Category: Student Posts

Something that reminded me of something we have talked about in previous classes in the video is how the author of the book was criticized because other people thought he was criticizing/complaining about intellectuals attacking the authorities. I remember in class we talked about how many intellectuals believe that they should be in positions of authority and that the people who are in those positions are not worthy of it because they feel like they know a lot more and could handle problems better than they can. It just made me wonder how much of a correlation our conversation had in comparison to what he was being criticized about. Also, when the author said that he expected his book to rub a lot of people the wrong way and that the media would not like the book, it made me wonder why? It made me wonder because he wrote the book which somewhat criticizes intellectuals and the intellectual class is much smaller than the non-intellectual class. We have learned that the non-intellectuals tend to look at intellectuals as unapproachable and cocky so why would it rub them the wrong way. This means that the vast majority of the audience up to that point were most likely intellectuals which is where the criticism was coming from. The author also touched on the fact that one of his biggest criticisms of intellectuals is their alienation from society which is another aspect we talked about in class pretty thoroughly as it is a big problem for them since they want to receive more recognition for the work they do however, the problem is that no one really knows who they are because of how distant they are from the rest of society.

The reading this week that I found the most interesting was “America Has Gone Mad”. It was interesting to read something about America from a different perspective and especially from a critical gaze. Something that shocked me at the beginning of the reading was on page 192 “German nazism, Soviet communism, and ( especially) American capitalism were in this respect utterly alike for him, as for many others; Mounier’s mysterious “personalism” operated from similar premises.” I have never looked at our capitalistic view in relation to nazis and communists, mainly because of the negative historical connotation around these groups, it was shocking to have American capitalism grouped in with that. Maybe because when one is so ingrained in that specific society they do not realize the harmfulness of it or the perceptive of it to other societies. Something that makes me uncomfortable in this reading was the description of Jewish people and Americans. Saying that both of these groups have polluted Western society and culture because of their access to wealth and power while being rootless. I found this statement to be classist and harmful to not just these groups of people but to anyone who has built themselves from nothing. I am not condoning the way that Americans built their empire but to say that they are polluting western society implies that they are seen as lesser and toxic. These parts of the reading made it more difficult to look at this reading objectively and without further biases. 

After this point, I found the rest of the reading hypocritical. Especially the part about how being Anti-Semitic is now not respectable. Jewish people were just called toxins to the western culture but then now being Anti-Semitic is not ok? I understand that this peace is not placing all blame on America and it even calls out the French overreaction to capitalism but I don’t think bringing up the pollution of western society was necessary to get the point across.  

Something I would like to delve further into is the idea that American intellectuals and European ones can not coexist.  It does not make sense to me that to oppose one is to strengthen the other. If intellectuals are supposed to be a part of a community then why is there such disparity between different countries? The alienation of this group of people makes it seem like they would want more of a community base rather than to be in constant competition with other intellectuals. Is the disparity between European intellectuals and American ones the difference between the new class (aka the modern way of thinking) and the romantic era? If so is there no evolution and diversity of thought that would drive them together? Just brings up what could be an answer to this question I posed by saying it’s anti-American rhetoric but also a lack of trust in their own judgment, but is there any other explanation to this that might be more deeply rooted in something else, rather than that they think differently? 

In this chapter by Raymond Aron, from his book The Opium of the Intellectuals, he seeks to answer an age-old question of whether a Godless doctrine deserves to be called a religion? He states it is based upon one’s definition of the words involved but the doctrine of the Communists provides a global interpretation of the universe, while fixing the hierarchy of values and creating norms of good behavior. It fulfills almost all things that a traditional religion would satisfy. However, he asks “what is the meaning of a secular religion in the West, in an environment impregnated with Christianity?”

In the first section, Aron seeks to differentiate between the economic and religious attraction of Communism. He begins by stating that Communism arose as a result of a decline in the spirituality of people as well as the authority of the Church. Therefore, people twisted their passion for religion into passion for political action. The proletariat must see the Party as their vanguard and their dedication to the Party must be “total and unreserved”. This in turn forces society to deny known facts in order to take the place of real conflicts of human nature and their premise for existence in society. They hope to rewrite history and create their own philosophy in which the Party is never wrong and knows everything. They are then able to solve any aspect of human difference of opinion with a doctrine that can be twisted in every and any direction. Overall, the only way to achieve this is through total domination and violence in order to keep people in check.

