• Overview, Irritation Alert!

in the blind spot

~ Philosophy in the Dystopian Context

in the blind spot

Tag Archives: deity

The Veil of Illusions

23 Tuesday Dec 2025

Posted by Sandy MacDonald in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

caring, culture, deity, embodiment, empathy, evil, History, hive-mind, ideality, nationality, patriarchy, philosophy, religion, spirituality, theology, value, violence

Fragment 219, Word Count: 2,841.

Tags: empathy, caring, evil, deity, nationality, hive-mind, value, patriarchy, violence, embodiment, philosophy, culture, theology, ideality.

The Cultural Veil

There is a culturally conditioned veil of illusions that stands in the way of any ordinary acquaintance with some of the most important features of life as a personal subjectivity. The blocked features of subjective existence, however, remain relevant and ready to be appreciated. We human individuals derive joy and meaning from imitating people around us, from attaching emotionally and soaking up culture like sponges. Within the general culture of ways of thriving in a particular surroundings, there are also fanciful speculations, stories that misconstrue the powers and necessities that determine events in the world, exaggerations of common fears and wishes that make them fetishistic and barriers to important discoveries. All of the cultural complexes that contribute to the veil of illusions also contribute to a general nastiness of life shaped by their influence, forming the distinctly dystopian societies so familiar to us. Of course, even the most dystopian societies have factions who benefit from the arrangements and are pleased with themselves and with pretty much everything. It is those factions who are especially empowered to create, and be heroes of, the stories that depict their societies, and part of their culture is to celebrate stability and heroic resistance to change. Broadly speaking, this is the overall situation that inspires much of the mental and literary tradition of philosophy.

The Lens of Orientation

Our sense of being at a particular place, doing what we are doing, involves far more then what can be perceived from any given location. We work within a sort of interior model of all the routes we have moved through and we reorient the model as we reorient and place ourselves within a broad sense of the arrangement of things, the arrangement featuring our important destinations, especially featuring the personalities with whom we share an emotional attachment. Ordinary perception is mainly a selectively targeted sensory confirmation that current actuality conforms to what we are expecting based on our elaborate sense of place, directionality, and the possible personal futures already sketched out from elements of previous experiences and from intentions we have to advance personal dramas. This interior orientation serves as a sophisticated lens through which we selectively direct attention, searches, and applications of effort at the surroundings. All the cultural complexes we learn, including speculations, stories, and exaggerations, are, by that learning, incorporated into the structure of our personal orientation lens and they contribute decisively to the shape and the mood of the world we move and live within.

Illusions of Masculine Supremacy

One of the strongest complexes in the dystopian veil of illusions is the culture of masculine supremacy, macho or patriarchal culture. Traditional masculine values are illustrated in stories of ancient Greek and Roman warriors: hardness, strength, endurance, courage, self-promotion, and disregard for weaker beings. Before theocratic Christianity there was the crime family aristocracy of the strongest, dedicated to trophy hoarding. Capital was wealth-generating real estate, and the land-hoarding aristocracy cultivated the ancient culture of organized violence with the intent of looting as the means of possessing capital. Specialists in coercive force cultivate athletic proficiency with weapons, readiness for aggression, the hyper-masculine ethos adulating strength, violence, kinetic action, competitive conflict, and properties that need armed protection. Trophy property is understood as the actualization, the manifest proof, of personal worth, and is normally accompanied by contempt for mere subjective interiority.

Patriarchy, institutionalized sovereign rights of father-figures, is an overt expression of the guiding principle of masculine dominance: that the strongest have rights over everyone else, rights to the property and lives of the weaker, the right to be parasitic on the weaker. Such assumptions derive from the traditional family in which the father is the strongest and women and children are assumed to lack even a minimum competence. This culture worships and celebrates competition for the benefits of dominance. The key benefit of dominance is top-down human-on-human parasitism, from which other benefits flow. Many such benefits are the symbols and pageantry of dominance, for example in the scale of property possession and in relationships shaped by hierarchical master/slave inequality. Money culture, market wealth, is a branch of dominance culture because the scale of property possession is crucial in the pageantry and symbolism of dominance. Part of this alpha-trophy culture is denigration of alternative culture streams (such as the scribal/ literary tradition, the socially crucial child-nurturing culture, or varieties of interior spirituality) defining them as inferior and dependent, keeping them in some degree of dishonour and disgrace. The alpha-trophy culture of blood-sport dominance developed into military institutions as well as non-lethal competitive gaming and sports, into corporate culture and violence-ready sovereign states. There is a growing recognition of just how much the misogynist, racist, and predatory culture of hyper-masculinity is structured into the fabric of economic and political institutions.

