iambiguous wrote: ↑Sun Apr 10, 2022 1:52 amWhat I attempt to expose are the objectivists among us. Moral, political and/or spiritual. Those who argue it is their God, their ideology, their deontological assessment, their understanding of nature, that reflects the optimal or the only rational understanding of the human condition. And then the inherent danger embedded in communities where they come into power and get to decide which behaviors are rewarded and which are punished. And are in turn able to enforce their moral, political and/or religious agenda.
Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Mon Apr 11, 2022 1:29 amWell, the way that my own interests dovetail with what I gather you are saying -- filled to the brim as you must be with declarations and assertions (or do you avoid such things in your *concern* about, say, the myriad
daseins?) -- is through my concern for certain modern situations and events. The one I'll mention is present day France and the political, social, cultural, philosophical, and ideological issues that are strongly at play in that culture and in the on-going election.
I find that your stated concerns are not possible to consider and talk about unless they are brought down out of the abstract (bringing down/coming down is something you often recommend to IC). So I think that we could definitely, and quite concretely, consider Heideggerian concerns, since it seems this is a primary influence for you, within the context of a specific people and their specific struggle.
Take your terms
moral/political/spiritual as a starting point. What is going on in modern France today? A return to a set definition of what *being French* means. This is a complex and laden proposition! Because to define oneself, and for a people to define themselves, requires a very strong sense of cultivated
historicity, wouldn't you say? And as it is taking shape -- I refer here to a movement within French culture today that sure looks as though it is desirous of 'recovering identity' and anchoring identity within what one might call hyper-liberal fluidity that inhibits such identity from coalescing -- such a movement requires
philosophical tools.
To all appearances there are s significant number within France today that are willing to stake out a position, quite rigorous and demanding, in order to 'preserve' or 'recover' that which they feel is slipping away and threatened (one aspect of this being their fear of being replaced, that is of a new people supplanting the people they say they are, or modifying or dilution their
peopleness. (The 'great replacement'
is a general topic of conversation and debate in France).
Again, my interest in all this revolves less around what any particular citizen believes "being French" means, and more in how, given the life they lived, a specific trajectory of experiences, relationships and information/knowledge inclined them to believe one set of historical/cultural/political prejudices rather than another. Just as with Christianity, it's not what people believe about it but why they came to believe what they did while others believe something different.
And then given that individuals do have different [conflicting] assessments of "being French" or "being Christian", how, as philosophers, might we be able to pin down what in fact the most rational -- the "wisest" -- assessment is.
Can that be done? Is there a philosophical equivalent of the "scientific method" in exploring such things as culture and ethnicity and race and class? The immigration issue is of particular importance re Brexit and the French election. Tell me that doesn't revolve around certain racist convictions.
Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Mon Apr 11, 2022 1:29 amNow how could
God be spoken of in such a context? Well it is an interesting issue. But I may share something in common with you insofar as I think that one is obligated to locate oneself within a given people and when located there ask questions about what God they worship (I mean define, imagine, conceive, etc.). This follows the Heideggerian mode of turning conventional understandings on their head. So normally the definition of God comes first. But as I see it one is better off starting with the people one is concerned with and their handling of the definition of God.
So in respect to France I could ask "What is their God, their ideology, their deontological assessment, their understanding of nature" which is expressed by them, valued & privileged by them, bolstered by them, and this frankly for their own defined purposes? Within
their context they might then declare that their way of being reflects the optimal or
the only rational understanding of the human condition but within their specific context. That is to say that *what they are* cannot be imposed on or transferred to some other.
With religion comes the "transcending font". And, for many, Judgment Day. This way belief in "being French" or "being Christian" leads back to the authority on, well, everything, right?
With God you not only pin down "French-ness", but also have access to a Scripted morality on this side of the grave. And then immortality and salvation on the other side of it. You merely insist that your own interpretation of The Word is the only legitimate interpretation. And, from my frame of mind, that is rooted existentially in dasein.
But not for the political and religious objectivists. For them everything comes back to their own arrogant and self-righteous interpretations
of Scripture; and their own political prejudices deemed not to be subjective prejudices at all but the objective truth. The rest, of course, being history writ large.
Thus...
And then the inherent danger embedded in communities where they come into power and get to decide which behaviors are rewarded and which are punished. And are in turn able to enforce their moral, political and/or religious agenda.
Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Mon Apr 11, 2022 1:29 amThis is an odd statement when you examine it. What you note here as taking place, must take place, and always takes place. It is in Classical Liberalism that defines the possibility of disparate peoples with disparate goals & aspirations, who yet opt to live and get along together under one general political roof, is it not? Apparently, we are living within a historical period where that form of liberalism is in danger of collapsing.
What it depicts [from my vantage point] are those who construe the best of all possible world as one in which governments are formed that revolve around democracy and the rule of law...around "moderation, negotiation and compromise".
Well, taking into account "political economy" of course. What some call the "ruling class", what others call the "deep state".
What is in danger of collapsing is this. Replaced by the Vladimir Putins and the Xi Jinpings and the Donald Trumps and the French equivalent of them.
Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Mon Apr 11, 2022 1:29 amNow I must address what I think is your primary objective and one shared by many (most) who have strong opinions about Christianity. You wish to see it dissolved. You really have a problem that *it* believes it is right in defending the moral code it defines and defends, and you really do not like that it exerts itself through its
moral, political and religious agenda.
No, I only wish to see those Evangelical denominations [here in America] linked to Trumpworld and fascism pared down to size. Christianity itself is just one of many religious fonts that many believe in but are unable to demonstrate as in fact the "real deal". Religion itself will almost certainly always be around because nothing "soothes the soul" better.
What do the atheists have to replace it? Humanism? Okay, but which ideological/deontological rendition of it? And even if they can one day all come to agree there's still the part about tumbling over into the abyss that is oblivion.
Me, I'd embrace the Christians God's immortality and salvation in a heartbeat if someone could convince me that it is the "real deal".
) but I'm just trying to fathom what would happen if we really did come to know what we do not yet know, but are still trying to know, what we do not yet know. . . but strongly believe there is a human NEED to know..