Which Philosophy can Save the World?

Have you ever came up with an original philosophical idea? It can happen. It used to happen to me quite a lot, now only occasionally. But this one is great, only it seems difficult to write out.

I am a Christian as all good and intelligent people should be. Christianity and philosophy go together like, well like two things that go great together. Chocolate and peanut butter I suppose. Each one leads into the other, like an ouroboros. Philosophy and Christianity I mean. That is nicely symbolic of infinity as well. Don’t let yourself be fooled or let down by the bad philosophers or bad Christians, they are out there in droves. Just focus on the real thing and you will see what I mean.

American and European / “western” society used to have a primary Christian foundation, i.e. most people were Christians of one denomination or another. This provided for an incredibly stabilizing force. Higher levels of mutual understanding and trust, greater in-group cooperation, more pro-social behavior and swift punishments against criminals who broke that expectation; all of this led to a sharp increase economically, technologically, artistically, etc. because all of these qualities are GOOD for a society to possess. Christianity can be defined by the simple equation “God=Love=Truth”, and even if people didn’t understand this it nonetheless powerfully impacted them, families, and society generally. What is important to realize is how this is a philosophical equation. That is why this post is in Philosophy and not Religion. The equation itself and the underlying fundaments of Christianity are inherently philosophical in nature, providing for what became a semi-unconscious social basis of substance on which would quite naturally develop so many good qualities, values and meanings that led to the thriving expansion of the west.

Sadly, this primary substance of goodness that used to exist has waned over time and now is a minority rather than a primacy. What was once the majority and norm has become the somewhat rare exception. And even where it is found it is also often laced with inauthentic traces and suboptimal influences, harmful ignorances, sins, malicious codes and patterns, suspicions and radical doubtings, etc. The situation right now in 2023 for the west is very bad indeed. I could analyze the causes of this decline, but that isn’t the focus of this post. What is significant for now is that it has happened gradually over time and over that time the corrosion and corruption has been increasing in scope and speed. The erosion of the good and its replacement with what could best be described as neutral-lukewarm-apathetic, but often is altogether bad entirely, has led to this civilizational crisis we find ourselves in today. And yes it is a philosophical crisis as well, because it is manifesting within philosophy and also AS philosophy; and only a proper philosophical vantage would be capable of seeing this whole situation as I see it. But as I stated before, proper philosophizing comes only at the far end of philosophy which is to say at the point of its merger with spiritual substances, as into Christianity.

So which philosophy out there could achieve the salvation of the earth? We need not overly concern ourselves with the west anymore, it seems pretty well finished. And if it does rally before the final hour that is something great we can be thankful for but it is not something to expect or try to make happen, because there is no longer any kind of basis on which it could be influenced substantially in that direction. This is because of the lacking of the primary substance of goodness as I described above. Even an unconscious goodness is infinitely better and preferrable to a conscious dying. This is something the traditional philosophers never understood. Well Nietzsche hinted at something close to an understanding of it, but as usual he ends up missing by a long shot. He wrote out of vanity and ego and rage, he wrote to injure and whip the world into something like submission to his own will, rather than writing to make the world a better place. Hence truth became subverted by personal ego and one’s own mighty and unrestricted emotional needs, as one can easily verify by simply looking at his adherents today as well as the influences he has had over time.

Overall this post is meant to be about describing the philosophy that will save humanity, save the world, by correcting and removing the errors in order to return humanity (either our society or another in the future) to the right status of existing within and as a primary substance of goodness. I have never seen a formal (or otherwise) philosophy capable of doing this, not even close to it. Forget about questions of influence and reach for the time being, history seems somehow to solve those problems on its own (although given the situation of control that exists today in the world, we might not be able to count on that natural force anymore). So you are free here in this topic thread to propose whichever philosophy or philosophies or ideas you think might act as solutions for humanity in order to correct error and evil and return it to goodness and truth. This is the only way to avoid absolute disaster, at least in the short term and medium term. Long term I have no doubt that goodness and truth will auto-correct back into the human world, being that human consciousness is already deeply composed of and entwined with these anyway down to the chromosomal level and beyond, but the sheer magnitude of the evil and the errors today (even seeking to corrupt human DNA and to purge man of his very soul) should not be underestimated. If we fail in the short term, the long term correction might be a VERY long and VERY painful one.

