Reconciling Peat with Nietzsche
#1
One of the most rapidly growing ‘factions’ on our side of twitter seems to be the Peaters. One of the interesting things about them is despite Peat himself being a stalinist, his proponents on twitter make up a broad church alliance of right wingers. This ranges from Landshark, an Orthodox traditionalist, to Ragnar a paranoid schizophrenic spenglerian, through to MD Orpheus a bronze age pervert style vitalist.

I want to dedicate my first thread on this forum to exploring why Peat’s thought has grown so much upon the “right”, and been totally neglected by the “left”. I also want to attempt to reconcile his philosophy with Nietzche’s because I believe that Peat may offer a genuine path to bringing about the Overman in the coming century.

For those not familiar with Ray Peat, he was a biologist who believed that the solution to suffering and evil was to raise your metabolic rate. Peat believed that with raising your metabolism you can enjoy a more meaningful life and perceive the world more clearly. I won’t cover the means by which Peat believed you can raise the metabolic rate, however it is important to discuss his perspective on pregnancy. Peat observed that infants with “gestational diabetes” had an average IQ significantly higher than average. Some studies that he referenced demonstrated an Average IQ of 130 amongst infants with “gestational diabetes”. He also emphasised reasearch which showed that mothers that had exogenous doses of progesterone during pregancy gave birth to children with “a more independent, and serene character”.

Another core component of Peat’s theory of biology is Lamarckism. Lamark, a contemporary of Darwin, proposed that traits that were acquired through actions and the environment were hereditary. A good example of this is found in the adaption of Astyanax mexicanus (a mexican river fish), to caves. When the river is diverted into a cave without sufficient light, within a few generations the fish evolve to no longer have eyes and to develop clear translucent skin. This also works in the opposite, negative direction. If a mouse is exposed to a novel scent, eg citrus, before being tortured. It’s offspring will exhibit anxiety and terror upon being exposed to the scent of citrus. Under significant intergenerational stress life can revert to yeast. (Maybe the blacks harping on about intergenerational trauma were right…)

This contradicts the Darwinst model of evolution which specifies that mutations are random and should take tens of thousands of years to be apparent. It’s important to note that Darwin believed in Lamarck’s theory, and that only Darwinists try to refute it.

Peat’s lamarkcism seems to fundamentally align itself with left wing thought. Through raising the global populations metabolic rate, and overcoming stress, we can evolve into a more sophicisticated organism. Christian Peater’s call this a ‘return to eden’.

I believe that any right wing interpretation of Peat has to reject his futurism. Getting the entire global population to care about their metabolism, and convincing them that their governments and mass media are wrong about what is healthy and what human potential looks like is almost certainly impossible. The basic intellectual requirements to engage with bioenergtic thought is, atleast for the meantine, too high for the mass of humanity. Even if it were possible to collectively raise the intellectual and physical capabilities of humanity, would this even be desirable?

I think what is more likely is that over a few generations Peaters and their offsprings begin to form a new biological aristocracy. Twitter user Hawkeye Spirit has already experimented with exogenous progesterone during his wifes pregnancy, and it’s only a matter of time before Peaters begin to experiment with inducing “gestational diabetes” through IV Glucose. (Faustian)

I find hope for an Overman, the independent free-spirited man of power, in third or forth generation peated infants, with 200+ IQ’s and serene characters.

Please use this thread to discuss Peating in general, and also his philosophy.
#2
There's nothing 'left wing' about biology.
#3
(02-06-2023, 09:16 PM)Trevor Bauer Wrote: There's nothing 'left wing' about biology.

There is, Lamarckian biology necessitates that all life has the *possibility* of becoming higher. 
It's egalitarian in the sense that all life has worth, and that every being can escape ugliness and mediocrity.

Compare this to Darwinism which is anti-egalitarian. Only the strong survive, and being strong is a completely random occurrence. 

Reconciling Lamarck can only go three ways.
Either
  • It's not desirable to raise all humans.
  • It's not possible to convince all humans to voluntarily raise themselves.
  • It's possible to raise all humans and that's desirable

I'm certain that within a few generations of IQ+Character maxing Blacks could be raised beyond the level of an average white now.
What's of interest to me is whether or not this would be a desirable outcome.
If there was a genuine way to raise the intellectual abilities of Blacks would Amarnites support it?
#4
(02-06-2023, 08:56 PM)Hummingbird Wrote: One of the most rapidly growing ‘factions’ on our side of twitter seems to be the Peaters. One of the interesting things about them is despite Peat himself being a stalinist, his proponents on twitter make up a broad church alliance of right wingers. This ranges from Landshark, an Orthodox traditionalist, to Ragnar a paranoid schizophrenic spenglerian, through to MD Orpheus a bronze age pervert style vitalist.

