Wednesday, September 05, 2007
Immanentize the Eschaton
Immanentize the Eschaton according to Wikipedia is to implement a policy to bring about "Heaven on Earth", fulfill that utopian desire. It's used by Eric Voegelin to deride both Christian, Nazi, and Communist efforts to bring about a world conforming to each group's idealized vision. He believes that the Christian ideal is a theoretical fallacy.
I am not sure how I feel about this. I mean the man does not have a concept of human evolution. Humanity and society have changed in 2,000 years. We are less brutish and gentler and possibly more meek than people were 2,000 years ago. We still kill, maim, rape and commit various unconscious acts, but by and large people are civilized. Of course, there can be no such thing as a utopia, but ideals are to be aspired or lived up to -- a goal to aim for. There had to be an appealing ideal for Nazism and Communism thrive as they did for a time. If they failed, it was due to human nature, greed, and all the other outgrowths of egos. Nazism would have thrived if Hitler and his people hadn't been so full of hate and such ardent believers in eugenics that they exterminated those they considered unfit or killed because of their wealth. But I suppose you can't separate the eugenics from Nazism. They are both intertwined. The average Russian was better off with Communism. Communism's main failure was the lack of incentive for people to improve their lot in life. The state was too controlling and too inefficient at apportioning resources. The graft and corruption didn't help matters. Voegelin seems to be silent about Capitalism, but my question is, if Capitalism is such a perfect economic system, why have we been seeing the Fed and government bail out hedge funds and corporations that make poor business and financial decisions the last 10-15 years? Surely capitalism must evolve to align with the ideal of Capitalism, or is that a delusion as well? The bailouts would seem to say that Capitalism is as deluded as any other economic theory if the Rich can be rescued from their greedy mistakes. After all, the common folk are not when they lose a large sum to greed.
But is Christianity wrong for saying that eventually, the human world will be a Heaven on Earth? Buddhism makes similar predictions about all things becoming enlightened. Of course, Christianity and Buddhism may be pointing to a change of perspective, a different way of seeing the world, a change in human psychology. As I pointed out above, he is looking at things as though humanity can't change when the evidence points to the contrary. Oh, we are still extremely stupid, or at least ignorant. If we are not careful we will destroy so much biodiversity and ecologies as to undermine the planetary ecology. Predators suffer the most when the food web collapses and we are the ultimate predator. We will suffer the most if we destroy the natural balance we are perched on. But our one redeeming feature is that we can predict various futures and mitigate their effects to an extent. We know how societies collapse and the reasons why, or at least, we are discovering the reasons why past societies died.
I suppose at the end of the day, one shouldn't compare politics and religion, or confuse the goals of the two. Ultimately, the Spiritual is trying to find a place for Mankind in this vast Universe and a purpose for existing. (Possibly the same can be said for Science.) The purpose of Politics should be for the common good, but more often, more cynical reasons emerge due to ego, the empowerment and enrichment of the self at the expense of the body politic. I haven't seen any politician immune to the enticements of office thus far, and the ones who do seem selfless don't make it past the Senate or House into The White House, be he or she Republican or Democrat. McCain will likely not make it as John Anderson didn't, or George McGovern. All things change. How will America immanentize its eschaton?
I am not sure how I feel about this. I mean the man does not have a concept of human evolution. Humanity and society have changed in 2,000 years. We are less brutish and gentler and possibly more meek than people were 2,000 years ago. We still kill, maim, rape and commit various unconscious acts, but by and large people are civilized. Of course, there can be no such thing as a utopia, but ideals are to be aspired or lived up to -- a goal to aim for. There had to be an appealing ideal for Nazism and Communism thrive as they did for a time. If they failed, it was due to human nature, greed, and all the other outgrowths of egos. Nazism would have thrived if Hitler and his people hadn't been so full of hate and such ardent believers in eugenics that they exterminated those they considered unfit or killed because of their wealth. But I suppose you can't separate the eugenics from Nazism. They are both intertwined. The average Russian was better off with Communism. Communism's main failure was the lack of incentive for people to improve their lot in life. The state was too controlling and too inefficient at apportioning resources. The graft and corruption didn't help matters. Voegelin seems to be silent about Capitalism, but my question is, if Capitalism is such a perfect economic system, why have we been seeing the Fed and government bail out hedge funds and corporations that make poor business and financial decisions the last 10-15 years? Surely capitalism must evolve to align with the ideal of Capitalism, or is that a delusion as well? The bailouts would seem to say that Capitalism is as deluded as any other economic theory if the Rich can be rescued from their greedy mistakes. After all, the common folk are not when they lose a large sum to greed.
But is Christianity wrong for saying that eventually, the human world will be a Heaven on Earth? Buddhism makes similar predictions about all things becoming enlightened. Of course, Christianity and Buddhism may be pointing to a change of perspective, a different way of seeing the world, a change in human psychology. As I pointed out above, he is looking at things as though humanity can't change when the evidence points to the contrary. Oh, we are still extremely stupid, or at least ignorant. If we are not careful we will destroy so much biodiversity and ecologies as to undermine the planetary ecology. Predators suffer the most when the food web collapses and we are the ultimate predator. We will suffer the most if we destroy the natural balance we are perched on. But our one redeeming feature is that we can predict various futures and mitigate their effects to an extent. We know how societies collapse and the reasons why, or at least, we are discovering the reasons why past societies died.
I suppose at the end of the day, one shouldn't compare politics and religion, or confuse the goals of the two. Ultimately, the Spiritual is trying to find a place for Mankind in this vast Universe and a purpose for existing. (Possibly the same can be said for Science.) The purpose of Politics should be for the common good, but more often, more cynical reasons emerge due to ego, the empowerment and enrichment of the self at the expense of the body politic. I haven't seen any politician immune to the enticements of office thus far, and the ones who do seem selfless don't make it past the Senate or House into The White House, be he or she Republican or Democrat. McCain will likely not make it as John Anderson didn't, or George McGovern. All things change. How will America immanentize its eschaton?
Labels: deriding ideals stasis/evolution
