripheralism and dangerous conflicting pathways. He believes that the only solution is to somehow produce in everyone's bodies the chemicals that bring pleasure and to eradicate pain. Whether through psychedelics, virtual reality or genetical engineering it doesn't matter, what he recognises is that all abstract ideas, cultural-racial or imperialist wars, revolutions, Marxism, Capitalism etc are failed attempts at happiness that were bound to fail because they didn't recognise the ultimate material cause of happiness which is endorphin and numerous other chemicals. This man accuses almost every other man of not being a materialst, even the marxists. Of course this man is prone to emptiness, psychological problems and depression.

Parable: The semi-crazy human that just sits down, rejects all food-searching methods as peripheralism and says that instead of looking for food we should reprogram our bellies so they don't need food or don't express that need with stress/pain anyway.

4. The Mystical

This is a difficult category to explain. The man who tosses away the overly-rationalizing methods of thought altogether. Therefore he believes that sitting and painfully searching the absolute mechanism of happiness somehow takes you away from achieving it in real life as you lose your passion (becoming a materialistice device that makes mathematical equations), become increasingly neurotic and lose confidence in yourself. So he shuts down the mathematical part of his brain so the mystical-idealistic part can be reborn from it's ashes. This man rediscovers culture, art, idealism, the child inside etc. This is the first step out of the materialistic abyss of modernity. However this man hasn't yet explained the why of natural selection in his mind and heart so he still has a tendency to avoid reality and conflict. This man is probably the most distant to politics. He is prone to mystic and otherworldy religions (as they appear to him) like Buddhism or Neo-Paganism.

Parable: The human that has understood that too much thought about how to attain food has made him dormant and nearly-dead. He now invents tales and imaginations to reawaken his passion to go hunting out in the wild.

5. The Naturalist

The man who has recently rediscovered Idealism and now reaches the point where he can combine it with realism. He reaches an emotional equilibrium over natural selection and existential issues and finally has the "why" of natural selection. The whole thing that our positive experiences of reality-nature-natural selection along with the negative lay the groundwork for the future of evolution and organization of reality. It is an ideal in itself and once this man makes this ideal his own, he is completely detached from the materialistic depression of modern industrial society. I don't believe a parable is needed here as anus.com has countless articles etc about this state of mind.


When I meet liberals and materialists who think they found the truth, I laugh. They can't even understand that happiness is not caused by "socialist social structures of tolerance and respect to human rights blah blah" for example think of a person with hereditary proneness to depresion in an ideal communist society. Fuck the equality there, sir, the person needs medicine, and who is going to control those genes? will there be any eugenics? Who will execute programs for eugenics? Here the more technocratic leberals will say that genetic engineering will skyrocket eventually and in that 'society' they will remove the bad genes. Oddly here you can play it more radical in their faces and say "How dare you prolong the suffering of more and more people until that day that we will be able to remove those genes, use eugenics now, don't you respect those people and their children? Sadist!!"

Ironically, this technocratic thought about editing genes (through the abyss of the inherent hedonism of democracy in that ideal liberal society), will eventually go from "editing genes to eradicate diseases and negative things" to editing genes to minimize pain, to achive more blissful states as that of hypo-mania or beyond that. All these with, of course, radical damage to the motivational system of the brain of humans and possibly animals. So to an ever-blissful man, it might seem funny and interesting to create a man who is genetically programmed to feel pain, and examine him or laugh at him in some future technocratic blissful roman-like orgy. Why not burn down a forest for fun, or throw a nuke? Let's party.

The connections between the 'proud' liberal proletarian insurgent and the radical hedonist like a fucking junkie piece of meat are very evident. The only thing that differenciates them is clarity of thought and peripheralism, the liberals as bees go round a round and round but they will eventualy want to get to the honey while the hedonists says FUCK IT, I KNOW THE 'HIGH' IT'S THIS.

However an everyday philosophy is needed through which is realistically more possible to attain an honorable life and be active, inventing solutions, living every day with intensity, carpe diem. This philosophy contains absolute ideals as if we materialistically/fatalistically tried to understand "why to sieze the day? is it worth it?" we will drown in passitivity and emptiness again.

These were my thought and I would like if anyone shares them with me and had the same opinions independently, only sad thing is that when I argue with liberals I hardly can make them understand WHY they are half-hedonists, most times they don't understand what I say or, of course, are not willing to but the amusing thing is that you see them attacking you by any means necessary, personal attacks too... Like a dog that bites when you try to take away his food.
Paganism, Mediterranean Sea, Beauty

Re: Hedonist Liberalism and Naturalism/Paganism
September 02, 2010, 02:44:45 PM
I once in a discussion forum showed the text from anus Belief in Nothing and one atheist said it was good but not the part where it said nihilism is compatible with christianity and accused it of spreading a tought of idolizing nature. I guess this is just a delusion wich makes a denial of the extremely subjective, but still existing, aspects of human experience and feeling.
You're quite hostile.

I got a right to be hostile, man, my people been persecuted!

Re: Hedonist Liberalism and Naturalism/Paganism
September 02, 2010, 03:10:46 PM
Absolutely true, as far as broader categories go.  The saddest lot are those who recognise the necessity of natural selection and similar governing processes, thus lifting themselves above common humans, but then dive into despair/hedonism due to their perception of themselves as being inadequate.  They're somewhere between the third and fourth stages, aspiring to "truth", but wallowing in (past) failure.