Capitalism and the Natural Order is under Assault by Society’s Worst Elements

The Progressive mind is a devious one. And deviousness can be an effective method for navigating the world (read: not moral, but effective), for a short time. In the end, though, the chickens always come home to roost. The façade is always exposed.

The reason that these Tricks so characterized by the ‘Post-Modern’ Progressive mentality don’t work in the long run is just that – they are Ruses – mechanisms to, by definition always temporarily, pull the wool over others’ eyes whereby the Natural Order of the world can be usurped. This lowly and base methodology of attaining power in a society has been acknowledged for a long time. The Ancients never held cunning or craftiness in esteem – they often derided it - think of the allegorical ranking of the Greek Gods for reference here (Cupid was at the bottom).

To put some modern perspective on this concept, here is a short list of what the Devious Left are up to. Note the consistent pattern of denying the laws of nature in lieu of artificial, over-conceptualized constructs:

- Claiming that there aren’t severe biological constraints on human behavior. I.e. there are no tangible differences in the sentiments and desires of men or women, or that human civilizations can be warped (molded) into something that goes directly against our nature (socialism)

- An overemphasis on the raw (undeveloped) intelligence of an individual (See University Doctrine these days) rather than focusing on developing a healthy respect for that individual’s level of effort. Oftentimes effort is actually discouraged or even scorned, because effort is a way to break free from the Victim ideology espoused by Progressives. The University employees in particular who espouse this belief come across as frail and, forgive me but for lack of a better word, Autistic. And why wouldn’t they be? They never learned how to function in an open market – the open market being a reflection of the hierarchies in nature.

- A ‘morality’ based on the severe shaming of Anything Not Mediocre. While the Ancients celebrated achievement – so long as that achievement was done within the boundaries of a society’s established Rules (and those rules had much less constraints than they do now), these current Progressives consider the Collective as their imperative, rather than the individual. The basis of the Collectivist mindset is non-competition – the tactics to enforce the mindset are Guilt and Force by the State, stemming from an unshakeable Resentment embedded within.

In other words, to steal a concept from Friedrich Nietzsche, the Priestly Caste is attempting a comeback – and their new mask is the Moral Progressive. Never mind that the concept of Individualism (and the self-responsibility that comes with being an Individual) – the crowning achievement of Western Thought – is being stomped on. And it’s not to say that this deviousness hasn’t been tried before – history is replete with examples of this age-old struggle between individual strength and the Collective Imperative. In fact I’d argue that the last time such a movement gained steam in Western society (ignoring the failures of Communism in the 20th century for a minute) were the Catholic Church’s periodic power grabs up to the beginning of the Enlightenment era. Pretty funny, right?

And that parallel between the Catholic priests and modern Collectivist Progressives offers words of encouragement. Because the Priestly Caste failed in their attempt to wrest control – in fact, you could argue that such a blatant attempt to take over was just the last gasp of a dying hierarchy. I don’t think it’s reasonable to make the assumption yet that Collectivism is in its dying throes. But the election of Donald Trump and the general move towards the Right in the West recently offers a beacon of light.

 

Capitalists aren't exactly pro-competition. Usually, at a certain point, it becomes time to collude with other capitalists to rig markets in order to block newcomers. The capitalists also lobby Congress people day in and day out to write laws favorable to them.

A lot of failures of capitalism and dictatorial governments often seem to be scapegoated onto communism and socialism.

Btw, nature by nature is more socialistic than it is individualistic.

 

Uh, no, human societies have absolutely not been more socialistic than individualistic. We can be thankful for the modern era where Life is Much Easier, but old societies were best characterized by chaos and disorder for the most part. I.e. there was a lot more individual responsibility (think just to even survive) and the imperative was that you had to look out for your own and your local relationships. This is absolutely not similar, at all, to socialism in the grand sense of established civilizations (with millions of people in that society).

edit: and Yes you can come back with "but Cavemen formed in socialist tribes" - see my answer in the above paragraph.

