The political myth of modernity is the vision of society as organized and based on the idea of a social contract. This idea is the fruit of the English spirit and was articulated by Thomas Hobbes. If the paradigm of classical political theory was the city as founded on the natural order, Hobbes breaks with this vision and institutes the conception of political order as emanating from subjects who decide to freely enter into agreements among themselves and grant power to the political sovereign as a form of protection against the violent death that always lurks in the
As much as I really hate the simplicity (and frankly grifting) of Jocko and David Goggins like characters I think there is something to be said for them unlocking the remnants of a Spartan/Prussian spirit in America. The whole 'discipline=freedom' mantra seems to be one that Goethe would not disagree with.
I do not think these kinds of buffoons are the ones who unlock this spirit BUT I think they are illustrating that your vision here is realistic. They direct this energy toward being a super awesome corporate boss who gets things done. It is not a stretch for a great man to rechannel this same energy into revitalizing our people in the midst of our post-modern decay.
I completely agree. And within a decaying post-metaphysical horizon, where people are hungry for a higher meaning and for order, strong and idealistic men can easily channel such desires into the creation of political structures based on order, discipline and rigor.
I have my doubts about Christ and Christianity, and downstream from that, the view on Christian Zionism - on one hand, we are waiting for the Parousia, but I am not sure about the literalist interpretation of the biblical prophecy, in which the establishment of the Jewish state is a necessary step in God's plan, as it leads to the immanentization of the eschaton.
I want to believe, but at the same time, I don't want to be a sucker, a slave to a book, even if it is holy book like the Bible, in case it is false.
Well, I am Catholic. So my view starts from a specific place. But I would say that my view also tends to yours. I believe that one of the worst influences of rationalism on religion, especially in Protestantism, but also in Catholicism, was to put the book in the place of faith in Christ. The Bible is a collection of divinely inspired accounts and events, but the Bible is an account of events, not the very reason for faith. Faith must be in Christ, and not in a book, which is just one of the places where we learn about Christ. Even before the Bible was written, men already had a relationship with God. And the New Testament only appeared some time after the death of Christ. The foundation of faith is a person, Christ, and not a book. As for the Zionist-Christian view, I don't know much about it. But I tend to understand that this reading starts from the Jewish view that the reestablishment of Israel is one of the signs of the return of the messiah; but this messiah is not Christ, but the Jewish messiah: Mashiach ben David, Messiah the son of David. But for Christianity, the Messiah has already come, Christ, and the Jewish Messiah could only be the figure of the Antichrist himself. So I think that Zionist Christianity incorporates elements that are strictly Jewish, not Christian. The role of the Christian is to act as a Kathecon, as Carl Schmitt said - one who seeks to stop the arrival of the Antichrist. In this sense, Christian Zionism seems to me to be just the opposite. But it is not a subject that I am very familiar with. I have always focused more on the metaphysical part of Christianity than on eschatology. But I tend to see it this way, which is not far from your view, because I am also skeptical about this Christian Zionist interpretation.
Excellent writing. I wonder if Hobbes was discussing the exchange of power metaphorically or if he thought that citizens really felt that power was being given over voluntarily. My sub: https://posocap.com
Thank you!! That's a good question. Hobbes wrote at a time when mathematics applied to experimental methods that were applied to nature had supplanted the contemplative method of the medieval world. So the mentality of the time used mental models, such as the social contract, to think about social reality. Hobbes says in Leviathan that the State of Nature is an abstraction for us to understand the foundation of a political community. Therefore, I believe it is a mix - Hobbes believed that ideas such as the social contract and the state of nature were real in the sense of giving us access to principles of order and deriving political rights, but not historical realities.
As much as I really hate the simplicity (and frankly grifting) of Jocko and David Goggins like characters I think there is something to be said for them unlocking the remnants of a Spartan/Prussian spirit in America. The whole 'discipline=freedom' mantra seems to be one that Goethe would not disagree with.
I do not think these kinds of buffoons are the ones who unlock this spirit BUT I think they are illustrating that your vision here is realistic. They direct this energy toward being a super awesome corporate boss who gets things done. It is not a stretch for a great man to rechannel this same energy into revitalizing our people in the midst of our post-modern decay.
I completely agree. And within a decaying post-metaphysical horizon, where people are hungry for a higher meaning and for order, strong and idealistic men can easily channel such desires into the creation of political structures based on order, discipline and rigor.
I have my doubts about Christ and Christianity, and downstream from that, the view on Christian Zionism - on one hand, we are waiting for the Parousia, but I am not sure about the literalist interpretation of the biblical prophecy, in which the establishment of the Jewish state is a necessary step in God's plan, as it leads to the immanentization of the eschaton.
I want to believe, but at the same time, I don't want to be a sucker, a slave to a book, even if it is holy book like the Bible, in case it is false.
What are you thoughts?
Well, I am Catholic. So my view starts from a specific place. But I would say that my view also tends to yours. I believe that one of the worst influences of rationalism on religion, especially in Protestantism, but also in Catholicism, was to put the book in the place of faith in Christ. The Bible is a collection of divinely inspired accounts and events, but the Bible is an account of events, not the very reason for faith. Faith must be in Christ, and not in a book, which is just one of the places where we learn about Christ. Even before the Bible was written, men already had a relationship with God. And the New Testament only appeared some time after the death of Christ. The foundation of faith is a person, Christ, and not a book. As for the Zionist-Christian view, I don't know much about it. But I tend to understand that this reading starts from the Jewish view that the reestablishment of Israel is one of the signs of the return of the messiah; but this messiah is not Christ, but the Jewish messiah: Mashiach ben David, Messiah the son of David. But for Christianity, the Messiah has already come, Christ, and the Jewish Messiah could only be the figure of the Antichrist himself. So I think that Zionist Christianity incorporates elements that are strictly Jewish, not Christian. The role of the Christian is to act as a Kathecon, as Carl Schmitt said - one who seeks to stop the arrival of the Antichrist. In this sense, Christian Zionism seems to me to be just the opposite. But it is not a subject that I am very familiar with. I have always focused more on the metaphysical part of Christianity than on eschatology. But I tend to see it this way, which is not far from your view, because I am also skeptical about this Christian Zionist interpretation.
Interesting …
🙏
Excellent writing. I wonder if Hobbes was discussing the exchange of power metaphorically or if he thought that citizens really felt that power was being given over voluntarily. My sub: https://posocap.com
Thank you!! That's a good question. Hobbes wrote at a time when mathematics applied to experimental methods that were applied to nature had supplanted the contemplative method of the medieval world. So the mentality of the time used mental models, such as the social contract, to think about social reality. Hobbes says in Leviathan that the State of Nature is an abstraction for us to understand the foundation of a political community. Therefore, I believe it is a mix - Hobbes believed that ideas such as the social contract and the state of nature were real in the sense of giving us access to principles of order and deriving political rights, but not historical realities.
good takes!
Thank you 🙏
np