The once ubiquitous culture of masculine dominance constructed and spread a certain kind of human bonding featuring strict hierarchies of authority maintained by operations of a core culture of violence with high value assigned to trophies of violence. It created aristocracy as a control-by-coercive-force faction in viciously top-down hive-minds nominally justified by a totalitarian father-god ideology in which everything is seen as pre-determined by an inexplicable occult masculine force, irritable, harsh, and quick to take offence, appeased only by displays of abject and gleefully grateful submission. Dominance culture asserts that this style of tightly controlled human clustering demanding conformity, exclusive emotional attachment and pageantry typical of religion, is the inevitable working of nature (especially human nature). However, these dystopian hierarchies of violence are the artifacts of a particular evil: the targeted denial of empathy. With the gradual development of alternative cultures, those large scale structures of attachment, by which individuals bind themselves into dystopian hive-mind collectives, start breaking down.

There is an ancient equivocation in the claim that human beings are essentially communal, such as Aristotle’s assertion that man is a polis animal. Aristotle’s claim makes it seem that the choice is between submission to a patriarchal sovereign state or just starkly solitary existence. That is a ridiculously oversimplified falsehood. Although sociability is crucial to the kinds of work and play within which humans can thrive, sociability is best fulfilled in the absence of violence, hierarchy, or self-denial by any individual. Patriarchal top-down command is sometimes justified by the idea that individuals are nothing but bundles of hard-wired drives for egoistic gratification, if they aren’t taught fear of superior power and a deferential orientation upward toward figures representing the overwhelming forces of religion and armed institutions. However, no matter how it is officially defended, the largely gratuitous nastiness of life in patriarchal societies is obvious and undeniable.

Illusions of Disembodied Supremacy

The veil of illusions also includes the fanciful metaphysics expressed in stories of disembodied intelligences: angels, demons, and deities, capricious free-floating entities who somehow care about and seem to have a stake in human behaviour, purportedly because humans were created by the will and power of these entities to be their toys and playthings. These stories are made frightening and also enticing by supposing that spirit-beings have unlimited powers, which means they must be considered and placated in all things to turn them into kind guardians instead of demanding and punishing masters. Imagining that the world at large and in detail is the deliberate act of an unpredictably powerful thinking and caring agency, often capricious, sometimes inexplicably malicious, means that acting in a way that pleases or placates that force, generally on the say-so of opaque but charismatic social authorities, just might have the effect of making the world a more benign situation. This cultural stream expresses a confusion about intelligence itself such that the cosmos at large somehow expresses a super-intelligence that pre-determines how everything should be (yet not always how it is!), but with some degree of negotiable grace as a reward for formulaic pageantry expressing extravagant praise, fearful self-abasement, and symbolic sacrifice.

The idea of a divine plan and a supernatural planner who irresistibly determines everything has been crucial in legitimizing the lethal power of patriarchal sovereignty. Divine personality has been conceived as all-powerful creator, judge, and ever-present tester and score-keeper of human persons, the model of fatherly sovereignty as absolute ownership over the less powerful. Cultures of disembodied intelligences insist on adulating the cosmic almighty who promotes its earthly kindred spirits: the mighty of the earth. With such  a capricious and all powerful patriarchal deity, the crucial focus of orientation is divine commands, and ethical action is obeying a list of rules, duties, obligations, virtues, and vices. Nature in this vision is the actualized will of the divine personality. The idea of divinity sustaining the world by uttering commands and projecting divine will into human affairs through sovereignty of the strongest is, in a variety of forms, ancient and deeply embedded in human societies.