 

That's why Cain killed Abel

 

The difference between modern socialism and ancient human societies is the scope in which socialism is practiced. Human societies have always been socialistic.

 

It wasn't because their God favored Abel more?

 

What in god's name did I just read. Someone's been trying to read Jordan Peterson again. Crazy that you could get so much wrong in a single post, but there you have it (might have something to do with the source material).

Starts off with a good ole fashioned ad hominem/"poisoning the well" fallacy. Good start.

Might want to defined what you mean by Postmodern here - it's a bit of a catchall term, it helps to know what you mean by this and who in particular you are concerned with. The natural order? What would this be? and why would it morally binding. Does "is" imply "ought"? You commit the naturalistic fallacy here. As for the Ancients never holding cunning or craftiness in esteem - have you ever heard of Homer? Ever read the Odyssey? The entire book is a celebration of the cunning and craftiness of Odysseus (it literally defines these as heroic).

Question begging epithets - "devious" - yes, because this is the type of language you use if you are interested in logical impartial intellectual discourse right? Denying the laws of nature? You are conflating culturally established hierarchies with laws of physics. No one claims that there aren't biological differences in human beings (e.g. men and women), what they argue is that established power relations are socially created forms of societal expectations that are culturally defined, maintained, and enforced. As for socialism going against our nature, rather the claim is just the opposite. Harkening back to the communitarianism (see Aristotle - human beings are social creatures) of the ancients that you earlier celebrated, early socialism wanted to merge the individualism of the Enlightenment with the community ideals of ancient society. Liberty, equality and fraternity through the concept of community in which solidarity is achieved through a sense of commitment to other individuals' self-actualization. The way they saw it - the main barrier to this was an ideology that falsely sold individuality through a primarily economic lens, and commodified (and in the process, dehumanized) the individual into just a piece of the profit calculus (machine and worker valued in the same terms - exchange value)- individuality is destroyed (exploitation, powerlessness, alienation, reification, etc). It was to overcome the dehumanizing prostitution of human beings into mere things under capitalism. Only after the dignity of the the exploited was restored would true human history begin, all of it so far had been nothing but the history of perversion - treating humanity as animality.

Wait...what? Frail? First, this isn't true. Second, even if was, might doesn't make right. Still making the naturalistic fallacy here.

This is fairly schizophrenic. Ancient greek society celebrated excellence (i.e. virtue) but this was defined as moderation. Nietzsche's highlighting of the excessive was a direct response to the ancient Greeks. He also railed against the idea of social rules as top down forms of social control that sought to keep the strong in check - both religiously and politically. The strong have no need for universal laws or morals or people telling them what to do - they are their own ideal, they live life to their own dictates. And they have no use for the greedy, uncultured, philistines who pursue something as debased as money. Capitalists were just pathetic animals who lacked all sense of the aesthetic ("it is only through the aesthetic that the world is eternally justified"). Nietzsche interestingly enough was a frail academic, just sayin'. His notion of ressentiment was primarily a concept that he used in reference to Judaic-Christian tradition in which he saw Christians bow down, "roll around in the dust" in order to appease their master - God. Their primary virtue was obedience, they cowered in fear, and they wanted revenge on those who had oppressed them - and they projected this sadistic urge on the greatest creation - God - who wants revenge on humanity for its disobedience in the Garden of Eden - eternal torture for an act of disobedience, the brutal execution of the suffering son as the only means of pacifying this rage, but only after one begs for forgiveness - bows one's head, get on one's knees, etc.- the first shall be last and the last shall be first (Christians, he argues, say that everyone deserves damnation because we were once disobedient) - that they celebrated the lowest common denominator, Christianity he claims is a morality for domesticated cows. The same he argued was true for any political democracy, including socialism (concerning itself with the people, fairness, equality, etc. justice) - they were all just forms of Christianity without the sadistic God myth. And of course it's Nietzsche's critique of truth as another mask of the will to power that paves the way for Postmodernism (see Foucault in particular). So it's strange bedfellows you keep here. Perhaps it's merely another example of Peterson's embarrassing attempt to wax philosophical.