Not to be that guy, but is there any source on him being a Stalinist or hardline leftist? Admittedly I haven't researched Ray Peat beyond his nutritional advice.

(02-06-2023, 08:56 PM)Hummingbird Wrote: Peat’s lamarkcism seems to fundamentally align itself with left wing thought. Through raising the global populations metabolic rate, and overcoming stress, we can evolve into a more sophicisticated organism. Christian Peater’s call this a ‘return to eden’.

I believe that any right wing interpretation of Peat has to reject his futurism. Getting the entire global population to care about their metabolism, and convincing them that their governments and mass media are wrong about what is healthy and what human potential looks like is almost certainly impossible. The basic intellectual requirements to engage with bioenergtic thought is, atleast for the meantine, too high for the mass of humanity. Even if it were possible to collectively raise the intellectual and physical capabilities of humanity, would this even be desirable?
(02-06-2023, 09:34 PM)Hummingbird Wrote: There is, Lamarckian biology necessitates that all life has the *possibility* of becoming higher. 
It's egalitarian in the sense that all life has worth, and that every being can escape ugliness and mediocrity.

Compare this to Darwinism which is anti-egalitarian. Only the strong survive, and being strong is a completely random occurrence. 

Reconciling Lamarck can only go three ways.
Either
  • It's not desirable to raise all humans.
  • It's not possible to convince all humans to voluntarily raise themselves.
  • It's possible to raise all humans and that's desirable

To say Lamarckian Evolution is egalitarian because it supposes that one can interfere in the inheritance of traits, but Darwinian Evolution is anti-egalitarian because strength is only inheritable though a "completely random occurrence" sounds like a poor understanding of what egalitarianism is. There's nothing right-wing about the idea that strong traits are inherently random. Darwinian Evolution is a submission to nature, its dispiriting. It posits a natural hierarchy, yes, but only one where superiority is an unearned genetic accident. Furthermore, a Darwinian hierarchy can be upended at any time with any random mutative speciation. It is not egalitarian perhaps, but it is certainly not right-wing. Lamarckian is the real anti-egalitarian. It's supposition that life has the ability to ascend higher does not assume all will, or even can, do so. As with Darwinian Evolution, only the strong survive. The inheritance of negative traits is just as possible in Lamarckian biology. A great biological uplifting can only be undertaken by an equally great modulation. That great modulation in and of itself can only be undertaken by someone (or more accurately, generations of someones) possessing either a truly groundbreaking positive change or great self-modulation, a quality not often seen in the billions of humanoid biomass we find ourselves sharing the planet with.

Ray Peat's teachings in a lot of ways are a refutation of the holistic "your body is your best doctor" rhetoric espoused by many New Age nutritionists of his time. The body is not an innately capable organism that just needs to be listened to— it is a complex machine and you are its operator. Degradation is as possible as advancement, and today it is far more common than upward development. A world where every human, with effort, can achieve greatness, is functionally anti-egalitarian. Think to the common saying that a truly meritocratic society is a White Supremacist society. In your framework, that might make me an adherent to the first of your Lamarck Reconciliation Options: that while a "raising" might be possible long-term, it is not desireable. A world that places Lamarckian stresses on the black race to gain intelligence would find after many, many generations the speciation of Africans, but the relative lowliness of other races is not the only issue with the current global biomass; it simply too populated at its current state, regardless of its average IQ. If America somehow maintained the IQ it had in 1960 there would still be big problems in its maintenance. Whether a population can be "raised" does not fix these issues.
#5
Ray Peat died at 86.
This is how the distribution of death ages looks in the US, based on 2015 data: https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/rsnotes/...ibit02.jpg
This ought to be kept in mind every time somebody mentions his advice, for instance the advice on avoiding cardio exercise.

