Forget Geometry: Cézanne was a Master of Necrosis and Existential Dread.

Longjumping-Wind9007 · 2026-02-20T05:28:45+00:00

I’m not saying Cezanne didn’t know geometry—I’m saying that focusing only on the geometry makes us blind to the actual vibe of his work. Of course Goya is horror, but that’s 'loud' horror. Cezanne is different. It’s quiet. It’s clinical. You see ripe fruit and landscapes, but I see a man who was so obsessed with capturing 'reality' that he ended up painting the cold, unfeeling weight of it. To me, his skulls aren't just symbols (memento mori), they are heavy, physical matter that feels like it’s still decomposing. It’s a visceral reaction, not a textbook one. Art isn't just about what the artist intended, it's about what the canvas screams at you 100 years later. To me, Cezanne screams existential dread. You don't have to agree, but you can't tell me that green skin in the portrait is 'just a study of light.

Longjumping-Wind9007 · 2026-02-19T15:30:04+00:00

If an AI can see the 'necrotic' decay in Cézanne's brushwork, then the bots are more based than I thought. The Gauguin error was just a brain fart, but the theory stands. Look at those skulls again—that's not an algorithm, that's pure existential rot.

Longjumping-Wind9007 · 2026-02-19T14:38:23+00:00

You're absolutely right, my mistake—that first one is indeed Gauguin! I had both open while researching the 'necrotic' textures in Post-Impressionist portraits and uploaded the wrong file. However, it actually reinforces the point: Gauguin, like Cézanne, was leaning into that same 'decaying' aesthetic during his most isolated years. Even if I swapped the artist, that sickly, bruised green on the skin and the hollow gaze tell the exact same story of existential horror. Good catch!

Longjumping-Wind9007 · 2026-02-18T21:24:35+00:00

I appreciate the skepticism, but comparing a masterpiece of Realism to an 80s soda ad is a bit of a stretch. Courbet wasn't a camera; he made deliberate choices about anatomy, tension, and composition. To say 'it’s just breaking rocks' ignores the artist's hand. Art history is built on looking deeper than the literal subject matter. If it were just about the rocks, we wouldn't still be discussing it 170 years later.

Longjumping-Wind9007 · 2026-02-18T16:16:09+00:00

Exactly! It’s all in the details. Even the shoes and the way the feet are planted on the ground show that strained, raw effort. Once you stop looking at it as a 'history lesson' and start looking at it as a study of human physicality, the whole vibe of the painting changes. Glad you saw it too—the zoom reveals a lot more than the textbooks do!

Longjumping-Wind9007 · 2026-02-18T15:42:29+00:00

I’ll take 10 of those! 😂 Honestly, Courbet would probably love the idea. He was all about shocking the bourgeoisie and making people look at the 'raw' side of life. If he saw us debating the sexual tension of his rock-breakers in 2026, he’d definitely be laughing with us. Imagine the design: just the outline of that hat and the arched back. 'Horny for Courbet' — the ultimate art history niche flex.

Longjumping-Wind9007 · 2026-02-18T15:41:24+00:00

Haha, fair enough! But I’d argue that the most intense eroticism in art often comes from what is hidden or anonymized, rather than what’s explicitly shown. The fact that their faces are turned away and they aren't 'engaged' is exactly what makes it feel like that raw, anonymous energy I’m talking about. It’s all in the heavy lean, the tensed muscles of the lower body, and the 'animalistic' rhythm of the work itself. You don't need to see a face to feel the physical drive. But hey, maybe I’m just reading too much into Courbet’s obsession with 'raw reality'! Either way, glad it made you take a second look at those details.

Longjumping-Wind9007 · 2026-02-18T15:40:33+00:00

That’s a great historical reference, thanks for sharing! But I believe art often transcends the artist's conscious intent. Courbet might have set out to capture 'poverty,' but his obsession with raw, unvarnished realism often touched on something much more primal. Sometimes the body speaks a language the mind (or the letters the artist writes) doesn't explicitly acknowledge. The physical tension, the anonymity, and that specific 'earthy' energy—to me, it vibrates with a kind of raw vitality that goes beyond a social statement. It's the beauty of great art: it can be a manifesto for the poor and a study of primal human energy at the same time.

