Listen now | I. Introduction II. Remarque’s Argument Against War War is Morbid/Horrifying War Turns Men into Animals War is Arbitrary III. Jünger on War and Love On the Love of His Nation On His Love of his Enemies On His Love for his Friends On his Love for Himself
Gentlemen, I would like to discuss a topic which was brought up in our discussions which I’ve been chewing over the past week, and that is the subject of universalism. In our conversation we identified, probably correctly, that we can point towards Christianity as the starting point for universalism. After all, while pagan religions from antiquity sought to incorporate neighboring gods into their pantheon, Christianity instead made the bold claim that there is only one God worthy of worship, the creator of the universe and being itself, and rejected other gods. While Judaism also made this claim, Jesus was explicit that the good news should be spread to all nations. Later movements like Islam, communism, and liberal democracy, among others, would put forward a claim that salvation would come from adherence to their worldview.
This Christianity as the origin of universalism made sense when I first heard it, but as I have continued to dwell on it, I believe Christianity stands apart from these other universalist movements. If we look at Samuel Huntington’s nine civilizations in “Clash of Civilizations,” four of them: Western (w. Europe, north America, Australia), Latin American, African (sub-Saharan), and Orthodox (Russia, eastern Europe), all are Christian civilizations, yet the four of them all have unique cultures. Meanwhile he groups Islamic, Hindu, and Buddhist, countries as separate civilizations. Now while his separation isn’t perfect, I think overall he is correct. Islamic countries culturally seem more similar, than say the difference between Belarus vs. Mexico vs. Uganda vs. Italy.
Somehow four different civilizations have adopted Christianity, yet they seem to stay more vibrant and unique than the interchangeable ubiquity you can find in the aesthetics of AirBnB in capital cities around the world. It strikes me that Christianity has a different universal quality than the universalism of these other ideologies in the world.
I think that the difference is, at its core, Christianity is a metaphysical claim. Christ either died for the sins of humanity, and rose from the dead, or he didn’t. A huge part of Christianity was abandoning Jewish laws and customs, instead seeking out spiritual circumcisions, rather than physical ones. Jesus was acting for belief and calling for a change of behavior, and was calling individual converts to makes these changes from within, rather than through a formal legal system.
This may be what makes Christianity’s universal impulse, different than others. Islam believes that Sharia law is the immutable divine laws of God, and must eventually be practiced by all. Communism inherently requires a legal system to accompany it, as someone has to reallocate the resources. For globalism we have international law and human rights that compel us to make demands from others. Christianity seems more self-enforced, with the main external pressure coming from the divine with only nudgings/threat of excommunication from the church. With the focus being on spiritual and moral matters, there is a lot of freedom in how one will live their life, which allows the flourishing of different cultures.
We spent a good portion of our meeting, discussing education and how we would go about popularizing the ideals of nationalism and Junger. Would our desire to popularize these ideas be considered a universalist impulse? I would argue no. Instead we are making a claim on truth, that masculine virtue, love of friends, and love of country are ideals that make a good society. We aren’t making a demand of people. Meanwhile the progressive demands that their neighbors change their speech and political opinions in order to achieve a good society. What makes us different is that our cause seeks for men to love their nation, and love must come from within, it can’t be coerced. Hence, in that way our universalist/popularizing impulse is in a similar vein to Christianity, rather than other universalist ideologies.
Do you agree with me, or do I have the concept of universalism wrong?
Again fellas, I LOVED our conversation last weekend. I left feeling energized. You guys are very smart and brought up some wonderful points to reflect on.
Universalism, as its popularly discussed, seems to assume a desire at staving off violence and conflict (hence our first lecture featuring the UDHR). The “end of history” is recognized by Fukuyama as the universal supremacy of an Ideology (Liberal Democracy/Capitalism). Huntington responds that future conflicts will be based on cultural and religious identities. In a desire to avoid these conflicts, we’ve hired Global Capitalism to attack cultures and marshaled “Trust Science” (trademark!) to attack religion.
If we are all the same, to what ends would we fight? Really puts the Homo in Homogenization.
Universalism is discussed as a telos of human coordination, when it should instead be inquiring at the ontology of human essence. The former is Politics; the latter is Philosophy (metaphysics). The former pertains to Universal Rights; the later, Universal Truths. (Note: Trajan captured this “ontology/teleology” conflict beautifully in his summary of our first group discussion.)
As we’ve seen in this week’s reading, there’s quite a gap between how Remarque and Junger see the human spirit. Is Remarque a bug and Junger a Periander? Again, borrowing from BAP & our group discussion, are these even the same species!?! If we can’t agree on the universal nature of humans (if there is such a thing), how do we expect to agree on a universal system of governance?
