http://jkalb.org

I've argued that contemporary liberalism is the flowering and not the corruption of classical liberalism. Once people accept the primacy of freedom, the basic principle of classical liberalism, what we have now naturally follows.

How far can that line of thought be taken? Liberalism, with its emphasis on the freedom and dignity of the individual, is evidently an outgrowth of Christianity, and many have argued that the same is true of modern natural science and therefore of modern rationalistic secularism. So are those things the natural consequence of Christianity? The European New Right, after all, claims that Christian monotheism leads naturally to imperialistic and intolerant liberal universalism and no doubt other bad things.

It seems to me the ENR position is wrong. The result of rejecting a fundamental principle of a way of life and thought is not its flowering but its transformation into something different. At all times liberalism has viewed liberty as its highest principle and been unwilling to give any substantive good priority. The consequences of taking human will as the measure of all good, and rational equal satisfaction of desire as the highest law, may therefore be attributed to liberalism. Those consequences include the managerial liberal state.

Christianity, in contrast, is explicitly based on both monotheism and the Trinity, on God-made-man (which by itself might lead to radical individualism and secularism) and God's ineffability and transcendence, on universality and on the particularity required by the notion of incarnation. It can't be converted into anything like liberalism or scientism without ripping out the greater part of the doctrines that have always explicitly and emphatically been treated as fundamental. To all appearances, the reduction of Christianity to this-worldly rationalizing hedonism wasn't required by anything basic in Christianity, but by rebellion against Christianity — the desire to reduce it to something that could be managed and controlled — and by the pragmatic success of scientific rationalism.

By Jim Kalb at 06/22/2004 - 12:00pm


There is a interesting discussion in that blog:

http://jkalb.org/node/view/1034?PHPSESSID=506bee2d0e24526a955e1736eb3ca651

No, many of the basic tenets of liberalism can be found in ancient Greece and Rome. It wasnt a Christian who declared he was a "citizen of the world" but a 4th century BC Greek cynic.

It wasnt a Christian who declared he was a "citizen of the world" but a 4th century BC Greek cynic.

It was not a Greek cynic who said "that there is not Greek, neither Jew.. just one in Christ" but the very Saint Paul, one of the Founders Fathers of the Judeo-Christian Church.

Liberalism is a perversion of Christianity. I can prove it as well by doing an archaeology of liberal political theory (which I am doing in the other thread at this moment). Take individualism for example.

"But why was God's request necessary, since Abraham doesn't seem to have learned anything new from this experience? He had already learned, at least to some extent, that God keeps his promises. Actually Abraham has learned several things. First, he has learned that this new God, who keeps his promises, also doesn't want human sacrifice -- another major breakthrough in the eighteenth century B.C. More fundamentally, however, he has learned that humans have freedom and dignity. In the ancient pagan religions, human sacrifice would not necessarily be considered wrong, because humans were regarded as nothing more than pawns of the gods. But when one encounters a new God, who doesn't want human sacrifice, the implication is that humans have a much more important position in the cosmic order. Furthermore, Abraham has not just learned that humans in general have freedom and dignity, he has discovered that each individual human has a unique identity. Before Isaac was simply a son, the bearer of the family line; after, he is a unique person, a gift from God. We are so used to thinking of each person as having a unique identity that we are unaware of how foreign this idea was to the pagan world. Individuals had an identity only as part of a group. In Homer's Illiad, individuals are always introduced in terms of their family line, as in "Agamemmnon, son of Atreus." It is only during the Middle Ages, as Christianity starts to become socially effective on a wide scale, that the concept starts to develop of an individual identity independent of bloodline, occupation, or geographic location."

Murray Jardine, The Making and Unmaking of Technological Society: How Christianity Can Save Modernity From Itself (Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2004), p.192

Yeah, the historian Sir James George Frazer*says something similar:

The religion of the Great Mother, with its curious blending of crude savagery with spiritual aspirations, was only one of a multitude of similar Oriental faiths which in the later days of paganism spread over the Roman Empire, and by saturating the European peoples with alien ideals of life gradually undermined the whole fabric of ancient civilisation. Greek and Roman society was built on the conception of the subordination of the individual to the community, of the citizen to the state; it set the safety of the commonwealth, as the supreme aim of conduct, above the safety of the individual whether in this world or in the world to come. Trained from infancy in this unselfish ideal, the citizens devoted their lives to the public service and were ready to lay them down for the common good; or if they shrank from the supreme sacrifice, it never occurred to them that they acted otherwise than basely in preferring their personal existence to the interests of their country.

All this was changed by the spread of Oriental religions which inculcated the communion of the individual soul with God and its eternal salvation as the only objects worth living for, objects in comparison with which the prosperity and even the existence of the state sank into insignificance. The inevitable result of this selfish and immoral doctrine was to withdraw the devotee more and more from the public service, to concentrate his thoughts on his own spiritual emotions, and to breed in him a contempt for the present life which he regarded merely as a probation for a better and an eternal. The saint and the recluse, disdainful of earth and rapt in ecstatic contemplation of heaven, became in popular opinion the highest ideal of humanity, displacing the old ideal of the patriot and hero who, forgetful of self, lives and is ready to die for the good of his country. The earthly city seemed poor and contemptible to men whose eyes beheld the City of God coming in the clouds of heaven. Thus the centre of gravity, so to say, was shifted from the present to a future life, and however much the other world may have gained, there can be little doubt that this one lost heavily by the change. A general disintegration of the body politic set in. The ties of the state and the family were loosened: the structure of society tended to resolve itself into its individual elements and thereby to relapse into barbarism; for civilisation is only possible through the active co-operation of the citizens and their willingness to subordinate their private interests to the common good. Men refused to defend their country and even to continue their kind. In their anxiety to save their own souls and the souls of others, they were content to leave the material world, which they identified with the principle of evil, to perish around them. This obsession lasted for a thousand years. The revival of Roman law, of the Aristotelian philosophy, of ancient art and literature at the close of the Middle Ages, marked the return of Europe to native ideals of life and conduct, to saner, manlier views of the world. The long halt in the march of civilisation was over. The tide of Oriental invasion had turned at last. It is ebbing still.

http://www.bartleby.com/196/84.html

The equality of all human beings comes from the same source:

"The biblical cosmology, however, represents a revolution that Aristotle could not accomplish -- it abandons the pagan metaphor of natural fertility and understands reality in terms of the model of the spoken word. Thus reality is, like the spoken word, dynamic and creative but still ordered process, within infinite but limited possibilities, spoken into existence by a speaker who is always faithful to his word. Humans, created in the likeness of this ever faithful speaker, also have the creative power of speech and thus themselves have a role to play in the process of reality; they not only can understand but actually change the world.

Finally, there are several immediate political implications of this model of God, the world, and humanity. The first is that humans are fundamentally communal beings, since, although people do occasionally talk to themselves, speech normally, and paradigmatically, involves more than one person. This, of course, is not different from Aristotle, but it is quite different from modern liberalism, which conceives of people as independent individuals. The second implication of the biblical anthropology is that, since everyone speaks, humans are fundamentally equal. In both the early pagan view and in Aristotle, there is a fundamental inequality of humans, since some humans are better warriors than others (or at least are the descendants of better warriors) or because some humans have a greater capacity for wisdom than others. But in the biblical view, the fundamental human capacity is to speak faithfully, and any person can do this or fail to do this. Jews and Gentiles, men and women, masters and slaves are all equal under God. The third implication of the biblical worldview is human plurality -- the fact that everyone speaks differently. That is, because we all have the creative capacity of speech, we all tend to create different worlds, to understand things slightly differently, to have different views. This is strikingly different from the view of Aristotle, who understands the position of the philosopher as definitive for everyone, and it is also, ironically, different from liberalism, which, despite its emphasis on individual difference, ultimately assumes a unified view to establish neutral rules. We will examine the ethical implications of human plurality shortly."

Ibid., pp.182

Hey Marlaud, do you happen to go by the name "edward gibbon" on the Original Dissent?

If so, I remember you quoting that biased tripe by James Frazer there too.


Petr

Fade: Fuck. Sorry Perun, I edited your post. I thought I was replying to it. This new vB takes some getting used to. Edit this again.

Hey Marlaud, do you happen to go by the name "edward gibbon" on the Original Dissent?

No, I am not "edward gibbon". Are you "Perun"? Since you always appears with Perun and supporting him in the threads critical of Judeo-Christianity....


If so, I remember you quoting that biased tripe by James Frazer there too.


I recognize that I read the thread opened by Gibbon and that I taken those paragraphs of Frazer of his book that it is available online in http://www.bartleby.com

No, I'm not "Perun". I'm myself.


Petr

Hey Marlaud, do you happen to go by the name "edward gibbon" on the Original Dissent?

If so, I remember you quoting that biased tripe by James Frazer there too.


Petr

Petr, that was uncalled for. Marlaud is far more intelligent than Edward Gibbon IMHO. Marluad for example has not told us to stick sperm covered fingers up our butts or when faced with an argument he cant answer simply retorts "I wrote a 500 page book about this!"

And outside his posts dealing with Christianity(which are largely based on misunderstandings of the faith), Marlaud does make intelligent posts on issues related to politics and sociology.

Welcome back, Petr. Where is Paleoleftist these days?

I would argue (this deserves further elaboration later), that Westerners owe more to Classical rationalism for their liberal cancer than Christianity.


I am not, however, chickens##t, and therefore I admit that Christianity, like all powerful doctrines, contains elements that can be mightily abused, in many different ways, one of which is liberalism.


The thing is, Islam is even more consistently "egalitarian" than Christianity, but that doesn't stop fierce ethnic clashes and class conciousness developing in Muslim societies all the time.


Islam and Egalitarianism

By Dr. Mohammad Omar Farooq May 11, 2003, 14:07

"Islam also repudiates vulgar forms of nationalism that artificially aggrandize one's own people over others on no moral basis. Various demarcations of people based on groups, tribes, ethnicities or nationalities are quite alright, as it is natural for the humanity as a social entity. However, that is primarily to know each other in terms of our lineage, not to aggrandize oneself. Islam further reinforces this universality on the basis of not a man (Adam), but a man and a woman (Adam and Eve) and educates us that there is no virtue based on race, color, language, geographical location, wealth, or gender. Islam offers only one criterion for assessing ourselves. Taqwa (God-consciousness that makes people humble, caring and morally upright). "

O mankind! We created you from a single (pair) of a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that ye may know each other (not that yemay despise (each other). Verily the most honoured of you in the sight of Allah is (he who is) the most righteous of you (atqakum). And Allah has full knowledge and is well acquainted (with all things). [49/al-Hujurat/13]"


http://nation.ittefaq.com/artman/exec/view.cgi/4/1271



So we could ask, "is liberalism the necessary outcome of ISLAM?"

I would argue that since Muslims haven't been exposed to Classical rationalist egalitarianism, their religious "theological equality" hasn't developed into secular egalitarianism.

As any neocon will tell you, not one Muslim society is a genuine democracy, let alone liberal one.


Also, in Eastern Orthodox Churches the connections between abstract "equal before God" doesn't quite translate into secular "all men are equal (by themselves)" either - right, Perun?

There must made a distinction between very logical "equal before God" idea - it's like "equal before law" - , and the nonsensical "equal by THEMSELVES", a secular idea indicating that all men/women are equally capable, when right conditions are provided.


Petr

Also, in Eastern Orthodox Churches the connections between abstract "equal before God" doesn't quite translate into secular "all men are equal (by themselves)" either - right, Perun?


Yes this is true. In fact when I have time I can elaborate on this further about how the Orthodox do have a concept of a kind of hierarchal egalitarianism(as I call it), where the Tsar and the peasent are equals before God within the community yet the Tsar still has power over the peasent. The Russian general Suvorov commanded armies on this basis: he basically lived the life of the common peasent soldier and shared in their daily activities and such yet still maintained strict observance of rank. But yes, metaphysical equality before God does not equal(no pun intended) physical equality.

Also Petr is right that much of what we see in Liberalism has roots in Greek thinking. I've just been reading about the Cynics and Stoics for example and how they praised the universal and the individual(especially the Cynics). More on this later.

Fade, when I have time I'll re-post what I wrote.

- "Also Petr is right that much of what we see in Liberalism has roots in Greek thinking. I've just been reading about the Cynics and Stoics for example and how they praised the universal and the individual(especially the Cynics)."


I have an excellent example of this. It is about Seneca, quite an overrated thinker, Nero's tutor, sodomite and one of the most important Stoic "philosophers" of antiquity.


I recently read it from Ethelbert Stauffer's book "Christ and the Caesars" (1955), page 138, where he quoted Dio Cassius:

...

"Some readers will perhaps find the portrait of Seneca, which is rather pre-supposed than outlined in the following pages, somewhat unusual. I depart from the traditional account only in thinking it necessary to take the actual facts of his life as seriously as the rhetoric of his "philosophical" writings. The gulf between the two was described by an ancient historian:

"Not only in this (adultery) but in everything else his actions were sharply opposed to his philosophy. He condemned tyranny, and became the teacher of a tyrant. He despised those who curried favour with the mighty, and could not himself be persuaded to leave the palace. He attacked flatterers violently, and paid court to the empress and the freedmen of Claudius in a panegyric of which he was later so ashamed that he denied its authorship. He reviled the rich, and himself was a millionaire. He contracted a brilliant marriage, but amused himself with young boys, and encouraged Nero in the same courses, though at first he acted very puritanically and besought Nero to spare him kisses and common meals, in order that he might have leisure to philosophize" (Dio Cassius, 61, 10, abridged) -

...