Teleology of creation is the crucial identifier of personality, of spiritual existence both human and divine. It encompasses conceiving and enacting, moment by moment, the future conditions of things in the world. Teleology is ideality: curiosity, caring, seeking, supposing, questioning, knowing (accumulating orientation through discoveries), and fountaining specific preferences expressed in deliberate actions or voice-utterances within the ceaselessly changing context of temporality. Religion makes personality the creative source of everything, recognizing teleology as transcendently alive, creative, caring, and expressive, but truly at home only at some dimly imagined cosmic horizon, making individual human consciousness a frail echo of the cosmic master. Human ideality as a mode of existence was recognized as carrying with it the vestige of an insubordinate claim to equal and rival the divine. Here, in the frightening sameness of human and divine existence, is the source of the idea of original sin and inherent guilt which all humans are supposed to share and which supposedly taints the existence of humanity. In the context of widespread fear of an all-powerful supernatural watcher, this sensed sameness, made miserable for humans by the needs and indignities of embodied living, was enough to create a perverse appetite for denigration of human personality, part of an effort to distance embodied ideality from any but the weakest claim to divine-like creative freedom, on the hope that denigration of embodiment would atone for this plausible claim to divinity and so eventually qualify human individuals for an eternal afterlife finally free of embodiment. This is the root superstition that makes creationist deism toxic and destructive. Its denigration of human personality created the context for every kind of cruelty, insult, and injury in human relations, perversely sanctifying human-on-human parasitism.

The patriarchal conception of cosmic teleology inspired and sanctified very rigid, restricted, exploitative, and repressively hierarchical societies, dedicated to the culture of violet masculinity, and determined to remain essentially static for eternity, supposedly to persuade the cosmic power to tilt benign. Such are the foundations of our current dystopian patriarchies. In the long transition through childhood to the adult condition everyone is trained in this fabric of perverse superstition. The original rationale for sovereign government as it still exists is this nasty dystopian fable. These societies are not echoes of divine nature but expressions of misconceptions and superstitions developed into enduring cultures, the most extreme fears and fantasies institutionalized and culturally enforced.

Illusions of Collective Supremacy

The veil of illusions also includes distorted national histories that promote a sense of collective identity by highlighting emotional dramas uniquely involving a population defined by geographical location. Within the general culture there are certain limitlessly imposing political super-structures, culture-based arrangements of authority and dependence which bind clusters of people together by a shared sense of norms of conduct and of the power centres that enforce them. These are top-down arrangements of coercive power and access to resources, which seek emotional possession of individuals, forming a shared group orientation, a hive-mind which benefits from each individual’s gifts, abilities, and energy.

It has been asserted as self-evident that individuals need, as part of a general need for felt supervision or authority, a dominant collective attachment, emotional and cognitive identification with the master narrative of a collective entity, something like a home hive, as a crucial element of personal identity and sense of meaning. That assertion is supposed to account for the fact that each modern sovereign state is still, in spite of progressive influences, a personified territorial power demanding reverent patriotic devotion, worship, sacrifice, and obedience enforced by an iron fist of law, tax, and lethal military force. Each state has its edifice of theatrical pageantry and symbolism to invoke the unity and sacred grandeur of the collective: flags, monuments, and anthems, oaths and pledges, officials and military officers encrusted with exotic glitter, august regalia and titles; state uniforms and weapons laden with national symbols and emblems; ceremonies of remembrance and renewal of devotion invoking the sacred history and mission of the hive, synchronized movements in processions, special word formulas to be spoken in mass unison. Such pageantry is not intended to encourage creative or rational thinking or the individuality that enables those, but rather to replace thinking with passive embrace of an orthodox official story, a standardized hive-mind. The supposed necessity of hive-mind belonging is used routinely to justify nationalist propaganda, censorship, and violent repression. Such cultural systems often specifically suppress empathy toward people beyond the home collective. Immersion in such a hive-mind can enable individuals to commit acts of cruelty, brutality, and self-destruction that they would not contemplate as de-cultured individuals.

Illusions of Trophy Supremacy

Another cultural stream in the veil of illusions involves the sense of what makes any person good, worthy, or successful, the sense of anyone’s personal score on the goodness scale, the sense of personal value. Even people who are not emotionally invested in the symbols and emblems of their nation state, for example, who do not care about civic celebrations or their nation’s standing among nations, even such non-patriots are likely to be oriented in their sense of personal potential and value (self-worth, personal force of being) within the cultural norms of the economic structures around them, the hierarchy of occupations ranked by wealth and fame, attitudes about the gradients of interesting and eventful lives, and how those things match up with personal abilities and accomplishments.