_
Bring back community cohesion and spirit…

It was very rare for others to come to harm a few decades ago, because the community were the original neighbourhood-watch and so looked out for each other and reported those that were up to no good.

The breakdown of the ‘community’ was pivotal in the breakdown of society. Communities revolved around their local parish, church, and schools… hence the strong cohesion and non-animosity, amongst all.

I agree, for different reasons real community has definitely broken down a lot. However the term and idea for “community” has become co-opted by the same evil forces that are bringing decline and death to the west. These would be for example communist ideology fused in part with global corporate-capitalism and big government tyranny associated with the military industrial pharmacological complex, among other things. The entire apparatus of this “globalism” as for example symbolized by things like the world economic forum agenda 2030 is pushing a propagandistic re-thinking of the notion of community, in order to introduce something like COMMUNITARIANISM which is basically just a form of technofascist communistic state-control managed and mediated by billionaire globalized (supernational) corporations.

It would be nice if we can find another term to use rather than community, since this term has been so abused in people’s minds now. Neighborhood is a good term. Local is also still a good term.

This scholar seems to think that Gnostic Christianity or Gnosticism is the future.

I agree with him as far as superior ideology. Our thinking is close to Laïcité, which I think will be the political thinking of the near future.

youtube.com/watch?v=rJvktEcf87A

As the inquisition and jihad thinker tribes dies out, their most worthy ancient enemy, Gnostic Christians, will take their proper place and show how they lived in peace and harmony while surrounded by war mongering God believers who could not argue for their immoral God.

Equality will be the straw that breaks religions back.

People want it.

Regards
DL

I agree that the problem in the U.S. really kicked off when Christianity and others went to the thinking, — all men, women and souls, — are not created equal.

Regards
DL

In Canada our philosophy to save the world is in one way:
Tolerance, acceptance, and allowance.
Everyone gets to do what ever they believe in,
so long as it is not grossly immoral.

And how’s that going for you so far?

Trudeau and his cronies don’t seem to play by your rules.

The God believing retards are going that now.

Are you comfortable with religions that are homophobic and misogynous and posit that a genocidal prick of a God is a good God?

Do you like that they preach against your countries equality law?

Regards
DL

James’ “In Sight of SAM, I Am

Although - I am still analyzing it - it has interesting surveillance prevention mechanisms - along with extreme democratic principles.

I tend to agree with this, because the basic struggle is a religious-political fervor, that consumes all sensibility, among mankind, for religion and politics have never been reduciable to the single casual factor that has occupied man’s conscious awareness, as far as conceiving man as one global family.

Thanks for this.

In the mind of this esoteric ecumenist, they are reducible to a single ideology, which is more a description of Gnostic Christianity.

We showed the redundancy of having the two systems existing at the same time and that is why the inquisition tried to wipe us out with the help of the French King.

We could meld the political and the religious, because we needed neither to be good citizens.

As universalists, we have to include all theologies, philosophies and ideologies into ours, — as we seek the best rules and laws to live by.

We listen to people while most religions say, listen to me.

Look at what their way has given our friends and neighbors.

Inequality, while saying that God makes all souls equal.

Critics and scholars have a hard time not putting the stupid label on such un-intelligent thinking.

We all live in a dualistic reality. We all have a physical side that we call political, and a spiritual/life force side.

We live with our political and religious/spiritual/tribal natures daily.

We do the reducing already. We cannot ever stop, as each of us only has one consciousness/ego.

Regards
DL

A man can wear a dress outside without getting stoned to death for it.

The problem with “Christianity”, is that it is filled with money-grubbing grifters, conmen, and shills, not unlike the Far-Left Social Justice Warriors.