 

Causing envy?

 

Sure, but envy is just an emotion. How a person acts handles that emotion has nothing to do with any economic system.

 

First off, good post. Second, good critiques of Jordan Peterson, well done!

Might want to defined what you mean by Postmodern here - it's a bit of a catchall term, it helps to know what you mean by this and who in particular you are concerned with. The natural order? What would this be? and why would it morally binding. Does "is" imply "ought"? You commit the naturalistic fallacy here. As for the Ancients never holding cunning or craftiness in esteem - have you ever heard of Homer? Ever read the Odyssey? The entire book is a celebration of the cunning and craftiness of Odysseus (it literally defines these as heroic).

----> Capitalism isn't some new concept stemming from the latter end of the enlightenment era. It's a financially advanced form of human interaction that mimics the economics of earlier societies. It is the natural order - I should clarify that it is the natural order within a large civilization, not a tribe. When you don't know 99 (.99%?) of people within your civilization on a personal basis, let's not pretend the same dynamics of a tribe hold true.
-----> Does "is" imply "ought"? - I feel like this is a bit vague and a suggestion that I'm merely taking Jordan Peterson's views on 'limiting constraints within reality as right' upon myself. To be honest, people like Jordan Peterson have tamed my views if anything, not exacerbated them. We'll get back to this quote later as you reference it again below
-----> Regarding craftiness - sure, you can pick out a few examples of 'craftiness in esteem' from ancient literature. The brutal reality though (which was expressed in the opening paragraph) is that craftiness wasn't all that useful for most people, most of the time. In other words, the academics who quite literally do live in a shell of actual life these days - well, they'd have starved. Unless...they could find a place within the church/priesthood. At which point they are either overly powerful relative to their raw abilities (again) or they are subject to the whims and sentiments of stronger, 'less crafty' men.

Question begging epithets - "devious" - yes, because this is the type of language you use if you are interested in logical impartial intellectual discourse right? Denying the laws of nature? You are conflating culturally established hierarchies with laws of physics. No one claims that there aren't biological differences in human beings (e.g. men and women), what they argue is that established power relations are socially created forms of societal expectations that are culturally defined, maintained, and enforced. As for socialism going against our nature, rather the claim is just the opposite. Harkening back to the communitarianism (see Aristotle - human beings are social creatures) of the ancients that you earlier celebrated, early socialism wanted to merge the individualism of the Enlightenment with the community ideals of ancient society. Liberty, equality and fraternity through the concept of community in which solidarity is achieved through a sense of commitment to other individuals' self-actualization. The way they saw it - the main barrier to this was an ideology that falsely sold individuality through a primarily economic lens, and commodified (and in the process, dehumanized) the individual into just a piece of the profit calculus (machine and worker valued in the same terms - exchange value)- individuality is destroyed (exploitation, powerlessness, alienation, reification, etc). It was to overcome the dehumanizing prostitution of human beings into mere things under capitalism. Only after the dignity of the the exploited was restored would true human history begin, all of it so far had been nothing but the history of perversion - treating humanity as animality.

-----> You can't have socialism among the more individual-inclined people in a population. It will never be popular with them, except for the Posers (like Academia) who, you'll notice, are often enamored by the powerful State that feeds them. And manipulative power mongers who don't want to play by a successful society's rules. I'll be blunt - the people who generally support individualism are the people who feel the most self-empowered in any society. They (often correctly) perceive benefit to themselves and the People they Actually Care About in Real Life in a society oriented towards individual responsibility and merit (because they are more likely to have merit). There's very little appeal to these people in the abstract concept of Equality of Resources for All the People I Don't Know - only the Priestly castes as I said have the gall to pretend otherwise. Playing devil's advocate I'd posit that we're just not as advanced a species as you seem to think we are yet.