>is there any source on him being a Stalinist or hardline leftist
His causal analysis of societal health developments is indistinguishable from that of a libtard ("the corporations..."); also, as previously mentioned on this forum, he approvingly quotes statements that IQ as a concept only exists to justify racism, constantly seethes against hereditarianism, etc. ctrl+f related terms in "Mind and Tissue" and "Generative Energy".
#6
Regarding "egalitarianism", I'm not sure if there is any debate to be had that does not die in a disagreement about semantics.
However: it seems that, once a "reasonable" utility function over the state of society is selected (and by "reasonable" I mean reflecting the preferences of somebody who posts on this forum and its associated Twitter network), the totality of policies implemented by a government intuitively understood to be "left-wing" (the FDR administration, the LBJ administration, Maduro, etc.) becomes less "rational" with the increase of our estimate of the broad-sense heritability (the proportion of phenotypic variance that is attributable to an overall genetic variance for the genotype) of the human traits which are included in our function (individual intelligence, individual beauty, individual strength, individual longevity, and so on), and become more "rational" with the decrease of this estimate of ours.
Assuming that our sympathy to a government is related to our estimate of its rationality as enlightened by our utility function, systems of thought which lead somebody here to decrease their above-mentioned estimate of broad-sense heritability, should also lead to a decrease in the antipathy of that individual to left-wing governments, both historical and present.
Peat obviously acts in this direction, so this isn't a good sign.
#7
(02-06-2023, 10:48 PM)Datacop Wrote: Not to be that guy, but is there any source on him being a Stalinist or hardline leftist? Admittedly I haven't researched Ray Peat beyond his nutritional advice.

Peat talked about Stalin on the generative energy podcast a couple of times. In one episode he talked about how there actually was a Trotskyite plot and that Stalin did the right thing by purging the party. Categorising him as a "Stalinist" might be incorrect though, I know he did approve of Stalin but it's probable his personal politics deviate a bit from Stalin's. As always his views are pretty heterodox, he also believed that the protocols were mostly accurate. I'll try and find some quotes from the relevant episodes.

(02-06-2023, 10:48 PM)Datacop Wrote: To say Lamarckian Evolution is egalitarian because it supposes that one can interfere in the inheritance of traits, but Darwinian Evolution is anti-egalitarian because strength is only inheritable though a "completely random occurrence" sounds like a poor understanding of what egalitarianism is. There's nothing right-wing about the idea that strong traits are inherently random. Darwinian Evolution is a submission to nature, its dispiriting. It posits a natural hierarchy, yes, but only one where superiority is an unearned genetic accident. Furthermore, a Darwinian hierarchy can be upended at any time with any random mutative speciation. It is not egalitarian perhaps, but it is certainly not right-wing. Lamarckian is the real anti-egalitarian. It's supposition that life has the ability to ascend higher does not assume all will, or even can, do so. As with Darwinian Evolution, only the strong survive. The inheritance of negative traits is just as possible in Lamarckian biology. A great biological uplifting can only be undertaken by an equally great modulation. That great modulation in and of itself can only be undertaken by someone (or more accurately, generations of someones) possessing either a truly groundbreaking positive change or great self-modulation, a quality not often seen in the billions of humanoid biomass we find ourselves sharing the planet with.

You make a good point, I agree with you that egalitarian and anti-egalitarian are the wrong ways to frame Lamarckism and Darwinism. Perhaps better framing is Determinism vs Indeterminism. It seems to me that Lamarckism supposes that all life has value and that with intervention either on the behalf of an individual through their "will" or on behalf of a third party such as the state, they have the potential to come closer to perfection. "Left" and Right" are probably also the wrong terms to really get to the essence of my thoughts. Lamarckism reminds me of the "Enlightened Colonialism" of the 19th century. Just as the anglos thought they could civilize Africa through education, institutions and good laws, Lamarckism necessitates that a 70IQ Bantu contains within them the potential to become the Overman, or at least to birth one. All that they require is the guiding hand of a "humanitarian" third party.

(02-06-2023, 10:48 PM)Datacop Wrote: Ray Peat's teachings in a lot of ways are a refutation of the holistic "your body is your best doctor" rhetoric espoused by many New Age nutritionists of his time. The body is not an innately capable organism that just needs to be listened to— it is a complex machine and you are its operator. Degradation is as possible as advancement, and today it is far more common than upward development.