We have the misfortune of living in a dystopia in which individuals are judged by acquisitiveness and competitiveness, both attaching value to scarcity and objective externality, and in which success as a life-in-progress is measured by ranking an individual’s performances as expressions of those drives. The inevitable spectacle of inequality is itself widely embraced as a value. The commercial sense of earning value through competition is just a light edit of the primal aristocratic value matrix, rooted in the culture of violence, possession of property, and a tightly restricted allowance of empathy. In our dystopia, the great drama is the competitive struggle for scarce prestige, dominance, notice, and trophies to fabricate an exterior depiction of an undiscovered spiritual interior. Our culture’s most trusted authorities assert that the great human drama is to compete for the scarce goods and symbols that show you are fabulous, or at least good enough, that biological drives are inescapable, drives for dominance, excitement, security, or for signs of worldly agreement that you have a place on the spectrum of being fabulous.

Personal Ideality

These complexes, along with similar supremacist-cultures such as family, class, accent, or craft, all keep individuals’ focus directed emphatically outward, away from contributions to experience which originate in personal interiority, in subjective ideality or spirituality. The overwhelming cultural message is that subjective interiority is best kept under strict control, restricted and mostly ignored. This has the effect of making the particulars of the world and of human relationships seem externally controlled and even pre-determined by rigid necessity. There is a distinct charm and comfort in the certainty of essentialism: the fetishistic assumption that everything is as it must be as created by inexplicable but utterly all-determining forces. Essentialism lines up with an urgency to resist change and keep arrangements stable for eternity. With this conception, individuals are merely spectators of the spectacle of events. However, the core concept of personality, of personal spirituality, as already observed above, is teleology of creation, discretionary, improvisational invention in the face of an entirely suppositional future, and the caring ideality with that power exists only at the level of the embodied individual. We are immediately acquainted with caring spirituality only in ourselves and in people around us, however much the idea may be inappropriately projected onto gigantic cosmic mysteries. The metaphysical anomaly of creative teleology at the level of the embodied individual means, first, that individual self-possession is achievable, but also that we must judge a good life partly on how well the veil of illusions has been overcome. Individual spirituality is a basis for universal empathy and mutual respect among animate beings, and political and economic relationships could be re-invented in a way that enables the power of subjectivity instead of denigrating it as is typical in dystopian societies. In a truly spiritual life, the primary source of value is the personally interior creative fountain, and not the rarity of exterior treasures.

Embedded link:

Fragment 218, December 14, 2025 Metaphysics Dawns on the Edge of Creation (word count: 213).

Copyright © 2025 Sandy MacDonald.

Spiritual Existence as a Cloud of Unknowing

10 Saturday May 2025

Posted by Sandy MacDonald in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Christianity, coercive power, de-culturing, deity, existence, god, nothingness, philosophy, religion, Sartre, Socrates, spirituality

Fragment 212, word count: 491.

Tags: spirituality, de-culturing, Socrates, Sartre, nothingness, Deity, coercive power, existence.

The idea of “the cloud of unknowing” was introduced into conversations of philosophy by an unnamed Christian mystic writing in Middle English in the late 14th. century, around the time of Chaucer. In that 14th century Christian culture the thing most worthy and most urgently calling to be known was, of course, God, but even centuries later in a post-Christian culture, the same idea has relevance. The idea was that when someone earnestly seeks to commune with God, to know God directly through prayerful contemplation, what they encounter is not a distinct vision of the divine person but instead a region of experience that is not a nothing but also not a definable something. It is a cloud of unknowing. The anonymous author of The Cloud of Unknowing advises that to contemplate God it is in fact best to contemplate nothing. To contemplate something from experience is necessarily also to contemplate the self as the knower of this something, and so to over-aggrandize the self, which is almost nothing in comparison to the transcendence of God. To practice forgetting in order to empty the contemplative “I” of objects is to come closer to the truth of the spiritual existence of both God and the human person. What a thoroughgoing de-culturing! There is something distinctly Socratic in this. It invokes “my wisdom is knowing that I know nothing”. It also resonates with Sartre’s idea of nothingness: spiritual existence without essence.