He then goes into speak about the militants and the sympathizers. There are distinctions between the socialists that follow along the Communist trajectory militantly and those who sympathize for the cause but do not agree with the extent of violence and destruction it creates in society. Aron goes further to defend the socialist ideology in being open to the idea of communism and shifting between trust and despair caused by the ambiguous nature of secular religion and the hardening of opinions. He then defines the three stages of Communism in transforming from an ideology to a religion. It begins with the proletariat understanding their role and their symbol within the Communist Party. The second stage is the interpretation of facts and history to satisfy the dogma of Communism. Lastly, the third stage is one that true Christians could never fully ascribe to which is the idea that humanity will become perfect and organized under Communism. This essentially means that humanity is not defined by Christ’s crucifixion but is now a creature of Marx’s prophecies.

In the next section, Aron seeks to define the evolution of Civil Religion into Stalinism. He defines Bolshevism as being inspired by the idea of godlessness and it established its own path of truth through science. He then describes much of the progression of Communism and how it became such a prominent ideology. Mankind craves fulfillment in their hearts and without God they require something to fill that void. Aron states that intellectuals are the only ones that are capable of inventing such a an idea and is one of the main reasons intellectuals are especially vulnerable to the teachings of Communism. It is their own work that created such an ideology of truth, how could they deny that.

To finish, Aron writes that the final step in evolving an ideology to a religion is when the curators no long submit to history but write it and are all-knowing of the future and are in charge of it as if they are God. In essence it ruins relationship building and seeks to end hope and truth as they were traditionally intended to be in a God-fearing society because their entire life is based on their earthly existence.

Discussion Questions:

1. Why is it that Christianity itself is targeted as needing to be eradicated in the eyes of the Communists and not other such religions?
2. How can intellectuals justify Communism when their premise is based on subjective interpretation of truth?
3. Why does Christianity or faith in God persist even when intellectuals, who are held to such a high esteem, say it is falsehood? Or vice versa, why is Communism not all over the world if such a teaching is considered the new dogma?

In our conversation from last time we talked a lot about the overlaps between philosophy and sociology when talking about the evolution of intellectuals. Through a progressive worldview we described human nature as inherently good, but it is subject to corruption. Various questions arose such as: Is there an implicit order in nature? Is their moral truth in the natural world? This discussion made us think more about Christian progressivism and the role that religion plays in progressivism overall. Before philosophy and science there was religion. Human beings have been practicing religion as long as we’ve been around. I think that throughout time progressivism has taken new forms in regard to philosophical and scientific perspectives. It is interesting to see how progressivism has taken form in modern society. For example, during class we talked about how progressivism is shown through art. Progressivists find various new forms of expression. Furthermore, progressivism in art is tied to politics. Many artists convey their political progressive views through the use of symbols. This relates back to our conversation about religion and how the cross is a symbol in Christianity that is sacralized. There is a connection between religion and politics that is important to look at. For instance within the catholic church Pope Francis has more modern and liberal views than some of the popes that they have had before. I think part of the reason they chose him was to encourage the younger generation to join the catholic church. Therefore, I think there is a strong correlation between religion and progressivism that should be further evaluated.

Even though this question was raised in class about where individuality is in a utopian society, I cannot completely agree with the answer. In a utopia, individuality would almost cease to exist as conflict and difference over important questions such as values would boil away. The example was politics would no longer be needed, as there would be no difference of power in society.

I think I have a hard time understanding this as I lean more towards having the traditional religious view on human nature rather than the progressive intellectuals. I believe “humans are naturally capable of evil” rather than human nature is inherently good and its social institutions that corrupt them. I am not sure that by eliminating the bad social institutions within a utopia, that conflict will not arise. Looking historically, it will be difficult to remove conflict. Within this utopia, I believe that someone will question how this society is able to function. An individual who seeks out the truth could potentially spark a conflict in the utopia. 

