Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Nov 29, 2021 8:44 pmWell, I think there's a lot to that critique. The West is indeed presently "eating its own flesh" by undermining all the fundamental values that made the West and "Modernity" possible in the first place.
It seems to me that if you recognize those *values* you are taking a step toward the assertion of something substantial within the culture that produced those values. You seem often to argue for a more concentrated version of relationship -- to the divinity you define -- but do not seem to show interest in or appreciation for
partial relationship or the
attenuated relationship. I am more interested in partial relationship because that seems to me to be how most people actually live their lives, and even live their faith.
But here's a thought: what is it that allowed that to happen? I ask, because if we don't know the answer to that question, and if we just campaign for some sort of resetting-to-the-Western-past, then what is there to prevent the same cycle from happening again? Something, apparently, in that worldview opened up the possibility of us getting to where we are now, eating our own flesh. How do we make sure that that never happens again, if we don't know what made it happen in the first place?
I do not need to have a starting-point as absolute as yours seems to be. I would guess that there might be 10 or possibly 100 of the 'genuine Christians' that you define. I also gather (how could this not be the case?) that you define yourself as among those who are 'true Christians'. But I for my own part cannot find such 'true Christians'. All I see is people, in various times and in cultural-historical moments attempting to manifest something christianesque. And the likelihood of pastiche-Christianity only increases since, as it seems, all people seem to splinter off into their various interpretations. (Apparently I am simply more accepting of this. It is *the way things are*).
There will never arise on this planet, it seems fair to say, a 'Christian culture' that you seem to define. So, if that is true, one can only hope for facsimiles.
Or to put it another way, "Postmodernism" is sometimes called "Late Modernism." And there is truth to both names. Something was terribly wrong with Modernity, and Postmodernism tries to pick out what that was, critique it, suspect it, and reject it. But in a very real sense, Postmodernism is insufficiently different from Modernity: it's really the fruit of the Modern "tree" rotting and falling off, at the end of the withering of Modernist optimisms, one might say. It's the "late" form of dysfunctional "Modernity."
And what, may I ask, do you propose as an alternative?
You see I start from a position of recognizing a general fallen state (and I do not mean this necessarily in the Biblical sense). There seems to me no choice in the matter. But then to imply that there is a complete, whole, embodied Christian person who stands on the proper and *true* ground must be proven by producing that person. And that person cannot be produced.
This raises the essential problem: what are we going back TO? If it's to the way things were at the turn of the previous century, then what's to keep us from sliding into a similar, or worse, place than we find ourselves in now?
I would never say that going back to something former is even possible. It is (obviously) impossible.
My interpretation of what you attempt to represent and communicate here is the importance and the relevancy of an internal turning . . . toward and into that possibility of 'rebirth' and 'renewal' that you define as crucial.
But I cannot see how any part of this could function in a larger social (or civilizational) context. But many of the philosophers that interest me do involve themselves in examining the 'liberal rot' and proposing ways to combat it. What other option is there? You could not ever ask anyone
not to think in such terms, if indeed they were genuinely concerned about their milieu.
The action that you propose, because it is literally impossible to attain, will result in no action that can be taken. So in that sense it leads to non-action and a sort of cynicism that any progress is possible.
) can be filled with uncertainty. We could wake up tomorrow to a very different world for going forward. If we develop our ability to act in the moment, with what feels appropriate for that moment, as we aim for various destinations which may change, we don't need the same kind or amount of certainty that a person needs when they feel they must rely on that or that they're identified with that.
Can we imagine much more that humans might be capable of when they don't cling to archaic beliefs?