The “cloud of unknowing” looms in the event of an individual’s reach for deity because it is the entirety of an individual’s engagement with an external world and with existence generally. Spiritual existence as a human “I”, is never really a categorical knowing, but instead always to some degree a distinct unknowing: a continuous searching, a guessing, a sketching and a supposing. It is a personal act of spiritually making something of what occurs and of what is encountered experientially: tentative and provisional and “good enough to get on with”. The fleeting nature of direct perception and learning experiences leaves its traces in what has been learned, in what is known, so that knowing is also an unknowing. The cloud of unknowing and the cloud of knowing are the same cloud: the drama-cloud of personal existence. This is spirituality, a cloud of active unknowing within which every individual constructs supposings, derived partly from fleeting experiences.

Spirituality without Deity

The ‘spirituality’ that requires a disembodied supernatural parent, lawgiver, enforcer, ledger keeper, surveillance practitioner, and executioner, is always a dystopian cultural tool of parasitic social factions with coercive power over others, used to control through fear. Authentic spirituality derives from the difference between the world that doesn’t matter, brute unintentional entropic and inertial nature, as distinct from the drama-clouds structured individually as a personal “I”. This is the existence that matters to itself and creates reasons for other things to matter through its caring and its needs and impulses.

Embedded link:

Fragment 210, February 13, 2025, Existence as Drama-Cloud (word count: 1,838)

Copyright © 2025 Sandy MacDonald.

Culture War

Featured

Posted by Sandy MacDonald in Culture, Equality, Hierarchy, Nature, Subjectivity, Transcendence

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

capitalism, culture, deity, dystopia, existence, gratification, metaphysics, politics, science, spirituality

Fragment 190, word count: 896.

tags: metaphysics, existence, deity, science, politics, dystopia, capitalism, gratification, culture, spirituality.

There are two opposing explanations for the existence of something instead of nothing. There is existence as intentional act of intervention, OR as non-intentional mere occurrence. In other words, the something that is our world is either a willful intervention by some pre-supposing ideality, the effective personal expression of some monad of caring, knowing, and anticipating intentionality, OR an inexplicable random cascading instability, perhaps manifesting a fundamental and eternally given nature which makes all particular occurrences pre-determined, but which itself, having no prior matrix, is perfectly random. Each of these explanations is a particular statement of metaphysics. The metaphysics of existence as an intentional act of intervention, in a variety of versions, was ubiquitous in human societies for ages, for example in feudal Christendom, and it always joined forces with the culture of patriarchal dominance which exploits and makes concrete the idea of deity by violently imposing the will of the strongest on everyone within reach (sovereign exceptionalism), and by instituting worshipful cult collectives with the softer attractions of grand cosmic visions and close personal belonging. In opposition to explanation by divine intervention, the mere occurrence explanation dawned in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries as the boutique metaphysics of mathematical materialism in the scientific Enlightenment. It began a process of removing wind from the sails of sovereigns and the social structuring around sovereignty. In the current state of modern civilization there remain these same two institutional proponents of metaphysical ideology, each supporting one of the two existential possibilities to the exclusion of the other. Religious institutions champion the deliberate interventionist side, and institutions of science and scientific education champion random occurrence, near enough. This is the shape of our civilization’s foundational culture war. Yet these two have come to an effective peace accord based on the fact that both support the (ready-to-detonate) capitalist incentive and reward system: consumption as identity-defining trophy. Science explains this system as the inevitable working of animal nature, and Christianity explains it as the inscrutable Divine plan in action. Notwithstanding their differences, both sides developed metaphysics on the model of a law-giver, divine law on one side, natural law on the other, and laws always apply top-down (unalterably) to things understood as unalterable building blocks of reality, all tidy and settled in a hierarchical chain of Being extending down into economic and political structure, social roles and relationships, and even into gender and race categories. It is a vision of existence as rigidly pre-structured and is the ideological matrix of the right-wing politics of winner-take-all inequality.