Ladies and gentlemen, I think we have just found a perfect Classical prototype of a modern hypocritical "limousine liberal."

Seneca would have been right at home in Hollywood, lecturing local tinseltown morons about "morality" with Shmuely Boteach.


Petr

- "It was not a Greek cynic who said "that there is not Greek, neither Jew.. just one in Christ" but the very Saint Paul, one of the Founders Fathers of the Judeo-Christian Church."


Tsk tsk Marlaud, selective quoting.

The whole verse goes like this:


" Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. "


And now anyone with normal IQ and/or unbiased attitude will see that Paul's pronouncement is clearly meant to be understood metaphorically, for as any liberal can tell you, Paul didn't dig faggotry or even men wearing long hair (or women short hair), and yet here he says: "neither male or female"...


And of course Paul told servants to obey their masters, and even respect them even more after they had converted to Christianity:

1 Timothy 6:1-2:

"Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed. And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort.” "


So much about reading the "neither bond or free" part with wooden literalism...


And if I may so, it is quite MEDIOCRE to rely on this one Galatians verse alone to prove what kind of wild-eyed egalitarian liberals early Christians supposedly were. Got anything else?


Petr

I will reply to this later on this afternoon.

Yes I know that, but I doubt that the Cynic post-socratic philosophy it has had as much influence in the European thought as it has the Christian Universalism. On the other hand, I never have said that the whole pre-Christian thought has been completely admirable, as Nietzsche did before I have rejected many of the post-Socratic thought (especially the Cynic and Stoic philosophies and some of the Platonic ideas), because it was precursory of some Christian ideas (for example, the ontologic dualism and the platonic otherworldiness and rejection of this world), ideas that Christianity incorporates to its doctrine.

The following article it is interesting because it points out an Oriental origin (Taoist) to the Universalism of the Cynics and Christianity.




"Neither Jew nor Greek". Peter Myers,

http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/neither.html.

Commentary on St Paul's text from Galations 3:28 is by F. Gerald Downing, in his book Paul and the Cynics. Downing has pioneered the study of the similarities between early Christianity and the Cynic philosophical movement; his main book is Christ and the Cynics: downing.html.

The Cynics were independent thinkers in the mould of Socrates (whom one must free from Plato's political use of him to promote Sparta), and advocates of the simple life; they had similarities with the early Taoists.

(1) F. Gerald Downing, Paul and the Cynics (2) "there is no male or female" (3) Alain Danielou on the link between the Cynics of Greece and the ascetics of India (4) "Why do you quote the Bible without believing in God?"

(1) F. Gerald Downing, Paul and the Cynics (Routledge, London, 1998).
{p. 12} 'There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male or female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus' (Gal 3:28).

{p. 13} In his very thorough discussion H. D. Betz commends the standard derivation of the first pair as arising from Hellenistic Judaism and the early Christian mission, where "mission" and "Hellenization" must necessarily have become one and the same thing. But Paul's formula does not say, 'x becomes y', 'Hellene becomes Jew' or 'Jew becomes Hellene'. It says neither x nor y. It thus contrasts with the note from Plutarch cited in illustration by Betz, Plutarch's account of the effects of Alexander's campaigns, where every man of excellence was to be seen as a Hellene, every corrupt man as a barbarian. In Galatians we have instead, quite bluntly, 'neither'.

{p. 14} In fact it is among Cynics, claiming to be kosmopolitai, citizens of the world, that the similar frequently opposed pairs, 'Hellenes and barbarians' or '... Persians', 'Scythians' and so on, are ruled irrelevant (rather than honorary transfer being accorded). So Antisthenes rules foreign or mixed origin irrelevant, as does Demonax {footnote: Anisthenes in Diogenes Laertius, 6:1; Lucian, Demonax 34}. Pseudo-Anacharsis 2 insists that 'stupidity ... is the same for barbarians as for Greeks'. In pseudo-Diogenes 7 only a Cynic escapes the common slavishness of Greeks and barbarians {footnote: Ps.-Anacharsis, ps-Diogenes, etc., in A.J. Maltherbe, ed. (1977)}. Dio's Diogenes excels Greeks and barbarians, and contradicts precisely the kind of picture Plutarch presents of Alexander's unifying Hellenization, belittling the contrasts Greek-Persian, slave-free (and, less explicitly) male-female (true 'manliness' is not male superiority over women, but anyone's superiority over the passions). Dio's Diogenes also insists, 'Bad people are injurious to all who make use of them, whether Phrygian or Athenians, bond or free' (ean te phruges osin ean te Athenaioi, ean te eleutheroi ean te douloi.) {footnote: Dio Chrysostom (of Prusa), Discourse 9.1, and 4.4-6 and 73-74, etc.; and the passage quoted, 10.4 (L.CL)}
{p. 16} The full extent of the divergence from hallowed custom can only be gauged from hints in Paul's letters. But the impact of what is related must have been considerable. Becoming 'neither Jew nor Greek' was a major step with massive implications for 'Greeks' (quite as significant as it was for Jews) ... {end of quotes}.

