A modern question about who we are

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

so, over the last few months, I have been investigating
the modern world… I began with a long study of science
and modernism along with science, the state and history…
I did not investigate those ideas as separate ideas, but
as connected ideas… One cannot explain the modern world
without seeing the role that science played in it over the last
500 years… I was also seeing how science played a role in
how we conduct philosophy… what are the similarities
and differences between science and philosophy…
and how do those similarities and differences, impacts
the state/society?

That study led me to wonder about our modern world we live in…
I then look at three studies to understand the movement from
a religious/Christian state to our modern secular state…
I picked out three writers who seem to me anyway, as moving
from the path of religious to the secular society of today…
The first writer was Goethe, the second was Emerson and the
third will be James Joyce… and how their own
separate journeys have led us to better understand the modern
journey from a religious state to a secular state…

Goethe, as is known, is one of my nominations for one of
the greatest writers the world has ever known… but there
are some problems with making him the ideal candidate to
lead of our journey from the religious to the secular?
The biggest being that Goethe was well known as a non-religious
writer… he was often accused of being an Atheist, whereas he
was more like a Spinozist’s, for he had unconventional views
on god, nature and reality… god is nature is the basic view
of Spinoza… and Goethe accepted this idea…

The second writer I choose was Ralph Waldo Emerson…
and my own path is this: I choose a subject, like Emerson,
then I begin with a biography of the subject, then after reading
the biography, I read the writings of the person in question…
in Emerson, this is the stage where I am at right now…
but I am reading him in terms of this movement into
a secular world… and the third writer, which I haven’t
gotten into yet, will be James Joyce… he will be my
totally secular writer… the movement from religion to secular
being found in these three writers…

but let us first understand the starting place of my investigation,
which is the religion, revelations from god… the problem as I see
it is that revelations from god creates some severe problems for us…
For example, a revelation from god is absolute, it allows no changes,
no modification, no improvement…a revelation from god
means to follow those revelations, which means to be stagnant,
stationary, static, passive, inert… with a revelation from god,
there are no deviations, no movement, no progress…
there is but one and one path only into the future…
and we know from examination, that when the environments
change, we must change with them or face the ‘‘dinosaur’’ problem…
the path of being human is one of change, diversity, movement,
but the path of revelation is the opposite of change and movement…
we are stuck between a rock and a hard place…
if we move, change we are not following god’s laws and if
we don’t move, change, then we are facing at best,
severe problems and at worst, extinction…

Think of history… think of the roughly 2000 years from Julius
Ceasar to the French Revolution… the city of the French Revolution
would still have been roughly familiar to Ceasar… transportation
would still have been by horse and carriage, the lives of the people
wouldn’t have been that different from Ceasar to 1790…
poor people are poor people the world over and in time too…
the famous solons of the 18th century weren’t so different
than the dinner parties of Rome in Ceasar times…
In 2000 years, the world wasn’t all that different between
Rome of Ceasar and the world of Napolean…

But the rise of the secularization of the world, from the French
Revolution to today, has change the world so much
that from say, George Washington to today, roughly from his
death in 1799 to today, 227 years, the world has change so
dramatically that our world of today would have been
unrecognizable to Washington… whereas Ceasar would have
easily recognized the world of Washington roughly 2000 years
later…

the question facing those who hold to god and revelation is
simple, how does one hold to god and the idea behind
revelation whereas there is no progress, no movement,
no change, no modification and certainly no improvement…
and the basic human value/need of change in order to
adapt and change depending on the environmental
changes… as noted above, we must change and adapt
to the everchanging environment or face disaster or
even extinction… solve how does one solve this
problem?

the only answer seems to be moving with secularization
and leaving behind revelation…if there is one constant
in the universe, its change… and to survive as a species,
we must change to cope with new conditions…

Now if we accept this proposition, then we can do something
interesting, which is to control or be in charge of the changes…
most of the time, people engage with ‘‘ad hoc’’ movement
or changes… which is to say, we choose changes
that are of the moment, we shift and change with rules
and values that our adaptations of the moment, not
changes that are lasting or permanent…