Both bastions of metaphysics are able to embrace the capitalist incentive and reward system because each misconstrues something crucial about the reality it holds dearest. Religious institutions attach themselves to the overriding reality of creative teleological interventions, the power of spirituality for spontaneously expressive novelty, so much so that they project spiritual teleology outward as the great cosmic parent hidden inside all existence, literally deifying it and proclaiming it the origin of everything. By doing that they reduce individual human-scale spirituality to ignorance, vanity, and misery. On the other side, science attaches itself to knowability, the overt public availability of material objectivity. Nothing real is hidden on this view. True reality can be lit up, measured and mapped, identified and specified, depended on as unalterably definite. Science focuses so much on material objectivity that it disappears human experience into mere mechanism. Each of these entrenched metaphysical doctrines so drastically discounts the importance of the other that actual human spirituality is distorted grotesquely by both. Dystopia follows from the denigration of individual-scale human spirituality from which certain factions gain power and benefits. Setting aside the grotesque exclusivity of the sides in this culture war, we are left with ordinary human scale experience which absolutely depends on both novel teleological creativity at the level of individual persons, and with the stability and clear discernibility of some material objectivity. We have no direct experience of deliberative interventions at a cosmic level, but we have no end of experience of them in our everyday social interactions.

Getting beyond the all-destroying capitalist incentive and reward imperative to consume requires getting beyond the outrageous denigration of individual-level spirituality in metaphysical culture. It demands nothing more than a dualistic synthesis of the opposing metaphysical visions in a new configuration: recognition of random occurrence at the cosmic level and of creative novelty, foresight, learning, and personal expression, which is to say, spontaneous spirituality, at the level of the individual person. Removing the genius of agency in our scenario from some top-down imposer of laws, and relocating it instead to ground level where everyone breaths and talks and carries on living day to day, provides a profound equality of persons. The fact is that a standard practice of creativity as personal expression is the most gratifying and self-affirming of experiences. This is the ultimate grounding for democracy because every individual brings an inherent personal fountain of gratification that bypasses the competitive market economics of trade and barter. This is a metaphysics more congruent with a leftist politics of universal dignity, equality, and mutual support. The left has always been weakened by the lack of a strong and special metaphysical foundation, and so the authentic culture war between left and right politics has not yet even really started.

Context:

Fragment 180, August 28, 2021, Existence and New Reality (word count: 505)

Fragment 173, January 30, 2021, Absolute Incompleteness (word count: 202)

Fragment 171, December 9, 2020, Science and Empathy in Defining Dystopia (word count: 779)

Fragment 167, August 28, 2020, Contesting the External Almighty (word count: 3,104)

Fragment 145, April 4, 2019, Desperately Seeking Reality: Scenes From History (word count: 2,189)

Fragment 120, December 24, 2017, Two Problems with the Science Story (word count: 1,352)

Copyright © 2022 Sandy MacDonald.

The Arc of the Monad

09 Thursday Jan 2020

Posted by Sandy MacDonald in Blind spots in thinking, Culture, Hierarchy, Subjectivity, Transcendence

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

agency, consciousness, creativity, deity, Enlightenment, Fichte, History, human nature, idealism, ideas, Kant, knowledge, Leibniz, politics, questioning, science

Fragment 158, word count: 803.

This is the story of a crucial modern rethinking of human nature. The monad is a conception of the organization of ordinary human consciousness presented by Leibniz in 1714. There is no hardware in Leibniz’ vision of the world formed of monads, only individual instances of ordinary consciousness having coherent experiences composed of images and other impressions of a world that does not exist in any other way. In this conception, the world is the setting of some vast number of these subjects having experiences. This world of monads is entirely a world of ideas, a strictly idealist world. In Leibniz’ vision the monads, even though not anchored to a concrete material world, were not self sufficient because the entire content of their consciousness was supplied by an omnipotent deity who had pre-determined everything, every event and change in exact detail, at the moment of creation. Although the monads are “windowless” with no personal agency in constructing knowledge of anything, experiences are coordinated among the monads by the deity to simulate a coherent unity of shared surroundings, in which they seem to engage with one another. Later in the century (1781), Kant’s idealism was a development and modification of this legacy from Leibniz. It focused on understanding instances of ordinary consciousness, but introduced two structural changes. Kant removed the deity as the single supplier of experiences and added hardware in the form of the external “thing in itself”, a surrounding objective world which was not reducible to ideas. Kant’s monads had something like windows onto the external hardware, but their transparency was far from perfect. The “thing in itself” could never be known directly, but Kant was convinced that it must exist as an influence on, and partial source of, the coherent impressions and images that are the content of experience. Following Kant closely (1795), Fichte also engaged with this legacy of ordinary consciousness idealism. His innovation was to remove Kant’s “thing in itself”, the hardware, from the conception of reality, and he didn’t bring back the deity. So, by the end of the eighteenth century with Fichte, the deity was gone along with the hardware (the thing in itself) leaving only truly self-subsisting monadic subjectivities each structured as a distinct “I”. In Fichte’s work these subjectivities are independent sources of suppositions. Each “I” posits, creating the ideas of itself and its entire world from its own interiority. Fichte’s vision effectively eliminates the fundamental distinction in Christendom and creationist monotheism generally between human and divine personality. This is not a declaration of the death of God, but instead a reconceptualization of the place of creative transcendence in human experience.