So yes, I think you draw a nice distinction between the different universalist movements and your last major paragraph is spot on. Progressives/Universalists get pushback not only because they demand obsequiousness and that’s annoying, but moreso because what they demand often is in violation of the truth. What they promote is not Progress but Transgress.
Gentlemen, I would like to discuss a topic which was brought up in our discussions which I’ve been chewing over the past week, and that is the subject of universalism. In our conversation we identified, probably correctly, that we can point towards Christianity as the starting point for universalism. After all, while pagan religions from antiquity sought to incorporate neighboring gods into their pantheon, Christianity instead made the bold claim that there is only one God worthy of worship, the creator of the universe and being itself, and rejected other gods. While Judaism also made this claim, Jesus was explicit that the good news should be spread to all nations. Later movements like Islam, communism, and liberal democracy, among others, would put forward a claim that salvation would come from adherence to their worldview.
This Christianity as the origin of universalism made sense when I first heard it, but as I have continued to dwell on it, I believe Christianity stands apart from these other universalist movements. If we look at Samuel Huntington’s nine civilizations in “Clash of Civilizations,” four of them: Western (w. Europe, north America, Australia), Latin American, African (sub-Saharan), and Orthodox (Russia, eastern Europe), all are Christian civilizations, yet the four of them all have unique cultures. Meanwhile he groups Islamic, Hindu, and Buddhist, countries as separate civilizations. Now while his separation isn’t perfect, I think overall he is correct. Islamic countries culturally seem more similar, than say the difference between Belarus vs. Mexico vs. Uganda vs. Italy.
Somehow four different civilizations have adopted Christianity, yet they seem to stay more vibrant and unique than the interchangeable ubiquity you can find in the aesthetics of AirBnB in capital cities around the world. It strikes me that Christianity has a different universal quality than the universalism of these other ideologies in the world.
I think that the difference is, at its core, Christianity is a metaphysical claim. Christ either died for the sins of humanity, and rose from the dead, or he didn’t. A huge part of Christianity was abandoning Jewish laws and customs, instead seeking out spiritual circumcisions, rather than physical ones. Jesus was acting for belief and calling for a change of behavior, and was calling individual converts to makes these changes from within, rather than through a formal legal system.
This may be what makes Christianity’s universal impulse, different than others. Islam believes that Sharia law is the immutable divine laws of God, and must eventually be practiced by all. Communism inherently requires a legal system to accompany it, as someone has to reallocate the resources. For globalism we have international law and human rights that compel us to make demands from others. Christianity seems more self-enforced, with the main external pressure coming from the divine with only nudgings/threat of excommunication from the church. With the focus being on spiritual and moral matters, there is a lot of freedom in how one will live their life, which allows the flourishing of different cultures.
We spent a good portion of our meeting, discussing education and how we would go about popularizing the ideals of nationalism and Junger. Would our desire to popularize these ideas be considered a universalist impulse? I would argue no. Instead we are making a claim on truth, that masculine virtue, love of friends, and love of country are ideals that make a good society. We aren’t making a demand of people. Meanwhile the progressive demands that their neighbors change their speech and political opinions in order to achieve a good society. What makes us different is that our cause seeks for men to love their nation, and love must come from within, it can’t be coerced. Hence, in that way our universalist/popularizing impulse is in a similar vein to Christianity, rather than other universalist ideologies.
Do you agree with me, or do I have the concept of universalism wrong?
Again fellas, I LOVED our conversation last weekend. I left feeling energized. You guys are very smart and brought up some wonderful points to reflect on.
Universalism, as its popularly discussed, seems to assume a desire at staving off violence and conflict (hence our first lecture featuring the UDHR). The “end of history” is recognized by Fukuyama as the universal supremacy of an Ideology (Liberal Democracy/Capitalism). Huntington responds that future conflicts will be based on cultural and religious identities. In a desire to avoid these conflicts, we’ve hired Global Capitalism to attack cultures and marshaled “Trust Science” (trademark!) to attack religion.
If we are all the same, to what ends would we fight? Really puts the Homo in Homogenization.
Universalism is discussed as a telos of human coordination, when it should instead be inquiring at the ontology of human essence. The former is Politics; the latter is Philosophy (metaphysics). The former pertains to Universal Rights; the later, Universal Truths. (Note: Trajan captured this “ontology/teleology” conflict beautifully in his summary of our first group discussion.)
As we’ve seen in this week’s reading, there’s quite a gap between how Remarque and Junger see the human spirit. Is Remarque a bug and Junger a Periander? Again, borrowing from BAP & our group discussion, are these even the same species!?! If we can’t agree on the universal nature of humans (if there is such a thing), how do we expect to agree on a universal system of governance?
So yes, I think you draw a nice distinction between the different universalist movements and your last major paragraph is spot on. Progressives/Universalists get pushback not only because they demand obsequiousness and that’s annoying, but moreso because what they demand often is in violation of the truth. What they promote is not Progress but Transgress.