Let us put some meat on this bone…
we can simply choose to work toward ending some modern
problem, for example, homelessness… instead of ‘‘ad hoc’’
solutions that only push the day of reckoning down the road,
we seek out a more permanent solution, not a solution that
is of the moment, but with a solution that lasts
longer than the next election…

the modern concern with the acquisition of wealth,
is pretty much in direct conflict with the bible and the
New Testament…

‘‘It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a
needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom
of god’’

if we were to actually take the bible seriously, and frankly
no one does anymore, then why should we pursue wealth when
the bible specifically says not to… and who does Jesus minister
too? certainly not the wealthy or powerful, but the poor and
the masses of people in Israel… and where would a modern
justification of helping the poor and homeless come from?
what would be the ‘‘secular’’ motivation for helping the poor
come from?

The Declaration of Independence says this:

‘‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men/people are
created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain
unalienable Rights, that AMONG these are life, liberty and the
pursuit of happiness’’

It is clear from the language, that these are not the only rights,
it says, AMONG, alongside of the listed rights, life, liberty
and the pursuit of happiness, exists other rights… and I hold
that those rights include meeting the needs of life, of being human…
and among those rights are the right to adequate food, water,
shelter, health care and education… to me, if some people
get those needs met, then we must also include everyone in
order to practice justice, which means equality… if some
get something and others do not, that is inequality and by definition,
unjust… having people having homes of some sort is not
just a ‘‘if it happens’’ type of thing, but it is a fundamental
right for people, all people… at all times, in all places…
for us to be able to say, we are practicing justice…
and the homeless problem is a national problem, thus
it needs a national solution… but I can hear it now, but
Kropotkin, where is the money going to come from?
the usual plea of those with zero imagination…
we have 1% of the population owning over 80% of the national
wealth… where else is the money going to come from if
1% of the population owns the vast majority of wealth?
so, the question becomes this, is it better that the 1% own
over 80% of the entire American wealth and thus, allowing
people to be homeless, and have food insecurities, and even
children being homeless and with food issues?

What is more important? the 1% or over a million people
with housing and food shortages in America?
Can you even justify selecting the 1% over a million
people? are you going to choose wealth over health
and by doing so, violate both the letter and the spirit of
the bible? and in so choosing wealth over health, that
is picking wealth as an ideal to follow, not charity or
goodness or kindness or justice/equality…
or even following/worshiping god/jesus…
you cannot stay true to god and the bible and still
worship money/wealth as Americans clearly do…
even as I have suggested, god doesn’t exists,
I would still rather have people practice religion
than worship the trinkets of existence, wealth, power,
fame, titles and material goods…
there is nothing good that can come out of the worship
of the trinkets, but at least helping one’s soul in the
religious manner is helping someone… which is more
than I can say about the worship of trinkets…

So, let us bring this back to my original point, which
is this movement from the religious to the secular…
which I see as being a good thing, but the question becomes
this, what aspect of being secular should we think about
in terms of changing? As every question leads us to a
reevaluation of values, what values should we
engage with as we move into whatever this age is,
post-post-modernism? or modernism on steroids?
I don’t think we have a good sense at all, about what
and where we are and what we stand for, as human beings,
as Americans… what is our destination? for us to
become religious, or to become secular, or to be
something else? We have choices, let us examine those
choices and make some decisions about who we are
as human beings?

Kropotkin

2

Well, the Western world is generally becoming more secular and the rich are getting richer. So, these two phenomena: wealth disparity and religion - they seem to be on different tracks.

We can call capitalism a religion and you’ve already called communism a religion.

We might have to look elsewhere for solutions.

1 Like
3

@greenfuse

Only political revolution can change things but without numbers or organization such a thing is hopeless which is why I focus on the complexity of civilization collapse.

In the absence of political revolution collapse is the next best thing for rotten corrupt systems.