These are conceptions of idealism in which ideality is always personality, in which all forms of ideality occur together in the living experience of some personality, structured as an elaborate “I”, the subject of a personal drama which is an individual’s life in the world. In the case of Leibniz, one of those personalities was unique by being divine. This idealism (conception of ideality) is special in the history of philosophy as a sharp contrast to more familiar kinds such as Platonic or Hegelian idealism in which the primary ideas are remote, impersonal, and cosmically scaled drivers of nature and history. Monadic idealism is much more compatible with the spirit of science than is creationist monotheism which includes disembodied angels and demons, and it makes sense of the claim that human nature is inclined and competent to conceive questions that enable discoveries and scientific knowledge, which mechanistic science itself fails to explain. (It isn’t enough to stipulate that knowledge comes from experience without accounting for questions.) Monadic idealism did not permanently imprint popular or intellectual culture because it is politically problematic: it does not denigrate human nature sufficiently to support existing political and other hierarchical institutions of social control. Any aspiration for cultural, social, and political change must be founded on idealism of some non-Platonic and non-Hegelian kind, and so such idealism will be feared and loathed by forces of conservatism.

This developmental arc of the conception of monadic ideality marks out the tendency of post-reformation Lutheran-stream Protestant idealism to retain a sense of transcendence (the creative freedom of ideality) but increasingly to relocate the occurrence of transcendence from a remote central deity to ordinary individual human personalities. The influence of Martin Luther (1483-1546) is behind the whole stream, with his conception of spiritually capable and independent individuals like himself, Bible readers, doubters and questioners, takers of mental leaps. The monadic idealism that emerged from Luther’s influence plays a crucial part in the spirit of protestantism that decisively shaped Euro-American Enlightenment along with the spirit of science, each protesting against authority. Modern people expect to be treated as Kant/Fichte-style monads without grasping the concept.

Note: The following philosophers were brought up in Lutheran households and communities: Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646-1716), Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), Johann Gottlieb Fichte (1762-1814), George Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831), Max Stirner (1806-56), Soren Kierkegaard (1813-55), Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900).

Copyright © 2020 Sandy MacDonald.

Subscribe

  • Entries (RSS)
  • Comments (RSS)

Archives

  • December 2025
  • October 2025
  • August 2025
  • June 2025
  • May 2025
  • March 2025
  • February 2025
  • December 2024
  • August 2024
  • April 2024
  • March 2024
  • February 2024
  • January 2024
  • November 2023
  • August 2023
  • July 2023
  • June 2023
  • May 2023
  • April 2023
  • March 2023
  • February 2023
  • October 2022
  • September 2022
  • August 2022
  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • September 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011

Categories

  • Blind spots in thinking
  • Class War
  • Culture
  • disinterestedness
  • Embodiment
  • Equality
  • Freedom
  • Gender culture
  • Hierarchy
  • Leadership
  • Narrative
  • Nature
  • Political Power
  • Strategic thinking
  • Subjectivity
  • Transcendence
  • Uncategorized
  • University
  • Why thinking?

Meta

  • Create account
  • Log in

Blog at WordPress.com.

  • Subscribe Subscribed
    • in the blind spot
    • Join 84 other subscribers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • in the blind spot
    • Subscribe Subscribed
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar