Greta wrote
Then there is the widening schism, exemplified by Nick's prejudice and aggressive ideology that drives his reckless, unethical approach - bare knuckle discussion. It is the mindset of war - and many today are preparing mentally already. This "angry tribe" cannot countenance conciliation because that would be seen to them as weakness, surrender. This is a worldview that sees others more as threats than opportunities.
So we have increasing political divisions being oddly coupled with increasing metaphysical agreement, a situation where the ostensibly pious become increasingly profane and the ostensibly secular become increasingly Spinozan.
What is the basis of the unethical thought I further which had been introduced and hated virtually from the beginning? Of course there have always been men of science who were men of being at the same time. Nothing new here. Greta is right that this unethical thought has been so insulting that it has often led to war rather than contemplation. This unethical thought begins with the question: “What is man?”
The Greta mind is only concerned with politics. The only important consideration for the Greta mind which represents secularism is what we DO. It is argued by politics. Unethical thought is concerned with what we ARE: "who am I?" The most profane unethical thought asserts that we don’t “know thyself.” Can there be anything more offensive to the Greta mind than admitting that since we don’t know who or what we ARE, the question of what we DO and it relationship to politics can only result in hypocrisy?
Yes this unethical mindset should lead to a beneficial war but rarely does. Where Greta is concerned with external enemies and making war against people who question the supremacy of the Beast. Attacking Trump follows the path to victory. My unethical thought is concerned with making war against my stomach.
“It struck him that in moments of crisis one is never fighting against an external enemy, but always against one’s own body... On the battlefield, in the torture chamber, on a sinking ship, the issues that you are fighting for are always forgotten, because the body swells up until it fills the universe, and even when you are not paralysed by fright or screaming with pain, life is a moment-to-moment struggle against hunger or cold or sleeplessness, against a sour stomach or an aching tooth.”― George Orwell, 1984
Unethical thought which stresses the need to know thyself as opposed to imagining oneself in order to become consciously human as opposed to an indoctrinated creature of reaction is an offensive idea. It suggests that we don’t know what we ARE. Ridiculous! We are surrounded by experts who tell us what we ARE. It is offensive since it questions the wisdom of secular government to tell us what we are. What could be more offensive?
Which is more important: the war against the Greta mind and its righteous indignation or the war against my stomach? A deeply philosophical question.
=============