Oh, of course. I didn't mean to suggest otherwise, in fact, Napoleon had a sort of proto-EU in hand before the first exile.
In any case the "philosophy" of AH was entirely derivative. What was new, what shook the foundations of Europe in the 1930s, was the emotion, the fusion of the romantic with the modern and scientific.
I lived in Europe in the 70s, and the young soi-disant Europeans who constantly repeated "we're not French, we're not Germans, we're Europaischers" were not at all convincing to me. Maybe things have changed.
There was and is, though, a deep spiritual longing to believe.
To believe in what-that's the question. To believe in Man, to believe in community, to believe in the primacy of the (greatly expanded) tribe (which still does not include God's chosen)-Arbeit macht frei.
Beware.
"Oh, of course. I didn't mean to suggest otherwise, in fact, Napoleon had a sort of proto-EU in hand before the first exile.
In any case the "philosophy" of AH was entirely derivative. What was new, what shook the foundations of Europe in the 1930s, was the emotion, the fusion of the romantic with the modern and scientific."
It is a thorough pleasure to read your insightful remarks, really! And yes, that is a valid point you make there.
"I lived in Europe in the 70s, and the young soi-disant Europeans who constantly repeated "we're not French, we're not Germans, we're Europaischers" were not at all convincing to me. Maybe things have changed.
There was and is, though, a deep spiritual longing to believe."
But I think the "longing to believe" is an integral part of the human psyche, or, as one could say, a construction flaw. This flaw probably doesn't doom us to destroy each other (As I said, I am rather optimistic in this regard), but it is factor to be reckoned with. The fusion of "the romantic with the modern and scientific" actually isn't the only example of this longing to believe. The typically anglo-saxon "philosophy of history" actually served more or less the same purpose, as it presented a "course of the empire" (from east to west" to justify anglo-saxon supremacy.
Although I'm aware that the German history and identity can be very problematic at times, I find it necessary to point out that this line of thinking isn't purely German or European. It was, to a certain degree, the "esprit du temps" of the 20th century. Also, almost every kind of religiously motived politics goes into a similar direction.
"To believe in what-that's the question. To believe in Man, to believe in community, to believe in the primacy of the (greatly expanded) tribe (which still does not include God's chosen)-Arbeit macht frei.
Beware."
Yes. I fully agree. That's why I, personally, believe in democracy, in society (Gesellschaft) rather than community (Gemeinschaft), in the seperation of church and state and so forth... that's why I consider myself a conservative (with a touch of classical liberalism) and not a nationalist.
Nationalism, i.e. the belief in the supremacy of one's extended tribe, is a threat to every democracy, not only in Europe.