Response to Melonie:

Melonie, a lot of what you said is just a liberal perspective in alignment with the origins of “Woke” philosophy.


Yes: Christians recognize that people will routinely fail to live up to their obligations and their duties; this is to your credit, since humility is recognized as virtue for that very reason. It is a rejection of the narcissistic notion that your moral obligations are entirely defined by *your* abilities and limitations, rather than the former being a transcendent which goes well beyond those limitations. Yet the purpose that this concept serves is obvious: that we must strive to better ourselves and take whatever opportunities we’re given to transcend those limitations.


Those who take those opportunities have always held a higher standing in the World than those who passed them up, and with good reason. In societies wherein the virtues and the vices were objective, it was not a matter of the “individual” deciding who was to be judged, but rather everyone within the group could tell if someone was a virtuous or vicious person. Grace was not some grand excuse that would exempt an individual from punishment by others; it was simply seen as opportunity for self-improvement, since a person who was graced could overcome one’s ordinary limitations and become a vessel for the God or, in some cultures, Gods. Conversely, missing opportunities or wasting them, as such, was called a “fall from Grace”; if Grace were absolute and pardoned all transgressions, none could “fall”.


This was not lost on Kierkegaard, who wrote about the tendency for “leveling” as the antithesis of truly Christian passion. Treating everyone as equal was a problem for this theologian since it threatened the distinction between Good and Evil. In an Age of Passion, Good and Evil would be seen for what they are and properly combatted. Yet the Age of Reason made it so that people started to ignore and to excuse the harsh realities of Evil.


This is by no means a tendency that’s absent from the Woke mentality. “Equality” has ceased to be “equality within the eyes of God” and rather an appropriation of those Christian concepts, such as Grace, to make Society an even flatland. It is not that social activists embrace the right to criticize; they rather hate the very fact that they are criticized, since it reminds them of their own inferiority. This is the reason why they boo the likes of Elon Musk and they begrudge the likes of Dave Chapelle for mocking them.


You’re wrong to think that they are doing all of this to play at being God. They lack the confidence to play that part. They only want the benefits of living in a godless World where only God can judge them, meaning no one can, and that is why they cancel *criticism* more than anything.


**[({R.G.)}]** 👼


**This Page has been Optimized for Discord.**

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

First Response to Hazmat: Absolutist Ethics.

Image
Yes: I value the opinions of others, insofar as I can vouch for their integrity. Yet that requires that they fervently believe that what they say is true, that they can stand beside it, put it into practice, and uphold it as a sacred principle, as though it were a Higher Power which compelled them. It thus follows that, so long as an opinion is valid, one must validate it not by merely practicing that view within one’s own life, but by holding others to it. One cannot impose morality on anyone, because morality is binding on us all, in equal measure, and one’s only burden is to fathom it, to the extent one can, and to uphold it. That is not an imposition; it’s an obligation, and, without it, we have nothing. You once asked me: “At what point is it an evil to impose one’s views of righteousness on someone else?” I’ll answer with the obvious: at no point, whatsoever, since it is impossible. Where Righteousness is what’s at stake, one can’t “impose on someone else”, as though one posed a
Read more

Justice for R. Kelly: a Reflection on the State of Eros. (Dedicated to the Lady Jerri.)

  I've been reading, recently, about the life of Robert Kelly, whom you'd recognize from *Space Jam*'s soundtrack, the "Ignition" remix, and his many other hits, such as "Trapped in the Closet". It just breaks my heart to see how he was treated, not just as a child who had to grow up much too fast, but also as an adult, even after having given us such heartfelt, soulful music. I could never reconcile those sweet and sentimental, loving, sometimes mystifying tones with the entire image of a sex offender; he was a Don Juan, but not Don Giovanni.   Clearly, that same mainstream media that made him famous had betrayed him, while the legal system, which was never there for him when he himself most needed and deserved it, in the tenderness of youth, went well beyond its obligations in defence of "children". The hypocrisy is not the part which angers me, as it is so ironic that it's laughable, and that alleviates some of the sadness of this gr
Read more

The Early Death of Any Future Peace:

  The biggest problem with the issue of abortion seems, at first, to be that no one wants to talk about it *as* a controversial issue. All the major arguments which either “side” reiterates have been around for roughly half a century at least, and we have made no progress in resolving them in the last forty years. This does not stop idealogues from acting like the matter’s settled and that *their* side won, however.   Yet beyond the moderate, “politically correct” and “civil” surface of the issue lies the deeper issue: Hardly anybody wants to talk about abortion *in itself*, and those who advocate for “choice” (and, by extension, for abortion, as it has to be a choice) are those least willing to discuss *the act itself* and whether it is good or evil to commit.   Instead, we hear from advocates for “choice” a slew of beautiful ideals, impassioned speeches, and redundant platitudes: -    the value of one’s bodily autonomy, -    the need for women to receive protection in a m
Read more