I disagree with this characterisation of his nutritional teachings. Peat strongly advocated for listening to the body, and relying on its temperature and pulse to inform any health decisions. Take for example sugar, Peat advocated listening to your cravings and understand that your body knows better than any anti-sugar nutritionist. Even when it comes to things like Meth, Peat refutes the idea of "addiction" and instead frames Meth cravings as the body seeking to create order, all be it through an unideal way. It's not so much that he preached to always follow your cravings and bodily desires, but rather to use the information that they present you to achieve more order. Cravings for food should always be listened to.

(02-06-2023, 10:48 PM)Datacop Wrote: A world that places Lamarckian stresses on the black race to gain intelligence would find after many, many generations the speciation of Africans, but the relative lowliness of other races is not the only issue with the current global biomass; it simply too populated at its current state, regardless of its average IQ. If America somehow maintained the IQ it had in 1960 there would still be big problems in its maintenance. Whether a population can be "raised" does not fix these issues.

I agree with you on this, probably a far better investment to focus on raising a small group than attempting to raise the biomass. I think also there's something valuable in having large parts of the world be inhabited by less intelligent people. BAP's observation that it's the impossibility of taming Africa that makes it so appealing to men of power. Escaping to the dionysian tropics seem to be an inherent desire in Aryan peoples. Had they not been bred out, I believe it was the destiny of the Normans to reach the Cape.

(02-07-2023, 04:41 AM)asdf1234 Wrote: Ray Peat died at 86.
This is how the distribution of death ages looks in the US, based on 2015 data: https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/rsnotes/...ibit02.jpg
This ought to be kept in mind every time somebody mentions his advice, for instance the advice on avoiding cardio exercise.

Ray Peat died in old age, having led a happy and meaningful life. He's always been focused on QoL over longevity (as any high spirited individual is).
I would rather live a life like his, filled with adventure and meaningful work than live an extra few years and rot in a nursing home.
If you expect Peat to offer you the key to immorality I think your setting the bar a bit too high. That said, Peat spent much of his life in serious sickness and only started "Peating" at around age 40. He was even poisoned by carcinogenic pesticides when he lived in Mexico. I suspect that had he adopted an energetic approach to nutrition much earlier, and avoided environmental hazards he would have lived to a much older age.

(02-07-2023, 04:41 AM)asdf1234 Wrote: >is there any source on him being a Stalinist or hardline leftist
His causal analysis of societal health developments is indistinguishable from that of a libtard ("the corporations..."); also, as previously mentioned on this forum, he approvingly quotes statements that IQ as a concept only exists to justify racism, constantly seethes against hereditarianism, etc. ctrl+f related terms in "Mind and Tissue" and "Generative Energy".

In regards to PUFA, the estrogen industry, and Pharma, Peat's analysis of 'muh corporations' is actually on point. PUFA's and plastics are prioritized because they are cheaper. Pharma drugs keep you sick because it's more profitable that way. There is no GNC plot to use PUFA's to suppress the white man, I have no doubt that Buttgieg and Soros and Obama drench cook in vegetable oil and talk to their doctors about their cholesterol.
#8
(02-07-2023, 04:41 AM)asdf1234 Wrote: Ray Peat died at 86.
This is how the distribution of death ages looks in the US, based on 2015 data: https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/rsnotes/...ibit02.jpg
This ought to be kept in mind every time somebody mentions his advice, for instance the advice on avoiding cardio exercise.

>is there any source on him being a Stalinist or hardline leftist
His causal analysis of societal health developments is indistinguishable from that of a libtard ("the corporations..."); also, as previously mentioned on this forum, he approvingly quotes statements that IQ as a concept only exists to justify racism, constantly seethes against hereditarianism, etc. ctrl+f related terms in "Mind and Tissue" and "Generative Energy".

Peat was kind of a faggot, which is why I hate how people are so inclined towards worship when it comes to diet. There are all these Peatarians on Twitter who wax poetic about his insights. Their whole lives are based on this one guy. There are some basic things about life that I'm sure he's right about, which the system must be dead wrong about, and it doesn't have to lead to any of his vague political stuff. He was not very astute about anything outside of biology.
#9
“Oh no PeaterBros, the ray peats monolith is deteriorating at a rapid pace, we got to cocky!”
#10
(02-07-2023, 07:11 PM)Trevor Bauer Wrote: Peat was kind of a faggot, which is why I hate how people are so inclined towards worship when it comes to diet. There are all these Peatarians on Twitter who wax poetic about his insights. Their whole lives are based on this one guy. There are some basic things about life that I'm sure he's right about, which the system must be dead wrong about, and it doesn't have to lead to any of his vague political stuff. He was not very astute about anything outside of biology.

