[文集] [专题] [检索] [独立评论] [海阔天空] [矛盾江湖] [全版论坛]

独立评论

所跟帖: 寒江月 I sure did.   2016-07-04 07:48:32  


作者: yezi   cool... in regards of kabbalah ... 2016-07-04 09:12:47  [点击:616]
we may compare our book notes.

This thread has links to descriptive intro to a few books I've read

https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_in_all_seriousness_could_a_theologian_decide_to_get_involved_in_an_assassination_act_of_another_human_being

"the mythic past" by thomas l. thompson left great impression on me...


Also the following is from 'Editor's Introduction' of 'Political Theology II' by Carl Schmitt, on 'the myth of dictatorship'...

p24. Sorel's Theory of Myth and Schmitt's Conversion

For Sorel, myth was a historical force, whose power lay partly in the nature of human weakness. It is able to move the masses deeply if it is believed. 'As long as there are no myths accepted by the masses, one may go on talking of revolts indefinitely without ever provoking any revolutionary movement,' he wrote. Myth is, then, an expression leading to action. It cannot be separated from violent practices, for it commits believers to such practices. It commits them to 'combat that will destroy the existing state of things.' While a utopian element pertains to myths, they have a life of their own and survive while belief in them remains. As such, ' a myth cannot be refuted since it is, at bottom, identical to the convictions of a group, being the expression of these convictions in the language of movement'. It is this will to act that distinguishes the power of myth from the intellectual, bourgeois constructions of utopias. Parliamentarism and political liberalism, for Sorel, were 'the best eamples of a utopia that could be given'. Furthermore, myths are aesthetic, for the power of their ideology lies in the 'idolatry of words', in the appeal they make, through images, to the imagination; to an imagined glory, an imagined heroism or martyrdom. Sorel used 'myth' and 'legend' as synonyms.

  We can see from this brief account how Schmitt's description, in Political Theology II, of the legend of the closure of political theology as both beautiful and indestructible follows closely Sorel's theory. One could even argue that Schmitt's continual appeal to the need for executive action by the Reichsprasident in the Weimar Republic could be interpreted as an appeal to the myth of dictatorship: the heroic, selfless, neutral leader, who will guard the constitution at any cost. For if a myth such as that governing the liberal notion of the state could not be refuted, then it could only be challenged and countered by belief in another myth. The National Socialists and the Communists were in fact both producing alternative myths of their own. Finally, the Nazi myth of the Volk as a distinct racial community prevailed, and Sorel's thinking on the relationship between myth and violence was borne out - as also was his observation on the 'cowardice of the liberal government.'

 ...

The various levels of authorial intention in this text necessarily invoke what we alluded to in the opening of this introduction: Hobbes' questions Quis judicabit? Quis interpretabitur? and the historical, sociological, juridical, political but also hermeneutical issues they raise. It is fitting, then, that Political Theology II ends with a reference to this theme, by adding: "Who answers the question in concreto, on behalf of the concrete, autonomously acting human being: what is spiritual, what is worldly and what is the case with the res mixtae...?' The book then concludes on a note of healthy scepticism.

...

[He snatched the thunder ball from heaven, and sends out new thunder balls.

He snatched away heaven from God and spread out new realms.

Man is an interchangeable thing to man;

No one is against man except man himself.]

I conclude with this question. Which of these three freedoms is intrinsically the most intense and aggressive: scientific neutrality, the technical and industrial freedom of production or the arbitrary nature of free human utilization? Should this question be ruled out of court on academic grounds, because the word 'aggressive' has become value-free, then the situation would be clear: stat pro ratione Libertas, et Novitas pro Libertate [ Freedom replaces Reason, and Novelty replaces Freedom]. 

----end quote ----

To me the question sounds like:  who can be the humanity's savior, in this age after Moses, Jesus, Peter/Paul?  a scientific man ( the Einstein's tribunal including all social scientists and philosophers), an industrial man ( Capitalists United plus all existing religious Establishment ) or a natural alien savage unknown to all men, the future AI godhead?  No? 
最后编辑时间: 2016-07-04 09:49:03

加跟贴

笔名:     新网友请先注册笔名 密码:
主题: 进文集
内容: