A response to the death of God that doesn’t kowtow to secular modernity in any way
The experience of the Iranian Revolution has demonstrated “the obvious inexhaustibility of religious factors in the evolution of society”, on the one hand, and the ability of Islam to adapt to modern realities, on the other.
What about the Amish, huh? Can you say this about the Amish?
The idea is to maintain a connection to the transcendent without abandoning science.
With the state of the west, honestly, if even science was abandoned so what?
No no, we could never do that. Unless? I’m kidding. The scientific attitude in excess is a serious problem though. Iran is one of the only examples in the world of a theocracy that conducts science. What about Saudi Arabia? The Saudis work with Satan. If they team up with Israel and the US they’re not my friend, maybe they’re your friend. I strive for finer and finer discrimination- is there something redeeming about the Amish? Yes. The Saudis, yes. They’re also evidently not ideal. Nor is Iran. We’re trying to find the “most ideal”. Russia has a chief rabbi, is that ideal? Burning a rabbi alive sounds more ideal to me. Whatever leads to where the US is at now, that’s what I’m trying to avoid, and I’ll do whatever it takes to avoid that. Did white women, prior to suffrage, wear headscarves for centuries? No, we obviously don’t need those. Under Harris, when perpetually PMSing girlbosses are barking orders at you, you might start to think differently of headscarves. When God leaves the picture, this is one of the consequences. Men are gods, and uppity feminists shake their fists at them denying that they’re real. Same with atheists, they can deny God all they want, that doesn’t change the fact that God is God and you are merely human. Most people can’t handle this. The west exists in a state of confusion, I’m not confused, so all of this is nothing to me, I believe in God, and I see women as humble beings. Just because you don’t believe in God, and see women as superheroes doesn’t make God not real and women not humble. You’re only choosing to live in illusion in that case, probably because you are a humble being yourself who’s too dim to see reality. You want our society to flourish? Then you’ll have to accept certain things like this. Otherwise you’re just a minion of Satan, and the chances are you probably are.
It’s fun to examine the academic publications of Iran, it isn’t abnormal to see something like this
Americans tend to not be able to read a title like that without some feeling of contempt. It’s because they have a false mental imagination of God. Maybe you’re a weird one like me and find it refreshing to see an academic article titled like that? Platonistic jargon is still too humanistic for me – Ideas – humans have ideas, what “created” the ideas in the first place, and the humans that have them? God is the idea above all ideas. Thus I appreciate the Iranians for not mincing words and using accurately terminology to refer to the Ultimate Reality. How vulgar is it to think of the Ultimate Reality as the idea of Diversity. You might laugh, many seem to really believe in this form of divinity. That’s what a vulgar atheist would believe, yes. It’s too easy to Socratize them, hence people who do that are banned. Why is diversity good? Diversity is good. Why is the good good? The good is good because it makes people happy. Living in a ghetto where you can’t walk the streets at night makes people happy? Having a ruling-class of merchants makes people happy? Being a cat lady on SSRIs makes people happy? Obviously you haven’t thought out what “the good” is, and why diversity is good, why diversity is the highest divinity. If we restored the transcendent element in life then all of these things would fall into place naturally. People hate all this because they approach it from the perspective of immanence. Immanentism is the implicit ontology of equality. Politics is only surface, we’re wondering about the nature of reality here. If someone told you that the nature of reality is that people who are part of the merchant caste have less humanity than a poet who martyrs herself for truth, what would you say? You’d disagree, because everyone is equal? It’s the nature of reality that merchants don’t have the most admirable souls. Who should govern us? Probably people with the most admirable souls, right? You can use your imagination of what that can mean, it’s just to give you the idea that not all castes are the same. The highest “caste” is God, and none of the human castes are the same as God, certainly. Unless you approach this from the perspective of immanence, in which case this just sounds like nonsense, because everyone to you is the same and God doesn’t exist. If everyone is the same, do you like those who are in power? No? Then why don’t you like them? They don’t have admirable souls? What are you some kind of fascist? You have no ground to stand on to criticize those in power unless you presuppose that some souls are different than other souls. Congress is packed with lawyers, do you tend to have a flattering idea of lawyers? They’re of a certain caste, brahmins they are not. I know some female brahmins, mostly academics, though even they can’t help to be guardians a lot of the time. We’re talking about distance from God here. Chandalas are furthest removed. Would you prefer to be governed by people with souls who are furthest from God? “Yes, because everyone is the same, and there is no God.” So how do you judge those who are in power now, presuming you aren’t content with them?