I'm quick to defend Peat because his dietary advice was incredibly useful to me for many years, but this is increasingly my view as well. Peat had an almost superhuman intuition on the processes of the body, but did not apply these lessons into his political or spiritual world. On the thread's topic of reconciling Peat and Nietzsche, my previous reply argues that his nutritional advice is already Nietzschean and requires no "reconciling". Cutting his nutritionary work from his political beliefs wholesale is the best possible step beyond that
#11
If Ray Peats was living in Nazi Germany would his politics reflect it, most likely.

 I think some scientist should be excused on the basis that they become hyper focus on one discipline and thus don’t put a lot of thought into the stuff they Absorb through Social Osmosis. His(Ray Peats) political beliefs are most likely just products of his time, not to be taken that seriously.

Although if he genuinely affirmed Nigger Communist even once through out his life he is currently experiencing Eternal Perdition.(not in Christian Hell but some place adjacent to it)
#12
It's a good thing that Peat introduced literary and visual insights into physiology. Specialization is the mark of the midwit, and through it modernity makes smart people into dullards with totally wrong and totally uninspiring ideas. That's what an expert is, a bureaucrat who serves one function in a way that's superficially effective, but in reality inefficient, circuitous or labyrinthine, and quite oppressive. Because of this, no science is being practiced today, except on the fringes. The expert is purely ideological in its essence. Peat was not an expert but an intellectual (and an intellectual is necessarily multidisciplinary). Peat was not part of an ideological power structure, and he never claimed to be a communist — he simply wasn't offended by the question, he 'wasn't not a communist.' I'm not being cheeky, but pointing out that Peat is exactly the kind of person who would neither run from nor adopt an ideological label tout court.

It doesn't matter, in any case, if you are inspired by a 'communist biologist.' The basic problem I have with Peatards on Twitter and with some of the qualities of this thread is that it's seeking to justify whatever is 'Ray Peatism' in some very broad and poetic sense, while none of his ideas have been adopted, implemented, or worked out in technical and systematic terms.
#13
>Peat's analysis of 'muh corporations' is actually on point.

@Hummingbird
Then why do we observe no discontinuity around 1991 regarding % of people overweight or obese in Eastern Bloc nations? Alternatively, why do we observe no such discontinuity around the beginning of any proposed "reform period"? A few Western countries are also included for comparison. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share...RC~FRA~ESP

Or consider the "share of population with cancer" data - there is no "catch-up growth" after 1991 in the same Eastern Bloc countries. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share...RC~FRA~ESP

This may seem pedantic (the option of the [corporations] -> [food and health-provider structures with cost-minimization incentives] reframe is obvious), but affirmation of incorrect far-reaching causal statements makes it impossible to reason correctly about societal counterfactuals.
#14
The "died at 86" (decent age to die btw) argument isn't exactly good either, because it leads to people ignoring the fact that he looked much younger, stronger and healthier than anyone at that age. Health span > life span.
#15
If you search his forum, people say he was in obvious cognitive decline in the last recordings, and had been modifying his diet to cope with health issues in his last year. We don't know what he died of, exactly, but he wasn't hit by a bus or bitten by a venomous snake - it's stupid not to use it, therefore, as a way to make inferences about his health for, say, the last decade of his life.

The real question is - why should I listen to Ray Peat as opposed to other people? Regarding the death-age-of-influencial-people metric, it's trivial to find instances of "health advisors" dying at a far later age than Peat, and giving quite different advice - for instance, Jack LaLanne at 96, with opposite advice regarding vegetables. Obviously this is not particularly strong evidence, but it's not like we can measure the impact of dietary changes across the whole population.

And also, as previously mentioned, anybody who lived longer than him and gave advice regarding cardio exercise different from his advice to avoid it.
#16
(02-10-2023, 04:50 PM)asdf1234 Wrote: >Peat's analysis of 'muh corporations' is actually on point.
This may seem pedantic (the option of the [corporations] -> [food and health-provider structures with cost-minimization incentives] reframe is obvious), but affirmation of incorrect far-reaching causal statements makes it impossible to reason correctly about societal counterfactuals.