The Left use fear-mongering “Climate Change” to extract money, votes, and political power from its victims.

The Right use fear-mongering “Hellfire” or “Sin” to extract money, votes, and political power from its victims.

So how is Christianity supposed to solve anything? It’s been around for 2000+ years, has it “saved the world” before? What’s the track record?

When are Christians going to start letting homeless bums into their houses, sleep in their beds, share their wives?? Where’s the “brotherly love”?

The “Social Justice” of the Far-Left is not much different than the (religious) “Social Justice” of the Far-Right.

The difference really is attire, white robes, pointy hats, a Pope in Rome, etc.

Unless he is unvaccinated and driving a truck or carrying a gun or silently praying in the wrong district - or out too loudly - or - or - or … :confused:

Why do you so easily swallow Fox News myths?
There is a difference between sucking and swallowing.

_
@Urwrong: I said church and parish, GIA said Christianity… I was thinking more Catholic Community, where school and church/Parish are one. Commonality.

I don’t know what Christian Communities are like or if they even have adjoining schools, and many are not affiliated with the Vatican. Others/you, may know far more about that, than I?

The problem seems to be that we need room for growth and development in our thinking which in turn may require updates to our chosen philosophy. I think rather than a codified set of ideas, what we may need is a procedure that allows people to experiment and champion foolish ideas and philosophies in hopes that we may accidentally strike gold, something less foolish than what we currently practice may emerge from such a cauldron. We will also require a filter to dispose of the ideas obviously worse than our current ones.

What would it take to achieve this? what could serve as common ground when your aim is to produce a diverse set of perspectives and modes of thought, for the sake of discovering an improvement?
The first value that must be elevated is obviously freedom, primarily of thought and speech, how else could you formulate and then communicate new ideas?

The second requirement is a definition and measure of what exactly constitutes “better”… That one seems obvious to me, the measure ought be human well being. How we fare under the guidance of ideas and philosophies, not theoretically, but in practice… that is a measure so basic that even children can manage to get it right, when asked if someone is happy, sad, afraid… content

But to test ideas in practice to get the measure of how we fare under their guidance, we also require greater freedoms of behavior… which ought be limited only when they encroach on the freedoms of another.

“truth”, at least the objective kind, much like perfection, is something we ought aspire toward… it is not something we can ever possess.
Perversely, while truth is worth aspiring toward, all who claim to possess “the truth”, by logical necessity have no reason to aspire to more… the same goes for those who believe there is no truth to aspire to.
Those are the people that worry me… they are, in so far as they adhere to their professed convictions, fanatics and/or tyrants, whether or not they currently have power.
Consider from that perspective why they ought even allow freedom of thought… and you will find there can be no answer if the truth is known or there is no truth to discover.

Freedom is what allows us to improve our understanding, ourselves and society at large… a freedom that is incongruent with the notion of a unifying philosophy or perspective.

The one constant ought be leaving room for improvement… everything else can and should be subject to review and revision.
And we need only two values to leave that room for improvement… freedom and human well being, to serve as our common ground and common measure.

In my understanding the cosmological evidence seems to support a gnostic narrative for the universe. Many of the modern scientific discoveries about the early universe have yet to be digested and interpreted by contemporary gnostic thinkers/writers. The problem of symmetry breaking in the early universe is a good place to start.

(NB: this rabbit hole gets dark very quickly).

Catholics are not immune from my criticism either. All branches of Christianity are notorious for social leveraging on ‘SJW’ grounds. Christianity is supposed to be a religion about selfless moral deeds, Universalism. You’re supposed to “do Good” on behalf of the common man, Humanitarianism. Christians, Protestants, and Catholics, use their philanthropy as means to bragging-rites and social leverage ‘Holier than Thou’ mentality, leading to Elitism.

Catholics have a better system to address and suppress these compulsions, compared to Protestants, because Catholics focus on Prayer and Ritual as their focus.

If somebody really wants to be Christian, I think Catholicism is best though.