Per #893: “That which we doubt can have no claim on us.”
My! What a captivating discussion you are having here, dear boop. Thank you for including me.
Puts me in mind of Tocqueville:
“It is clear from the works of Plato that many philosophical writers, his predecessors or contemporaries, professed materialism. These writers have not reached us or have reached us in mere fragments. The same thing has happened in almost all ages; the greater part of the most famous minds in literature adhere to the doctrines of a spiritual philosophy. The instinct and the taste of the human race maintain those doctrines; they save them often in spite of men themselves and raise the names of their defenders above the tide of time. It must not, then, be supposed that at any period or under any political condition the passion for physical gratifications and the opinions which are superinduced by that passion can ever content a whole people. The heart of man is of a larger mold; it can at once comprise a taste for the possessions of earth and the love of those of heaven; at times it may seem to cling devotedly to the one, but it will never be long without thinking of the other.” (Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy In America, Volume II, Second Book, Chapter XV, pg 146)
To this, Tocqueville says a page earlier: “Most religions are only general, simple, and practical means of teaching men the doctrine of the immortality of the soul. That is the greatest benefit which a democratic people derives from its belief, and hence belief is more necessary to such a people than to all others. When, therefore, any religion has struck its roots deep into a democracy, beware that you do not disturb it; but rather watch it carefully, as the most precious bequest of aristocratic ages. Do not seek to supersede the old religious opinions of men by new ones, lest in the passage from one faith to another, the soul being left for a while stripped of all belief, the love of physical gratifications should grow upon it and fill it wholly.” (Ibid, pg 145)
“In the passage from one faith to another,” many seek to replace the Judeo-Christian tradition in America with a materialistic faith that bears none but a bitter fruit that dumps one out on a desolate landscape. We know that such is not the case with friend kosta. He seeks a more fulfilling answer, but much of what he argues sends many off to that desolate landscape mentioned above. So, he can hardly expect less than emphatic dispute.
BTW, FWIW, after my own fashion, I do believe in talking donkeys. They provide a sometimes much needed comic relief (and it is often the case that with it, comic relief brings its own profound truth).
I seek neither to replace one for another, nor do I wish to "convert" anyone, nor do I expect praise. I simply ask of those who claim to see and understand the unseen divinity to describe it for me in real terms.
Oh thank you so much for your kind words, dear YHAOS! With which you bring this thread back full circle to the article at the top.
In a nutshell, the article compares and contrasts the Anglo-American with the Franco-German philosophical traditions, with their respective ramifications for social and political life. The Anglo-American view traditionally, historically, is "under God." It holds God to be the creator and source of human rights, and also as the primary law-giver in the universe. In contrast, the Franco-German view seeks to describe a universe without God.
I have to thank dear kosta for his exemplification of the Franco-German approach.
Thank you ever so much for writing, dear YHAOS! I'm delighted you have found this discussion captivating!