Civilization collapse also has a way of forcing political revolution to the surface.

:clown_face:

4

I’m pretty skeptical about most of the solutions we have so far, and I don’t feel like I understand economics well enough to say I WANT ____________ism. I think Marx had excellent criticisms of capitalism, but not a great sense of what happens when you take his ideas, have a revolution and move forward. Nor do I like what Lenin and then Stalin (or Mao, the Khmer Rouge, etc.) did with those ideas. People can be great critics but lack the ability to come up with a better solution. Capitalism has sucked. Communism - on a large scale at least - has sucked even more for the citizens under that communism. Once you tie in foreign policy it gets more complicated, but perhaps we don’t have to choose between the two bullies on the block.

The people who thrive in collapse and revolution tend to be sociopaths and narcissists. Though some smaller countries started pretty well. The Sandanistas in Nicaragua were pretty honorable and did give up power when voted out - and there was a lot of US intervention leading to that being voted out. They had problems and were pretty shitty to the Native Nicaraguans, but it is quite possible they would have made a decent better system for most citizens. Who knows what would have happened if Cuba hadn’t been embargoed. But large scale communism has left me the opposite of impressed.

As boring as it is, I’d start with getting rid of the worst, step by step. The banking industry and the finance industry should have the worst most ridiculous facets taken out. But then, how do you do this while they have so much power? I do understand the hopes for collapse or revolution, but that hasn’t gone so well, at least so far. I suspect collapse will also be radical, because everything is connected in ways they weren’t before. Mad Max world is not off the table at all.

1 Like
5

When still an avid Catholic, the holy priest exclaimed with a positive air of relief when Capitalism became the trend, after the busting asunder, that Reagan declared of that Evil Empire. spoke volumes, as it does now.!

2 Likes
6

@meno41

Ronald Reagan was the worst thing to happen to this nation after Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon. Beginning of the end with the Wallstreet takeover of the entire United States.

:clown_face:

7

@greenfuse

Anarchism defeats anarchism, total anarchy is always short lived where a strong political leader inevitably emerges from the ashes.

:clown_face:

8

@greenfuse

It will either be political civil war here domestically or World War III. Notice Iran, Ukraine, and Taiwan thrown into the mix.

I have no doubt that even as American financial economic capitalism dies and where nothing remains of it beyond its corpse its defenders will still fight in its name long after it is dead being the most violent among all. Should this nation fall into political civil war domestically I can see a multitude of different ideologies and political factions fighting each other for ultimate supremacy.

Not all revolutionaries have to be psychotic, some can actually care about the people they’re fighting for in a genuine mental sense.

:clown_face:

9

‘we’, human beings, are made up of a physical visible bodies, and invisible thoughts and emotions within human bodies. That is who ‘we’, human beings, are, exactly.

10

I don’t think all revolutionaries are psychotic or have bad intentions. On the other hand, their skill set is not necessarily at all the one to set up a stable government where the psychotics do not come to power.

1 Like
11

Absolutely, absolute power corrupt absolutely, that’s the game, it is the surge of popular demand which turns any leader, including the anarchyst into very paranoid methods to protect ‘the nation, and the people, where the people can truly rule,

Simply representation becomes unmanageable by masses, they need their strong leaders, , that’s axiomatic.

FDR had to bow to social reform, Hitler had to purge communist socialists, because the free market economy turns along with the strong leader, who can turn the cyclical nature, not of the economy per se, but masses can not appreciate quality, because masses grow tired and bored with the latest innovations, so as to retard the very invention they grow very of.

The latest out of the microeconomic bully pulpit is that Americans have little idea of how rich they are, millionaires degrade their wealth by grossly inflating the money supply, so as to create affects of wealth. Millionaires of today are stymied to the extent as certain de facto colonial powers can not view themselves as millionaires. For instance in countries of inflated quality, Indonesia, for one, a dinner can cost a million of their money, so a millionaire looses their intrinsic image as extraordinary. The same process is undermining its self worth, here in the United States.