Categories
Student Posts

Week 5

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? 

Categories
Class Minutes

09/14/22

We started class by discussing Hagel’s view on his ghostly spiritual logic. Ghostly spiritual logic was not fully realized at the time that Hagel was writing, and wasn’t realized in the early time of history. This Rationality (with a capital R) or spirit is the force that organizes itself into the state of Logic (with a capital L). Human beings, through our own rational process, can bring order to a world. The world is not so hostile to rational organization. As a class, we discussed what this would look like, and shifted to the discussion of progressivism.

We shifted and started discussing progressivism and asked the question, “On what grounds does anyone want to criticize progressivism?” As a political movement, progressivism purports to advance the human condition through social reform based on advancements in science, technology, economic development, and social organization. The motor of history is driving in a certain direction. Progressivism is key to the survival of intellectuals. One of the large foes of progressivism is religion. We discussed how the biggest part about progressivism is advancement, and religion follows the logic of believing in past tradition and ideas that do not line up with advancement. Religion focuses on staying with old tradition.

We discussed for a while the question, “How do intellectuals fit into the utopian society?” We started the discussion by discussing what a utopian society would even look like, and if it was possible. Through coming to the conclusion that a utopian society is very hard to even imagine because of how impossible it is, we decided to shift back to how intellectuals fit into the utopian society. We talked about how since intellectuals are often focused on power, if intellectuals were in a utopian society, they wouldn’t be able to be corrupt anymore. This was a confusing topic, so we decided to break it down. We talked about how bad social institutions which lead to corruption are not the actual human beings doing, but the institutions themselves. If a utopian society existed, there would be no corrupt institutions and therefore intellectuals wouldn’t have the sway to gain power. This was definitely a controversial topic because it is hard to picture a world in which no human being is corrupt or evil. Even if there are no corrupt institutions, it is hard to believe a world where human beings are completely good. We talked about how wanting power could result in being corrupt, but wanting power isn’t necessarily an evil thing. It becomes evil when people want to use that power to do more harm than good.

We went back to the original idea of who an intellectual is. We talked about religious figures, especially those in power, and how they are considered to be intellectuals in their own respective field. We defined intellectuals as all pursing the realm of ideas as a profession or calling. Even though groups of intellectuals might be different, they all spend time in the abstract world of ideas. They focus on these ideas more than the typical human. This is interesting to think about because it connects the utopian society with religion. Religious institutions inherently can become corrupt, based on their traditionalist ideals. Conflict between religions is something that I do not see as completely disappearing, even if there is a utopian society. We talked about how as human beings, is there a way to judge our own actions? How would this work in a utopian society? It raises the question, in a utopian society how would there be a judge? Would everyone be on the same playing field?

Categories
Student Posts

Introduction for “Intellectuals in Search of a Religion”

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?
Categories
Student Posts

Week 4 Blog Part 1

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.

Categories
Professor's Questions and Prompts

A video source for this week, along with questions to prompt your writing

Here’s Paul Hollander shortly after his book Political Pilgrims talking about the book’s argument.

What are some of the major reasons given by Aron, Hollander, and Judt why so many intellectuals aligned themselves with the Soviet Union, despite all the evidence that this was a totalitarian state that had made good on almost none of the promises made by the Bolshevik Revolution?

In what ways might we talk about Marxism as a quasi-religion? Why is this ironic?

How can we bring in some of the analysis from e.g., Voegelin on Gnostic thinking, and Molnar on secularized religion to help us understand the intellectual appeal of communism/Marxism?

Categories
Student Posts

Week 4 Blog

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. 

Categories
Professor's Questions and Prompts

Summary of Voegelin’s “Ersatz Religion”

The subtitle is “The Gnostic Mass Movements of Our Time,” which nicely summarizes what he’s up to here. Voegelin’s thesis is that there are numerous modern political movements that in the structure of their belief systems resemble Gnosticism.

(Gnosticism was a religious movement in antiquity, existing at the same time as early Christianity, probably preceding it, and which exercised some influence early in the history of Christianity as a heresy.)

Voegelin gives six central characteristics of Gnostic belief structure:

  1. The Gnostic is “dissatisfied with his situation.”
  2. The cause of this dissatisfaction is attributed to the “intrinsically poor…organiz[ation]” of the world.
  3. It is believed that salvation for/from the corrupt, poorly organized world is possible.
  4. The method of transformation of the corrupt world for a perfect one will be historical and this-worldly.
  5. Human action can produce this beneficial transformation of the world.
  6. The Gnostic sees his task as acquiring the knowledge to transform the wicked world and then acting as a prophet of the need for this transformation.

Among the political movements Voegelin classifies as Gnostic in structure are progressivism, positivism, Marxism, psychoanalysis, communism, fascism, and national socialism. As I indicated in our discussion, I want to suggest that wokeism—a mutated and much more virulent form of progressivism that negates virtually every founding institution of Western civilization—should be included as the latest such movement.

The Gnostic perspective on the direction of the change desired is modeled on the Christian idea of perfection, though it necessarily distorts it in moving it from the supernatural realm to this world.

For the Christian, perfection is achieved by the justified believer only in the afterlife, though this life is sanctified as the training ground for efforts to reach that pure state.

For the Gnostic, it is envisioned that the perfect state can be reached in this world, whether that perfect state is only hinted at and the emphasis is on the progressive movement toward it or it is carefully defined, as in Marxism’s vision of a classless communist utopia to follow the fall of the bourgeoisie.

Voegelin then launches on an analysis of the symbolic structures at work in the thought of a 12th century Christian theologian Joachim of Fiore (below), in order to show how many of these modern political Gnosticisms borrow from that structure.

Joachim imposed the trinitarian nature of God on history, claiming that world history would consist of three great ages, that of the Father (from the beginning until Christ), that of the Son (from Christ until the mid-13th century), and that of the Holy Spirit (what came after that). Modern Gnostic movements borrow this tripartite symbolism: Marxism sees human history as divided into the era of primitive communism, the era of capitalism, and the era of classless utopia, whereas wokeism thinks in terms of a similar trinity of primitive freedom and equality (sub-Saharan Africa and the Americas before the arrival of the Europeans), slavery, and finally liberation in the perfect and hierarchy-free multicultural society.

Joachim of Flora

Joachim also emphasized the importance of great leaders and prophetic figures that would be needed to move from one epoch to the next. The communist and fascist fascination with all-powerful leader figures (Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Castro, Mussolini, Hitler) and prophets (Marx, Trotsky, Gramsci), who are typically intellectuals, is structurally very similar.

Finally, Joachim believed “the community of spiritually autonomous persons…a community of monks” was the engine of movement through the stages.  Their autonomy is centrally about freedom from institutions. In Joachim’s case, this meant mostly independence vis-à-vis the sacraments of the Church. For the neo-Gnostics, it often is seen as escape from the bonds of the state, the family, and all other social institutions.

The Gnostic program for perfecting the world must, in Voegelin’s argument, omit elements of the nature of the world and being that disprove the program. He demonstrates this by looking briefly at such omissions in the work of Thomas More, Hobbes, and Hegel.

The Gnostic project is a corruption of Christianity also in the ease by which it is believed. Christian faith, by contrast, requires great personal strength, given the paucity of “tangible” certainty to undergird it. The leap of faith is difficult and it is constantly challenged by empirical affairs.

Gnostic movements are thus tempting especially to those who lack “spiritual stamina”: “[G]reat masses of Christianized men who were not strong enough for the heroic adventure of faith became susceptible to ideas that could give them a greater degree of certainty about the meaning of their existence than faith.”

Categories
Student Posts

Week 4 Blog

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.

Categories
Uncategorized

Blog Post week of 9/14 summary for Progressive chapter

The chapter starts out by defining what a progressive in its many forms. Molnar says that the term progress is an emotionally charged one because “The modern concept of progress is the most immediately available term when people want to speak of history as openness on infinite improvement, social emancipation, higher living standards. The adjective form “progressive is a label under which any blatant nonsense of sentimental trach may pass without inspection. He gives another definition of progressive as an ideal of everyone and makes up history itself because it is shared by everyone, “all of mankind.” A Progressive intellectual believes that in order to be a human being is to believe in progress and have no limitations of any kind.

Modern Progressivism comes out of nineteenth-century radicalism. Molnar says that there is a double origin of progressivism. The philosophical origin: in which is grew out of a particular image of god, the universe, man and human nature, so more of a secular image. The other one is the Historical origin which has been an attempt to reconstruct the social and poplical unity of mankind after the Renaissance. Progressivism, therefore, becomes a secular concept and is no other order in the universe except the human order
Then Molnar goes into what I would describe as what it means to be a good citizen in a way. The “social man” who lives up to the standards of his environment is also a good man and in order for him to prove himself he must show this attachment to society with its goal and methods. The society itself that man lives in represents goodness and Molnar says that leaders much show that they and the people are attached to it and it fulfules their aspirations.

He talks about how Rousseau and his 19th century followers maintain that because of man’s essential goodness, any society or group, it left alone without outside pressure, finds a way of getting along
His mind is guided by general Will – which is the basic assumption of democracy, as it it interpreseted by the progressives which then becomes the elimination of power from human affairs.
Progressive assumes that freedom, being the absence of power, is a moral good in itself, used only for noble goals and in self-restraint

Americans have their own democratic system → the assumption is that free men are good and honest but will always be tempted to transgress morality

On the other hand, the progressive intellectual is willing to the use the coercive political power of the state when he wants to carry out his plans or when they are threatened
This type of person follows ideas of Robespierre – he does not pass up any opportunity for seizing power and settling a the command post
“ to speak in the name of a progressive” they voices the right of self-expression and of individual search for inner treah the free flowering of personality”

Talks about schools briefly and teachers

Molnar says my task is to analyze the philosophy, mentality, and attitudes of progressive ideologues to show their debt to a certain kind of world-view they have in common.
Identify the progressive intellectual in some of his protean (frequently changing) forms
Gives us a definition of progressivism – which is the ideological formulation of the philosophical belief in Progress as the Enlightenment presented it
Progressives share Marxist veneration for history as a mechanism guiding the ages and guiding mankind on the road to betterment
History then is one of the evolutionary forms. (123)

The progressive believes in the progress of history, man, society, of God Himself who is not a person but a product
Everything is in motion and has direction
Involvement of the progressive intellectual with the contemporary world
Molnar defines three categories according to background, aim and method
Discussion of the progressive intellectual as

  1. A liberal-humanist who secularizes the values men hold dear and seeks for the conditions of their realization in individual and social existence
    At the basis of the progressive world view there is a misunderstanding of human nature
    Where Humanitas comes from – Greco-roman idea, used by renaissance scholars to stress the rationaloty of man against the supposed irrationality of the Middle Ages (125)
    This who section is on humanism and Molnar gives a bunch of examples
    Molnar says that with the eclipse of humanism two things happened
  2. Why that sense further reduced and diminished the image of man that humanism has deprived of its sacral character and left in a mutilated state
    By the 18th century, the humanist became the scientist and the organizer of the scientific society (126)
    “Man, regarded by the consistently reasoning progress as a remarkably good mechanism, but far from possessing the excellence of his descendants a million years from now, or the perfection of the mechanism that engineers are now about to construct. (127)
    How does a humanist escape the dilemma of justifying good as well as evil
    Using existentialist humanism and scientific humanism
    Recognize that everyone shares this experience of being a stranger with him
    Revolt (129)
  3. The emphasis on values (128)
  4. A fellow-traveler of socialism and communism, for whom these values have coalesced into the primary one of the “perfect society” from which, in turn, these values will obtain a new life
    The progressive as a liberal humanist is still distinguishable by the vague and vacillating tribute he pays to the individual and to the concept of equilibrium between the individual and the community. (138)
    The progressive is confronted with a system and he becomes fascinated with its brutal affirmations, particularly when the system displays a logical approach and consistency
    The progressive is bound to be seduced by the doctrine that preaches the necessity
    Lots are written about the flux of the liberal intellectuals to the camp of Marxism; the fellow travelers and their lives
    Two main reasons for the option of progressive intellectuals for socialism in its Marxist forms, for Communism and for support of Soviet Russia
  5. That communism is a short cut to Utopia
  6. It brings the progressive intellectual closer to the history-making part of society → the masses→ the proletariat
    For the communist society of a nonalientated man – the short cut is not a shortcut but a freely chosen route
    For the progressive has a dual allegiance to western humanistic values and the Perfect Society
    The progressive only chooses the communist shortcut temporarily (will either get rid of the communist alliance or that the communism itself will become more amenable to the values of liberalism and humanism) Molnar said this is unclear (page 140)
    The force of the true Marxist’s conviction acts as a temporary stimulant on the progressive fellow-traveler (144)
    Molner talks about Merleauponty (who was himself a traveler) = who wrote that “marxism is not just a hypothesis, for which tomorrow, another may be substituted. It is the simple statement of the conditions without which there will be no mankind in the sense of the reciprocal relationship between human beings, nor will there be rationality in history… Beyond Marxism, there are only daydreams or adventures.. (144)
    In the revealed marxists truth, the fellow-traveler develops the same double standards as the Communist intellectual himself..
    Other groups hold that Marisms is a short cut to the ideal community such as the Christian intellectuals
    Tillich’s – “Belief-ful realism” – contains the negation of every kind of romanticism and utopianism, but it includes the hopes of a social and economic life in which the spirit of capitalism,- the symbol of self-sufficient finitide- has been overcome
    Socialism = selflessness – work for the common good
    Dual nature of the progressives’s attraction to Marxism
    One element follows from his extreme rationalism and the dreams of rationally organized society and the other from his equally extreme sentimentalism
    The people, the masses, the proletariat
  7. An esthete who finds no rational order in the universe and therefore no relationship between values and who, as a result, cultivates those – in preference beauty- which, although precarious, may be torn away from the general meaninglessness to become the exquisite flower of the day
    The progressive intellectual’s natural habit is Utopia → antipolics
    He is essentials an optimist who believes in the uninterrupted progress of mankind, leading the individuals to more freedom and society to a state of definitive ideological cohesion
    There are some progressives who not not have the same nation of progress and they find themselves in mechanization in teh way of life imposed by the industry
    They connact generate in themselves the progressives undivided enthusiasm for such transformation of natural beauty and character into th flatlands of “improved conditions”
    Life and death
    Under different costumes and set agaisnt different backgrounds the protrait is of the same man
Categories
Student Posts

Blog 6

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.