Yes, I agree with you for the most part. Peat's framing doesn't set up the conversation very well for what a good alternative looks like.
I think one of Peat's big flaws is that he was unable to step out how to actually go about fixing the 'nutritional crisis'.
I suspect he knew that it would be impossible on a mass scale without some kind of authoritarian government, but was too committed to his strange Stalinist-libertarian syncretism to suggest this.

Whilst Peat's advice regarding capital/corporations is useless in helping the masses, it does serve some utility to any acolyte Peaters (in my opinion all that matters):
Assume any food that comes from a large company has been tainted until known otherwise, assume government health advice is paid for by corporate interests, try and establish local food connections with farmers/producers, etc.


(02-09-2023, 11:46 AM)Trevor Bauer Wrote: The basic problem I have with Peatards on Twitter and with some of the qualities of this thread is that it's seeking to justify whatever is 'Ray Peatism' in some very broad and poetic sense, while none of his ideas have been adopted, implemented, or worked out in technical and systematic terms.

My intention with this thread is to explore the core nutritional philosophy of Peat (Lamarckism) and try to reconcile it with right-wing thought.
Although as @Datacop explained there might be no need for reconciliation.

I don't desire to reconcile his Stalinist-Libetariasm or any of his personal politics for the matter.
However, it's not really possible to cast of his nutritional philosophy, which unlike many of his other opinions, is overwhelmingly consistent.
I think it also provides a really good opportunity. If Peat and Lamarck are right we have a tangible way forward.
The ubermensch and new aristocracy wouldn't be just abstract concepts, they'd be something we could practically work towards through nutrition and hormonal/chemical experimentation.
#17
(02-06-2023, 09:34 PM)Hummingbird Wrote:
(02-06-2023, 09:16 PM)Trevor Bauer Wrote: There's nothing 'left wing' about biology.

There is, Lamarckian biology necessitates that all life has the *possibility* of becoming higher. 
It's egalitarian in the sense that all life has worth, and that every being can escape ugliness and mediocrity.

That's not leftist, that's christian. Leftists believe that all mutations of all animals are equal, that they all should be respected, that the worth of the often mentioned yeast is just as good and just as right as a muscle. When right wingers post "go lift", we are trying to show the escape. Will everyone escape? Hardly. But can everybody do so? Not logically, but Paul was a furious persecutor of christians and became one of them afterwards. It is not leftist to want, or think, that everybody should become higher - it is a deeply right wing belief, which requires the belief in quality, inequality, worth, etc. It is the true form of "love for mankind".

"I am here to save you from a great ugliness.”
#18
(10-13-2023, 09:51 AM)synesth Wrote:
(02-06-2023, 09:34 PM)Hummingbird Wrote:
(02-06-2023, 09:16 PM)Trevor Bauer Wrote: There's nothing 'left wing' about biology.

There is, Lamarckian biology necessitates that all life has the *possibility* of becoming higher. 
It's egalitarian in the sense that all life has worth, and that every being can escape ugliness and mediocrity.

That's not leftist, that's christian. Leftists believe that all mutations of all animals are equal, that they all should be respected, that the worth of the often mentioned yeast is just as good and just as right as a muscle. When right wingers post "go lift", we are trying to show the escape. Will everyone escape? Hardly. But can everybody do so? Not logically, but Paul was a furious persecutor of christians and became one of them afterwards. It is not leftist to want, or think, that everybody should become higher - it is a deeply right wing belief, which requires the belief in quality, inequality, worth, etc. It is the true form of "love for mankind".

"I am here to save you from a great ugliness.”

Yes, Christianity puts man at the top — albeit not as a result of chance mutations, but by means of artistic creation — whereas generic paganism would  have us to be morally lateral to animals, superior only in a subjective sense, but indeed often inferior in the more degenerate strains of paganism. But no religion ever devised has venerated the body more so than Christianity. We believe we will be in a body for eternity. What will it look like? What age will be? In theory, no religion should be more pro-bodybuilding than this one. That people introduce weird platonisms and beatific visions into it says nothing about it necessarily. I've always found it weird that Christians mistake the ephemerality of this world for a rejection of the physical, when all that figures to happen in the afterlife is that decay and entropy cease, while everything else appears the same as now. In a metaphysical sense, bodybuilding makes for an obvious analogy of the meaning of life. Bodybuilding always makes people 'more right wing,' because what we call right wing is associated with natural virtues, and a beautiful body is forged only through a rigorous, ongoing cultivation of good virtues.



[-]
Quick Reply
Message
Type your reply to this message here.




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)