According to certain interpretations of Jesus (and his life and his teachings), he was some kind of anarchist insurrectionary – and it was Paul who turned the teachings of Jesus into an organized religion, which then became the opposite of what Jesus taught.

For example, Nietzsche:

In Paul is incarnated the very opposite of the “bearer of glad tidings” [Jesus]; he represents the genius for hatred, the vision of hatred, the relentless logic of hatred.

—The church is precisely that against which Jesus preached—and against which he taught his disciples to fight—

Some radical (and unconventional) interpretations of Jesus Christ:

Max Stirner

from https://news.1rj.ru/str/postLeftPosting/811
to https://news.1rj.ru/str/postLeftPosting/815


Friedrich Nietzsche

from https://news.1rj.ru/str/postLeftPosting/820
to https://news.1rj.ru/str/postLeftPosting/850

(these are only some of Nietzsche's quotes on this theme)


Oscar Wilde

from https://news.1rj.ru/str/postLeftPosting/842
to https://news.1rj.ru/str/postLeftPosting/845

The division of labor implies the contradiction between the interest of the separate individual or the individual family and the communal interest of all individuals who have intercourse with one another. And indeed, this communal interest does not exist merely in the imagination, as the ‘general interest,’ but first of all in reality, as the mutual interdependence of the individuals among whom the labor is divided. And finally, the division of labor offers us the first example of how, as long as man remains in natural society, that is, as long as a cleavage exists between the particular and the common interest, as long, therefore, as activity is not voluntarily, but naturally, divided, man’s own deed becomes an alien power opposed to him, which enslaves him instead of being controlled by him. For as soon as the distribution of labor comes into being, each man has a particular, exclusive sphere of activity, which is forced upon him and from which he cannot escape. He is a hunter, a fisherman, a herdsman, or a critical critic, and must remain so if he does not want to lose his means of livelihood; while in communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticize after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic.

— Karl Marx,
The German Ideology (chapter 1)

“In communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticize after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic.”

— Karl Marx,
The German Ideology (chapter 1)

Time Before Timetables

[In medieval Europe] there’s one set of problems you almost certainly wouldn’t have experienced: problems of time. Even on your most exhausting days, it probably wouldn’t have occurred to you that you had “too much to do,” that you needed to hurry, or that life was moving too fast, let alone that you’d gotten your work-life balance wrong. By the same token, on quieter days, you would never have felt bored. And though death was a constant presence, with lives cut short far more frequently than they are today, time wouldn’t have felt in limited supply. You wouldn’t have felt any pressure to find ways to “save” it. Nor would you have felt guilty for wasting it: if you took an afternoon break from threshing grain to watch a cockfight on the village green, it wouldn’t have felt like you were shirking during “work time.” And none of this was simply because things moved more slowly back then, or because medieval peasants were more relaxed or more resigned to their fate. It was because, so far as we can tell, they generally didn’t experience time as an abstract entity—as a thing—at all.

— Oliver Burkeman,
Four Thousand Weeks (chapter 1)

Four Thousand Weeks: Time Management for Mortals (by Oliver Burkeman)

The truth ... is that spending at least some of your leisure time “wastefully,” focused solely on the pleasure of the experience, is the only way not to waste it—to be truly at leisure, rather than covertly engaged in future-focused self-improvement. In order to most fully inhabit the only life you ever get, you have to refrain from using every spare hour for personal growth. From this perspective, idleness isn’t merely forgivable; it’s practically an obligation.

— Oliver Burkeman,
Four Thousand Weeks (chapter 9)

If the satisfaction of an old man drinking a glass of wine counts for nothing, then production and wealth are only hollow myths; they have meaning only if they are capable of being retrieved in individual and living joy.

— Simone de Beauvoir,
The Ethics of Ambiguity (III. §5)

Amusement under late capitalism is the prolongation of work. It is sought after as an escape from the mechanised work process, and to recruit strength in order to be able to cope with it again.

But at the same time mechanisation has such power over a man’s leisure and happiness, and so profoundly determines the manufacture of amusement goods, that his experiences are inevitably after-images of the work process itself.

The ostensible content is merely a faded foreground; what sinks in is the automatic succession of standardised operations. What happens at work, in the factory, or in the office can only be escaped from by approximation to it in one’s leisure time.

— Theodor Adorno & Max Horkheimer,
The Culture Industry

The idle life I lead
Is like a pleasant sleep,
Wherein I rest and heed
The dreams that by me sweep.

And still of all my dreams
In turn so swiftly past,
Each in its fancy seems
A nobler than the last.

And every eve I say,
Noting my step in bliss,
That I have known no day
In all my life like this.

— Robert Bridges,
Poetical Works (Bk. IV, §17)

Individual development depends upon mass-solution of the economic problems of everyday living.

The inventors, thinkers, and the common man have made this world ripe for healthful leisure, and have created far more than enough goods for all.

But through all this progress the business man has assumed the right to the lion's share while those who did the creating and hard work were compelled to fight for whatever they could get — or starve.

— Art Young,
Art Young: His Life and Times (epilogue)

Even on the white English crags

A few strong spirits, in a race that binds

Its body in chains and calls them Liberty,

And calls each fresh link Progress, stood erect

With faces pale that hunger'd to the light.

— Robert W. Buchanan

"The first principle of all action is leisure. Both are required, but leisure is better than occupation and is its end.”

— Aristotle, Politics (book 8, part 3)

“For many people, their compulsive phone use papers over a void created by a lack of a well-developed leisure life. Reducing the easy distraction without also filling the void can make life unpleasantly stale – an outcome likely to undermine any transition to minimalism.”

— Cal Newport,
Digital Minimalism (chapter 3)

“A life, whose purpose is money, is death.”

― Albert Camus

“Any life directed toward money is a death. Renascence lies in disinterestedness.”

— Albert Camus,
Notebooks 1942–1951 (IV)

“It is a strange desire which men have, to seek power and lose liberty.”

— Francis Bacon, Ornamenta Rationalia

“It is not enough to be industrious; so are the ants. What are you industrious about?”

— Henry David Thoreau, letter to Harrison Blake

“Nothing tends to materialize man, and to deprive his work of the faintest trace of mind, more than [the] extreme division of labor.”

— Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America (Vol I) (Ch. 18, part X)

The relatively new trouble with mass society is perhaps even more serious, but not because of the masses themselves, but because this society is essentially a consumers’ society where leisure time is used no longer for self-perfection or acquisition of more social status, but for more and more consumption and more and more entertainment. And since there are not enough consumer goods around to satisfy the growing appetites of a life process whose vital energy, no longer spent in the toil and trouble of a laboring body, must be used up by consumption, it is as though life itself reached out and helped itself to things which were never meant for it.

The result is, of course, not mass culture which, strictly speaking, does not exist, but mass entertainment, feeding on the cultural objects of the world. To believe that such a society will become more “cultured” as time goes on and education has done its work, is, I think, a fatal mistake. The point is that a consumers’ society cannot possibly know how to take care of a world and the things which belong exclusively to the space of worldly appearances, because its central attitude toward all objects, the attitude of consumption, spells ruin to everything it touches.

— Hannah Arendt,
Between Past and Future (Ch. 6, I)

“It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere.”

— Voltaire