-----> With regards to the 'dehumanizing prostitution of human beings under capitalism'. No. It's semi-anecdotal but people who work on the capitalist ropes find a deep meaning and sense of purpose in their lives. We just don't pretend we're overly concerned about the welfare of people who don't want to compete - and in Rich Ass America, there are a lot of people who fall into this category. Because we're a spoiled society. Remember that if you make more than ~$32k/yr you are in the top 1% of the world, show some gratitude for the system that put you there. Gratitude is severely absent among modern Leftists in the West. I'll save my concern for people who have serious problems (the Third World).

This is fairly schizophrenic. Ancient greek society celebrated excellence (i.e. virtue) but this was defined as moderation. Nietzsche's highlighting of the excessive was a direct response to the ancient Greeks. He also railed against the idea of social rules as top down forms of social control that sought to keep the strong in check - both religiously and politically. The strong have no need for universal laws or morals or people telling them what to do - they are their own ideal, they live life to their own dictates. And they have no use for the greedy, uncultured, philistines who pursue something as debased as money. Capitalists were just pathetic animals who lacked all sense of the aesthetic ("it is only through the aesthetic that the world is eternally justified"). Nietzsche interestingly enough was a frail academic, just sayin'. His notion of ressentiment was primarily a concept that he used in reference to Judaic-Christian tradition in which he saw Christians bow down, "roll around in the dust" in order to appease their master - God. Their primary virtue was obedience, they cowered in fear, and they wanted revenge on those who had oppressed them - and they projected this sadistic urge on the greatest creation - God - who wants revenge on humanity for its disobedience in the Garden of Eden - eternal torture for an act of disobedience, the brutal execution of the suffering son as the only means of pacifying this rage, but only after one begs for forgiveness - bows one's head, get on one's knees, etc.- the first shall be last and the last shall be first (Christians, he argues, say that everyone deserves damnation because we were once disobedient) - that they celebrated the lowest common denominator, Christianity he claims is a morality for domesticated cows. The same he argued was true for any political democracy, including socialism (concerning itself with the people, fairness, equality, etc. justice) - they were all just forms of Christianity without the sadistic God myth. And of course it's Nietzsche's critique of truth as another mask of the will to power that paves the way for Postmodernism (see Foucault in particular). So it's strange bedfellows you keep here. Perhaps it's merely another example of Peterson's embarrassing attempt to wax philosophical.

-----> I'll agree with you here. Nietzsche, brilliant man that he was, was also just an academic. I don't worship him, actually I find some of his views very reminiscent of modern (nihilistic) Post-Modernism. He never really did much outside contemplate and inflate his ego, then go nuts towards the latter end of his life. Nietzsche probably wasn't very respectable in real life. Regardless, he made some solid points that I hesitantly (but inevitably) acknowledge.
-----> Yes, Liberals are the new devout Christians. Actually the sentiments of those resentful Christians you describe above and modern democratic socialists and the like are very similar. It's all about resentment, baby.
---> Last point: Nietzsche, being the frail academic he ultimately was, though I respect some of his views, misunderstood what stronger individualistic people actually value. He warped it, probably because he himself was resentful for never getting out of the hypothetical bed in the morning and 'doing' rather than 'contemplating' - he epitomizes this common issue - and it's a form of cowardice. I might even say he was the leader of his own priestly cult lol. His understanding of stronger (on an individual, self-empowered basis) is actually way off - he, like you, basically put them in the privileged (Nietzsche liked Aristocracy, which I hate) and maybe even psychopathic category rather than understanding their real overlying characteristic - courage.

Thanks for the commentary, well enjoyed!

 

Government and industry collude for the benefit of both. Government gets votes, industry gets cartels. Cartels are not Capitalist.

 

The grammar of this article is not good..and the establishment of what Progressive are according to the writer was not included,, so it 's nothing more than a monkey throwing shyt article to see how much lands on as many folks as possible.
Progressivism died out a hundred years ago, before the modern era..duh...

 

Coming from a troll, you are a pretty bad troll. What's worse is that there's no depth to your trolling, so it's boring

 

At least I was smart enough to use another name besides Trollll..

