Just like we see only the top of an iceberg, so we only see the top of a political system.
Ethical life is a given cultural expression of Spirit, the collective entity that transcends all individuals and determines their beliefs and actions whether they are conscious of it or not. Ethical life and our ideologies reflect the fundamental interdependence among individuals in a society and finds articulation in their shared customs and morals.
Hegel argues this happens in eras, such as the Greek era, the Roman era. He believed the dialectic happened by one era bumping into another era thus creating another era. A bumping into B becomes C. This on going process of world Spirit (Geist) was assumed to bring us toward perfection thus a perfect union. This ontological and theological assumption is an example of what a political system can carry in collective unconscious. This assumption gives a undergirding peace that man can work it out through technology, politics, ideology etc. This assumption that history is heading in the right direction exists in the collective era thus the individual.
Nietzsche would call this moral ethical assumption of right and wrong and progressive attitude of history coming from an era's collective sociology, psychology and ethical perspective a "Will to Power" rather than being objective truth. Just like we have a collective language we have a collective basis of ideals, mores, ethics etc. We share in the world Spirit of an age and of a era. We are bonded together in culture, history, and states and assume a huge array of what we perceive as TRUTH. So many people carry a banner of democracy as a secular religion with this underlying ontological and theological assumption. Rather than fighting for justice they fight for democracy and ideology.
...
Read full text
I admire your tightly reasoned argument, and the passion behind it. It is the passion and reasoning of one who conceives divinity in personal terms: God is a PERSON, God has therefore a history and a personality and personal attributes and - no, that's enough to work with.for the time being. I agree with you: this is the nature of the the three Abrahamitic religions, and it is a profound connective tissue linking despite their differences, hostilities, denials, etc. B-U-T (in intellectual reasoning there is always a yES, BUT... as you will no doubt remind me when I'm finished) there are Eastern religions which include an impersonal conception of divinity and which lack any formal Creator God. In Hinduism, SAGUNA BRAHMAN is brahman with attributes, and embodied, for example, is Brahma who is personal, has a history (rather unsavory - he lost one of his heads because of it) , a personality, Scriotures, etc. There is also an impersonal form of Gits calls BHAKTI one of Four Paths to God, as the Bhagavad Gita teaches, In the West ATHEIST is word used as a weapon to disparage or condemn a non-theist. An atheist is not a Godless person; their definition of God as impersonal is different from theism, which the Bhagavad Gita calls Bhakti. Christiianity is preeminently a Bhakti religion: Jesus Christ is my personal savior, Krishna is my personal savior. You revere the revelation of the Hebrew Bible, I revere the revelation of the Upanishads, the oldest of all written scriptures. Am I therefore a Fool in you estimation, or am I a fellow pilgrim following the Path to God congenial to my personality and history? I know in the West the word ATHEISM has accrued many connotations, all negative. And it goes against your core belief in THEISM. I recall a Buddhist monk from Sri Lanka saying, Buddhism is neutral about the gods. If people want to worship them, they can. But when the gods exist, they too need to be enlightened. He did not call those who disagreed with him FOOLS. He acknowledged the integrity of their beliefs, perhaps with a sigh, but not an insult.
Buddism, Hinduism etc can't even settle on a real world. Your country will go under 666 just like all of the rest and your religion is phony