This relationship of good individuals within a utopia and then evil individuals that are corrupted is also connected to religion. Based on historic records, religion has been around almost as long as humans have. The Christian view of human nature is to construct institutions that will mold human nature in order to escape the propensity of evil. Furthermore,religion is why I do not see a utopia being able to succeed. Human beings generally want something to believe in that is a higher power than themselves. There are so many different religions and belief systems that exist, it seems unrealistic to boil away conflict. 

Something that came up in class this week was that the people who criticize progressivism are being more rational because they are realizing that human nature is more complicated than what progressives are making it seem. I am not going to take a side on this as I believe there are good arguments for both sides however, I do understand what is being said in this claim. What is being said here is that you can rely on the man to a certain extent because you never know the intentions of humans and what their ulterior motives are which makes this a fair critique in my eyes. I am not saying that God is the answer but, I think you are putting too much at stake by relying on the individual too heavily. I believe that there should be a balance however, it seems like each point of view is very extreme. The supporters of religion and the supporters of progressiveness treat this dynamic like it is all or nothing. You are either one hundred percent bought in to God or one hundred percent bought in to the man. There needs to be a balance as too much of anything does not end up well. I also think that progressives are so bought in on the end goal of utopia but that is just not realistic in my opinion. This world has never been perfect and it most likely never will be because the world is too complex for that to become a reality.

After our class discussion this week (9/14) one thing that kept coming up in my head was the definition of good and evil. How would progressives and utopians define the word’s “good” and “evil” if not in the eyes of God or through His teachings? The whole progressive, communist and socialist ideology is based upon the idea that mankind will one day reach the pinnacle point of “goodness” where utopia will arise. Yet in any of the readings there are no definitions for what “goodness” really is or what “evils” need to be corrected in order for humans to transcend normalcy.

This may be more theological than sociological but the terms “good”, “evil” and “love” were all coined in religious context first as in a believers love for God. How then do you secularize those terms? What makes a person “good” in the eyes of progressive’s? Perhaps it is someone that thinks totally internally to progress society to the ultimate organization it can be. He who is good is looking out for the progression of mankind and the God-like nature of mankind. We gave several examples during class of people lying, stealing from and starving others for the “progression” of society. Was this considered “good” in the eyes of progressives? If those populations had never experienced those tribulations they would not be able to reach transcendence? There is quite a fine line between “good” and “evil” or right and wrong. Furthermore, without God, everyone’s definition of “good” and “evil” would be different. How would they account for that? Considering each individual is like their own God they could coin their own definition for good and evil and it could be completely different from that of another person.

In all this is a critical aspect of their argument and it contains some clear holes from my understanding.

I thought our discussion about cultural critical discourse and the position of authority was interesting. The life of intellectuals is to find the truth. Intellectuals use the CCD as the rules are to justify claims that have truths, and you cannot say something is true because you have authority. I think oftentimes in society today we ignore discovering the actual truth if it is coming from someone in a position of power. Especially, in this age of technology and social media we are so quick to uphold a statement as truth if it is coming from an authority. With these technological updates there is so much information coming at us at once.  Therefore, if it is coming from authority, we do not feel the need to double check it for the truth. We need to follow more of the CCD from intellectuals sometimes. 

Another point of last class that stuck with me is the over saturation of the intellectual class. We are encouraging more people to get a higher education. However, there are not necessarily jobs available for them once they graduate. This can pose economic problems as well as success levels can be kept down. I think this problem of producing intellectuals is a problem that I am facing myself. I am choosing to go to graduate school immediately following graduation at Bucknell. However, I am having to network as I am applying because I want to ensure that getting this master’s degree will be marketable for a job and be worth it. I do not want to run into the problem of being over educated for a job that I could have done with just my undergraduate degree.

In this chapter Molnar opens with the discussion of a utopian society and mentality. He lays out the historical context of this idea and ties it into the groundwork that stems from religious aspects. To open this introduction it is important to understand what a utopia is. Molnar states that Aurel Kolnai thinks a utopian is “the utopian mentality is fascinated by that reality which consists of values, including the value of their complete realization”.(Utopia: The Perennial Heresy, Molnar 43) In the first paragraph that once this mentality is acknowledged we must make it a reality and if this is not put into practice immediately otherwise the idea and practice that goes against what he calls the “Non-perfect” is given the most extreme and sever punishments.

The idea of achieving perfection stems from the medieval age. It is not the utopian that we think of modernly but rather religious connotation because in this team the social framework stemmed from corruption. The reworking of their social construct involved a utopian sense, the idea of being absolved from evil to have “pure morality and pure spirit which sustain themselves by their mere spiritual superiority.” (44) The achievement of pure morality and spirit created a separation from those who were considered sinless and those who were deemed, sinners. This separation involved the abolishment of religious institutions such as Catholicism and its hierarchies. People who were considered puritans decided that people who were involved in catholicism were unable to be saved and were to be punished as a result. The idea of being sinless is tied to being self-righteous and self-divinizing as it is a goal to strive toward by ones own actions throughout their life. This is considered an easy project because obstacles are for the sinners since they do not truly believe in this utopian. If the sinless lead a “perfect life” in their own eyes then they are noble and achieve their divine goals. 

With technology and society, advanced Pantheists believed that a utopia could be achieved by their social classes because they are superior to others. A concept of the social class of Pantheism would leave their notions of religion as they knew it and the concept of “God” because modern technology has been a great achiever and traditional religion would hold them back from becoming the “Superior Mankind”. Another facet of purity that differs from traditional religion is the idea that one can not measure their acts and pass judgment until their acts show how much love was put into them. Molnar poses a few questions after presenting this statement, he states “how this amount is to be measured. And why should he? Presumably we are all “adult men,” able to judge our own· actions according to our own lights”. Molnar’s questions are ones that I had on my own while reading, is there truly an all-encompassing way to judge our actions? 

Another point of the chapter that I wanted to highlight is the section titled Dissolution of the Self. This section dives into other religions’ ideas of the sinner and sinless, more specifically Buddhistic views on what will happen if one gets rid of their traditional views of god. The idea of being self divine the way presented earlier is challenged here as in the Buddhistic view if one abandons God they abandon oneself and all of the things that make them human. The obstacles that puritans would view as sinners mindset is also challenged is what Buddhist view as instrumental to their foundation. Suffering and obstacles are how one can achieve nirvana and when there is no suffering there is no actual self left in the person. 

In conclusion, this chapter looks at the theological approach of a utopian society and the mentality different religions have toward this aspect. Molnar lays out the historical and more modern sense of this concept and poses questions and pushback along the way. This chapter is an overview of the groundwork of secular religion and man’s self-divinization that later he will go more in-depth on in the next chapter “Man-God”. 

After reading the Molnar pieces assigned for this week, I really resonated with the Secularized Religion and Man-God chapters. I found these chapters especially eye opening as it refers to the religiosity of our society and how we view the world today. Molnar talks a lot about the idea of pantheism in that everything and everyone becomes raised to the highest standard of existence. In more simpler terms it is that God is replaced and made into a secular idea that suits the goal of the individual. God in the original religious sense was held to the highest existence because of His all-knowing, perfect essence that encompasses Him. He forced man to acknowledge his inferiority in the universe and that his time on Earth is limited with the hope of achieving salvation and to allow his soul to prosper and live on for eternity in heaven. However, the progressive and utopian seek to take God out of the picture and replace him with man. When one replaces themselves with God there is no higher being; man is the highest being and he becomes the center of the universe with all-knowing and perfect power.

This is where society has been led astray. There is no differentiation between good and evil without God. Molnar cited Bishop Robinson in this chapter as saying “nothing can be intrinsically bad”. This also explains much of our current turn of events in the world in that people like to play God or genuinely think they are above the laws of God and nature. The utopian and the progressive believe science will fill the void of God in our society and that science has all the answers. Some food for thought, how could science fulfill the same role as God when science is a man-made entity?