 

Certainly capitalism evolved out of earlier forms, particularly mercantilism. And I don't doubt there is much mimesis (Greek concept for mimic) with earlier forms of economic relations including slave and feudal societies - indeed I think that is pretty much the developmental account of historical materialism in the German Ideology, but its capacity to be capitalism as we know it (legally/politically free individuals contracting together for exchange of wages and services, prices are determined by market forces, ownership of means of production held privately, workers having self-ownership of labor power, and each pursuing their own private interests), was historically contingent on certain material conditions (e.g. technological developments, cultural and political changes, population growth, rise of urban areas, the diminution of agricultural feudalism, etc.). Although I certainly agree with the general loss of a sense of community - this is no doubt something exacerbated by capitalistic relations.

The question of whether "is" implies "ought" is a central concern for Peterson's argument. It is a serious concern in ethical theory as it highlights the ontological difference between facts and values. In other words, the way things are, are not necessarily the way things should be. Natural law trades on the conception of teleological purpose - an end to be achieved. Coincidentally, this is why the Catholic Church is against contraception (goes against the natural "purpose" of procreation) - but this position leaves itself open to reductio ad absurdum challenges since it would also presumably make wearing earrings or reading glasses just as "perverse" (ears are naturally meant to aid hearing, noses to smell). Regardless, an argument would have to be presented in defense of a certain position or claim in order to be justified - not just an analogy to nature.

Craftiness has always been a trait that the Greek celebrated - if the Iliad is a celebration of power, the Odyssey is a celebration of cunning. Both together give you the classic mind in a nutshell - the merging of theory and practice - mind and body. If you will, and to get perhaps a bit to cute, they represent the Scylla and Charybdis of two extremes - it's the moderation - the balance between the two that brings harmony.

There's a lot to be said for this analysis. This was certainly Marx's view. He understood this to be the main psychological appeal of capitalism, but one that was essentially the product of false consciousness and miseducation. Indeed, the concern about only caring about one's friends and family was precisely the concern of a limited understanding of one's self-understanding - invoking Hegel, he argued that human beings are the only species to be understand itself as a species (species-being) and as such the only species that could work together to solve the commonly shared problems of the species. As such, humanity could to a great extend (with the proper self-understanding and education) eradicate material necessity (want) - a condition under which, Marx argued, one could not be free. Only through cooperation (motivated by a sense of common humanity) in which we cared for the self-actualization of others, regardless of their connection to us, that helped us to achieve solidarity and relatedness to others and such a condition was the only way in which to achieve the stated values of the French Enlightenment (where socialism originated): liberty, equality, and fraternity. Unfortunately, for history, Marx spent little time postulating how this was to be achieved - hence we get the dictatorship of the proletariat, Lenin's Bolshevik interpretation of this as the leadership of the vanguard party (to guide the cretinized proletariat) and the reinstitution of the same czarist oppression the October Revolution was meant to overthrow ("the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce"). Que George Orwell here. As for the Priestly class, it's true Nietzsche did see this as another mask for the will to power, but this was hardly new - Dostoevsky certainly eviscerated the Church for the same crime in The Brothers Karamazov (see the "Grand Inquisitor").

Well one can be a prostitute and still have a sense of meaning and purpose (in fact, many understand their acts as heroic - self-sacrifice for their children, etc). -Richard Sennett's sociological work in this area is especially illuminating (see the Hidden Injuries of Class). As for having it better than others, of course - but that's always true for everyone in every situation - there's always someone worse off than's oneself - but this doesn't legitimate one's oppression - it's merely a psychological tool of consoling - for example, you can point to some slaves and say "yes, you are a slave but there are some slaves that have it worse to be grateful you're not one of those and show some gratitude" - but this would be quite obscene - the issue isn't whether or not one could be worse off, the issue is whether or not the condition that you are in now is oppressive - whether are not the arrangements are just and/or fair, whether or not one is able to participate in the direction of one's life - and perhaps most importantly, whether or not one is able to actualize one's potential (i.e. self-actualization).