Paul's "universal" Christianity had as its main rival the "Jewish" faction of Christianity, Jerusalem-based and led by James, which retained circumcision, the kosher food taboos and pharisaic legalism. James' faction disappeared after the Jewish uprising was put down by the Romans in 70AD. Downing shows that early Christianity of St Paul's faction, far from being bigoted-fundamentalist or militant-zealot, was a broadminded movement grounded in the most universalist part of Hellenistic philosophy, on which it explicitly drew; this Cynic philosophy is also comparable to the best of Chinese philosophy (early Taoism) as well.

F. Gerald Downing, in his book Chist and the Cynics, shows that the Early Christians followed the Cynic philosophy, much like the Taoist: downing.html.
More on the Cynics, and other Hellenistic philosophies: http://www.fsmitha.com/h1/ch12.htm.

And if I may so, it is quite MEDIOCRE to rely on this one Galatians verse alone to prove what kind of wild-eyed egalitarian liberals early Christians supposedly were. Got anything else?


But we can show the Aquinas' City of God (a Universal State) as an example of the egalitarian Christian Universalism.

Peter Myers is an Aussie kook that has spent too much time in the Orient and "gone native" in his thinking, IMHO. He lifts uncritically stuff from wildly diverse sources, some of them good, some laughable.

Here's one question that he asks on his website, here:

http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/


"Western Civilization seems to be dying: the older generation is being prevented (by the "Open Conspirators") from transmitting it to the younger generation. We're going through something like Mao's Cultural Revolution, with its attack on the "Four Olds". But was there ever such a thing as "Western Civilization"? Was it something Europe invented to justify White Dominance?"


Petr

Peter Myers is an Aussie kook that has spent too much time in the Orient and "gone native" in his thinking, IMHO. He lifts uncritically stuff from wildly diverse sources, some of them good, some laughable.
Petr

Yeah, yeah, the old ad hominen argument, as you cannot refute what Myers says on the Oriental character of some Christian and Cynic doctrines, then you insult him calling him "kook".

- "But we can show the Aquinas' City of God (a Universal State) as an example of the egalitarian Christian Universalism."


Some definitive citations would be nice to back up such a sweeping assertion.

Like me and Perun have said, there is a world of difference between theological "equality before God" (as before the law) and secularist "equality of ability" (environment makes us what we are, and all can perform more or less similarly if just given a chance).

Do you find any examples of the latter in Aquinas?

And by the way, did you mean to say AUGUSTINE'S City of God?


Petr

Yes, but at the end the consequences of both egalitarian doctrines on the biocultural diversity and against racialism they are the same. Both reject / or devaluate) that makes different to the men and they favor everything that makes them similar (based on a spiritual or biological equality).

Not all the anti-racists and other egalitarians believe in an equality in abilities, biology, etc between individuals and peoples, but rather many believe in a metaphysical equality and because all the humans possess that equality (or character) that it transcends all their differences, we should treat them in the same way (equality of treatment).

And by the way, did you mean to say AUGUSTINE'S City of God?

Yes, I have confused Aquinas with Agustine. In the other post I mean Augustine's City of God .

Do you oppose the concept of "equality before law", Marlaud?

Would you rather adopt a discriminatory Talmudic system where there is consistently one rule for one group and another for others?

Or, another example: should those with more money and influence win their court cases against their economically non-equal competitors - in another words, plutocracy?

There simply is "equality", and then there are different kinds of "equalities": you can't frown upon all of them in the same manner as if they were all alike.

For you see, some equalities are more equal than others.


Petr

Marlaud is far more intelligent than Edward Gibbon IMHO.

LOL Maurland the "postmodernist" is more intelligent then one of the world's greatest historians... you see Perun this kind of "intelligence" you people seem to have is why I was so much against the Bush amnesty.

You just pwned yourself, otto.

"edward gibbon" is the name of one of the posters on the "Original Dissent" forum, as any careful reader of this thread would have realized.


Petr

You just pwned yourself, otto.

"edward gibbon" is the name of one of the posters on the "Original Dissent" forum, as any careful reader of this thread would have realized.


Petr

Opps... with Perun "you've got to vunder".