Good piece. I would argue that it is impossible for us to know ourselves and that one of the consequences of sin is that man’s ability to deceive himself knows no bounds. Because no man can fully know himself, is always engaged in fictions about himself, that mankind is always hypocritical. An ethical system cannot be built on these realities of a lack of hypocrisy and a lack of self deception as they are realities which cannot be overcome (at lest not without the saving work of Christ, and then our experience of this salvation is, in this life, ever only in part). Real community is built in spite of these deceptions of ourselves and others. It is a spiritual bond which transcends these human frailties and the uncertainties of living in a sinful world.
As for the friend/enemy distinction as found in Schmitt, this is an existential thing based upon a threat to one’s existence. It has nothing to do with truth or falsehood, but rather the question of whether or not the other represents a threat to us or not. It is this threat to our existence that defines us as an in group. This threat always implies war and violence which may or may not be realized. The friend/enemy distinction is built around the question of “would I die to protect this person’s life?” or “would I kill to protect their life?” Those that you would die for and kill for are friends. It is that simple. All other political questions flow from this basic concept of “the political.” The state, a true state, exists to protect the interests of “us” from “them” with violence if necessary. This is why Schmitt argues that the American constitutional system and state is not a true state.
As for grounding the moral, I would argue that the only grounding for wisdom (and by extension truth) is in the direct encounter with God. The question is whether or not we believe that we or another person has met and has a world from God. Or baring a direct word, that they speak as one who is trustworthy. This is the foundation for true authority. Paul in 1 Cor 7:25 says this, which captures it nicely:
“I have no command from the Lord, but I give a judgment as one who by the Lord’s mercy is trustworthy.“
In this regards, Christians have long argued that other faiths which claim words from God or revelations are actually not being spoken to by God but rather by deceiving spirits, demons.
>> If we’re confident that we’re aligned with truth and reality, it doesn’t matter that
>>human cognition isn’t necessarily oriented to see reality as it is, we can adjust messaging
>>to leverage psychological disposition without resorting to underhanded means.
Occasionally entertaining the small-scale pursuit (e.g. limited to my own life) of "reality-hacking" in a variety of ways, I find that statement to be intriguing - and something I'd love to hear you expound upon - both at the micro and macro levels.
Good piece. I would argue that it is impossible for us to know ourselves and that one of the consequences of sin is that man’s ability to deceive himself knows no bounds. Because no man can fully know himself, is always engaged in fictions about himself, that mankind is always hypocritical. An ethical system cannot be built on these realities of a lack of hypocrisy and a lack of self deception as they are realities which cannot be overcome (at lest not without the saving work of Christ, and then our experience of this salvation is, in this life, ever only in part). Real community is built in spite of these deceptions of ourselves and others. It is a spiritual bond which transcends these human frailties and the uncertainties of living in a sinful world.
As for the friend/enemy distinction as found in Schmitt, this is an existential thing based upon a threat to one’s existence. It has nothing to do with truth or falsehood, but rather the question of whether or not the other represents a threat to us or not. It is this threat to our existence that defines us as an in group. This threat always implies war and violence which may or may not be realized. The friend/enemy distinction is built around the question of “would I die to protect this person’s life?” or “would I kill to protect their life?” Those that you would die for and kill for are friends. It is that simple. All other political questions flow from this basic concept of “the political.” The state, a true state, exists to protect the interests of “us” from “them” with violence if necessary. This is why Schmitt argues that the American constitutional system and state is not a true state.
As for grounding the moral, I would argue that the only grounding for wisdom (and by extension truth) is in the direct encounter with God. The question is whether or not we believe that we or another person has met and has a world from God. Or baring a direct word, that they speak as one who is trustworthy. This is the foundation for true authority. Paul in 1 Cor 7:25 says this, which captures it nicely:
“I have no command from the Lord, but I give a judgment as one who by the Lord’s mercy is trustworthy.“
In this regards, Christians have long argued that other faiths which claim words from God or revelations are actually not being spoken to by God but rather by deceiving spirits, demons.
My code of morality is pretty simple.
1) I will defend free speech.
2) I will not censor free speech
3) I will defend those who can not defend themselves.
4) I will not kill (unless in self defense,) I will not steal, I will not rape, I will not resort to name calling.
5) I will stand up for the law and defend my community.
6) I will listen to all sides of a problem before making my decisions.
7) I will live in reality.
TikTok Jesus says;
Sell your copy of Atlas Shrugged and buy a sword.
TikTok Mohammed says- By the Sword ye shall have status, ask HAMAS.
TikTok Tao says; Quit talking and get to work.
TikTok Bin Laden says; notice I’m getting a fresh new fan club?
Ask yourself why - it’s not antisemitism.
TikTok Buddha says; quit the navel gazing and get with the program...
TikTok Iron Mike says; It’s 11Busy time, get busy...
Amen, as it’s Sunday.
How about instead Universal Shamelessness?
Observe; Army wants unvaccinated it kicked out back...
this could be the biggest tent ever.
https://www.igor-chudov.com/p/the-army-is-begging-unvaccinated
>> If we’re confident that we’re aligned with truth and reality, it doesn’t matter that
>>human cognition isn’t necessarily oriented to see reality as it is, we can adjust messaging
>>to leverage psychological disposition without resorting to underhanded means.
Occasionally entertaining the small-scale pursuit (e.g. limited to my own life) of "reality-hacking" in a variety of ways, I find that statement to be intriguing - and something I'd love to hear you expound upon - both at the micro and macro levels.