Nietzsche's critique is, in many ways, presented to overcome a certain form of nihilism (the highest values that have devalued themselves into life-denying values), or to use his terms - to transvalue value. In this sense, he saw his own work as a creative act of aesthetic achievement - writing to and for himself (and coincidentally to inspire similar free spirits). Of course, this was not how he saw the academics of his time, which he ruthlessly mocked for their penchant for merely observing and categorizing (sterile knowing without a creative sense). Rather his concern was to live life as magnificently and aesthetically as one could - and this included embodying an overwhelming sense of courage (as he puts it, enough to inspire fear in the weak). While his own physical frailty was a source of consternation for him, he definitely saw his own life as a "work" of spiritual (although not religious) art - he creates for himself, he answers to no one, he makes for no one, certainly not the state, or the masses, or the aristocrats, etc. He converses with the sun, he derides the shadows in his wake (humanity as lifeless pale imitations), he despises the silly utilitarians who are concerned only with happiness (so much for Peterson). In the end, he writes only for the dead god - his one and only peer.

The problem of Nietzsche lies in his understanding of the metaphysics of the self (his starting point), which gives him a skewed view of freedom, self-actualization, aesthetics, and ultimately a perverse value theory. His perspectivalism leads him down a narcissistically defined hermeneutical path and prevents him from grasping the world objectively - as a result he loses contact with the world on its own terms, sees everything exclusively in terms of his own desires and interests, and like all those who suffer from some sort of insanity, renders him completely incapable of seeing the world as it really is.

 

So to keep it short and sweet:

Do you see the coming conflict (as a result of stagnant growth for an extended duration of time) as inevitable? And basically you're saying, like some *particular biologists* that we don't have the current solutions to the issues related to this? And we need to explore in a less idealistic, history-fantasizing manner?

---> Wondering your opinion here because being a major geopolitics, demographics and macro-economics fan I'm fairly sure the seemingly endless growth period is near an end...

Edit: To clarify, I'm not saying AI/Biotech etc. aren't going to make huge gains, but rather that things are going to become more lopsided. Not focusing on the inequality sense but rather that where basically one gain is made in, say, biology, literal conflict in another region of the world offsets it. I.e. the days of the Asian Tigers and the like are near their peak...

 

Well I certainly think there are serious crisis indicators: significant (international) declining growth rates, persistent increased public and private debt, dramatically increasing social inequality, and the undermining of regulatory counterforces to check reckless behavior/expansion (the extraordinary hegemony of Hayekian neoliberal ideology over the past 40 years has had its effect - including the rapid growth of speculative means to profit and the various crises they produce), all point to the potential for critical problems. There are of course stopgap measures that will no doubt be employed, but as I understand it (and admittedly this is not my area of expertise) the central banks are at a loss on how to right the ship long term (the warnings of increased stagnation are growing even from the neoliberal priests themselves (looking at you Larry Summers). It's possible that another global 1930s is around the corner, but macroeconomics has proven a difficult subject matter for the prophetic. If this were to happen, yes I think we would be ill-suited to addresses the subsequent fallout(s); although I would suggest that abandoning the hopeful idealistic possibilities of alternatives (historically situated - i.e. historically possible) would be a mistake. But I concede, it is a hope without much (if any) optimism.

 

Hmmm....That's pretty damn good, Adorno. Not a troll for sure.

 

I could learn something here. I am not an expert on Nietzsche, but everything you said sounds right on the mark from what I have read. Good writing. I was getting tired of the Don Rickles insult routine from my opponents...and the graduates from the University of Ad Hominem.

 

Thanks. I agree, the insults and ad hominem attacks are tiresome. However, it's always a pleasure, albeit increasingly rare, to engage a rational well-informed philosophical argument (although they do occur from time to time). I was quite surprised, to see your Marcuse quotes - from One Dimensional Man no less - a text, I think, that is woefully underappreciated (at least by professional philosophers). It's a brilliant analysis and one, unfortunately, that appears to be as applicable now as it was then. Are you very familiar with the Frankfurt School?

 

I got to re-read these posts again. LOL, never thought I would have study blogging posts.

 

Oh, yes. In 1976 I first read Marcuse and critical philosophy. I have a strong background in Phenomenology, Marcuse, Adorno, symbolic logic (taught that as a graduate assistant), Hegel, Wittgenstein, Existentialism religious and secular, Kant, and my favorite most of all...Paul Tillich. Strong on Marx from Marcuse's point of view. You know Adorno's Negative Dialectics was originally going to be titled, "The Recovery of Experience." I am interested in theories of the possibility of spiritual experience. Yes, the Frankfurt School is of great interest after reading, "The Imaginary Witness:The Critical Theory of Herbert Marcuse," by Morton Schoolman...and other books. My second language is ancient Greek. I have spent the last 11 years studying the nature of fascism.

I strongly believe in the Iceberg Theory of writing applied to philosophy. I am running out of edit time...please read "Stone In Focus and The Problem of Time." It's the best post I ever wrote.

My Master Thesis was on the nature of epistemological paradigms (Alfred Kuhn) and the logical status of theological propositions.

 

Fantastic. You and I have very similar academic backgrounds (although thankfully I was never asked to teach symbolic logic) - tried like hell to get out of the formal logic requirement, but they wouldn't let me substitute a paper on Hegel's Science of Logic for the formal exam; now that I look back on it, they definitely made the right call). My areas of research - Frankfurt School (Adorno and Horkheimer, Marcuse, Fromm, Benjamin, Habermas, Honneth), German Idealism (particularly Hegel), Marx, Existentialism, Ancient Philosophy (ancient Greek was also my second language - although sadly I haven't kept up with it), Value Theory, Philosophy of Religion, and more Early Modern philosophy than I would have liked.

If you are looking for a good read (and haven't already read it), I highly recommend Mendieta's The Frankfurt School on Religion - quite a good collection of essays (Ernst Bloch's negative theology is particularly intriguing: "Only an atheist can be a good Christian; only a Christian can be a good atheist." - Bloch's account is historically informed with emphasis on hope: the yearning for the "Not Yet" - the redemptive, in which some wholly Other is manifested (similar to Schoenberg's music -"I feel the air of another world") - truth here is grounded in a just and humane society (but not in the realm of eschatological myth - since that would seemingly make the suffering of the world (for example, a free will theodicy) instrumental means to some greater good and therefore barbaric, but in the hope and value of Otherness itself - in this way, following Adorno - religion is only true if it is false, i.e. myth) - fascinating argument. Concerning fascism, I've always been fascinated by the Pollock-Neumann debate and of course Fromm's Escape from Freedom and Marcuse's early essays are phenomenal.

Your post on the metaphysics of time looks equally fascinating. I'll have to spend a bit of time going through it. Thanks for the reference. Likewise, your Master's thesis sounds very intriguing.

 

Lol, yes I got dirty looks wanting to do something with Hegel. Yes, logic is fun!

My knowledge of the Frankfurt school varies in strength: strong on Marcuse, but know hardly anything of Honneth. My memory isn't what it used to be, so I just started reviewing my Greek. Of course, ancient Greek isn't spoken anymore...I just do word studies...the trick is finding right word. I read the whole of Coplestone's 17 vols. on the History of Philosophy one summer.

Whoa...Mendieta's The Frankfurt School on Religion. Yes, that sounds very good!

Actually, the "Stone in Focus" post is an example of Adorno's immanent critique"--analyze an argument until a contradiction is found--in a sense breaking it and determine how it broke by examining the assumptions. Adorno studied under the Christian socialist Paul Tillich while he completed his Habilitationsschrift on Kierkegaard's aesthetics in 1931.

 

The problem is that you can’t really hope to counter progressivism until you understand exactly what progressivism actually is and where it comes from. Then and only then the problems with our system of capitalism become immediately apparent, and then you realize that it too has been corrupted to serve the advancement of progressivism. That’s when you can break out of the “socialism/capitalism” box and view things from a top down perspective.

This takes years. At least for me it did.