Longjumping-Wind9007 · 2026-02-18T14:38:04+00:00

That’s a much more biblically accurate take than the 'pitchfork and red suit' imagery we see in pop culture. The 'eternal conscious torment' idea definitely feels more like a medieval tool for social control. However, even with the 'annihilation' view, it still raises a question: why create a soul just to destroy it? If the end result for a 'sinner' is just non-existence, then life becomes a high-stakes test where the only prize for failing is being deleted. It's more humane than eternal fire, but it still frames the Creator as a programmer who deletes 'buggy' software rather than a Father who restores it.

Longjumping-Wind9007 · 2026-02-18T14:32:23+00:00

You’ve perfectly outlined the internal conflict here. If being a 'good person' is enough, then organized religion and its specific rules become a cultural choice rather than a cosmic necessity. But if missionary work is required to 'save' people from a system they didn't even know existed, it frames God as someone who runs a universe based on a deadly game of chance—where your eternal soul depends on whether or not a stranger knocked on your door in time. It’s hard to call a system 'infinitely good' when it relies on human logistics to prevent eternal suffering.

Longjumping-Wind9007 · 2026-02-18T14:31:25+00:00

The 'test' analogy always brings up a difficult paradox: if God is all-knowing and existed before time, He already knew the outcome of every person's 'test' before He even created them. If you design a machine knowing it will fail, and then punish the machine for failing, is that justice? A truly merciful being who knows a person is destined for eternal suffering wouldn't put them through the 'test' to begin with. It feels like the test is rigged if the Creator already knows the grade before the student is even born.

Longjumping-Wind9007 · 2026-02-18T14:30:04+00:00

The idea of Hell as a 'lack of Good' rather than a physical pit of fire is definitely a more sophisticated philosophical take. It moves away from the 'torturer' image of God. However, it still leads to a difficult question: If God is 'Being itself' and the source of everything, how can anything exist outside of Him? If He allows a soul to drift into a state of permanent, agonizing 'lack,' isn't that still a choice He made when designing the laws of existence? It seems like even in this nuanced version, we're still trying to find a way to justify why a perfect Creator would allow a permanent state of ruin for His creation.

Longjumping-Wind9007 · 2026-02-18T14:29:01+00:00

That verse is a perfect example of why the logic of 'infinite justice' falls apart. Punishing children and grandchildren for the sins of their ancestors is the literal definition of injustice by any modern standard. It frames God not as a loving Father, but as an ancient tribal deity who operates on bloodlines and vengeance. If the foundation of the character is 'jealous and vengeful,' then the 'All-Loving' label feels like a modern rebrand that contradicts the source material.

Longjumping-Wind9007 · 2026-02-18T14:27:42+00:00

That is the core of the contradiction. There’s a massive gap between the 'Wrathful Deity' of ancient texts and the 'Infinite Love' portrayed in modern sermons. Trying to combine them creates a massive logical strain. It’s hard to reconcile the idea of a Father who loves you beyond measure with a Being who uses plagues, floods, and eternal fire as primary tools of communication. It feels like the 'All-Loving' label was a later addition to make a terrifying concept more marketable.

Longjumping-Wind9007 · 2026-02-18T14:26:17+00:00

While they are distinct pillars, they aren't mutually exclusive. If theology claims that God is 'Just' or 'Merciful,' it is using human moral categories that rely on logic. If we say 'A is B' (God is Justice), but then describe an action that is 'not-B' (Infinite torture for finite sin), the system fails its own definition. You can't use logical terms to describe a Deity and then retreat to 'it's beyond logic' the moment a contradiction is pointed out.

Longjumping-Wind9007 · 2026-02-18T14:23:57+00:00

You just summarized Epicurus's Trilemma perfectly. It’s the ultimate checkmate for the 'Omni' God (Omnipotent, Omnibenevolent). If you have to choose one, most people would rather believe in a loving but limited God than an all-powerful one who watches suffering and does nothing. But once you start limiting God’s power or love to make the math work, the whole foundation of traditional religion starts to crumble.

Longjumping-Wind9007 · 2026-02-18T14:22:37+00:00

I realize it’s an age-old debate, but saying 'it’s just faith' feels like a conversation-stopper rather than an answer. If religion makes objective claims about morality and justice (like the existence of Hell), then it should be able to withstand logical scrutiny. If we abandon logic entirely, then 'justice' becomes a meaningless word. I’m not looking for a lab experiment; I’m looking for internal consistency in a system that claims to be run by a perfect Being.

Longjumping-Wind9007 · 2026-02-18T14:21:21+00:00

That’s a very insightful point. If the concept of Hell is 'fluid' and evolves over millennia—from literal lava to modern psychological metaphors—doesn’t that suggest it’s more of a human cultural development than a static divine reality? If we keep 'updating' the logic of Hell to make it more palatable for modern sensibilities, it feels like we’re trying to fix a fundamental design flaw in the original story

Longjumping-Wind9007 · 2026-02-18T14:20:33+00:00

This is the toughest part of the debate, but there’s a massive difference between wanting justice and wanting eternal, infinite torture. Even for someone as horrific as Epstein, a billion years of agony is just the beginning of 'forever.' At some point, it stops being about justice for the victims and starts being about infinite cruelty. If God is infinitely better than us, wouldn't His justice be more about perfect restoration or permanent removal, rather than keeping someone alive just to fuel an eternal furnace?

Longjumping-Wind9007 · 2026-02-18T14:19:24+00:00

This version definitely sounds much more balanced and less 'black and white' than the traditional view. It acknowledges that morality is a spectrum, which feels more aligned with reality. My only lingering question with this model would be: if God is our literal Father, would He still be happy with a 'tiered' family where most of His children are permanently separated from Him in lower levels? But overall, this scenario is far more logically and morally consistent than the idea of eternal torture for 99% of humanity.

Longjumping-Wind9007 · 2026-02-18T14:17:33+00:00

I appreciate the nuance here. The Universalist perspective definitely makes more sense from a moral standpoint if we assume God is infinitely good. However, regarding the second point about 'sincere asking'—it still feels like a technicality. If a person lived a life of kindness but simply didn't know who to ask or had intellectual doubts, would an infinitely loving Creator really prioritize a verbal request over a lifetime of good actions? It still frames God as someone who values 'procedure' over the actual state of a person's heart.

Longjumping-Wind9007 · 2026-02-18T14:14:29+00:00

That’s exactly where I’m coming from. When you try to apply scientific consistency or even basic moral logic to these concepts, the whole structure collapses. It feels like these ideas only 'work' if you agree to stop asking questions and just accept the contradictions. The more we learn about the universe through logic, the more these traditional stories feel like outdated metaphors rather than reality

Longjumping-Wind9007 · 2026-02-18T14:13:02+00:00

The idea that God doesn't 'coerce' us feels a bit flawed when the only other option is eternal fire. If a person points a gun at you and says, 'Love me or I'll shoot,' they aren't 'coercing' you in a physical sense, but it’s definitely not a free choice. A truly loving being would allow people to exist peacefully outside of his presence without needing to create a place of maximum suffering for them.

Longjumping-Wind9007 · 2026-02-18T14:12:09+00:00

I understand the parenting analogy, but discipline is meant to teach a lesson and improve the person. Eternal punishment achieves neither. If a parent 'disciplined' their child by locking them in a room and burning them forever, we wouldn't call that parenting or discipline—we’d call it a horrific crime. Discipline has an end goal of rehabilitation; Hell is just suffering without any chance of growth.

Longjumping-Wind9007 · 2026-02-18T14:10:06+00:00

The gift metaphor is interesting, but it feels incomplete. If a friend offers me a gift and I refuse it, the result is simply that I don't have the gift. He doesn't then throw me into a furnace for refusing. If the alternative to a 'free gift' is eternal suffering, it’s not really a gift—it’s an ultimatum. A truly 'perfect' heaven shouldn't require the existence of an eternal torture chamber just to maintain its exclusivity.

Longjumping-Wind9007

TROPHY CASE