Christianity – after secularisation …

 Reading the Ten Commandments we find the words
Thou shalt have no other gods before me
Secularisation meant in some way that human kind took power over, making us to self-conscious beings, being responsible for our being, and thus doing. And secularisation is – rightly or wrongly – very much matter of Western enlightenment which I criticised frequently (see volumes 2 and 3 of my “writings on philosophy and economy of power”:

for its “structural individualism”. This, however, developing to the highly unequal capitalist society, ended in a fatal situation, blocking critical development. Obviously too many people consider themselves as gods now, not accepting critique, not even being able to take it up. Can’t all these self-elected gods now claim:

Thou shalt have no other gods before me
This is the spirit from which the New Princedoms emerge.
This is the spirit of the 1%, carrying the Renaissance heritage of the living here and now and for themselves – and though they may engage with and for others, establish their foundations and engaging in “their communities” by buying soccer clubs, and infecting us all by the Hello– and Vanity-Fair-effect, obscene as the Billionaire Toys.
Though princes may hurt and princedoms may oppress, sovereignty has a true advocate – we find it formulated by Bertrand Russell in A Liberal Decalogue:
 The problem is a little bit what 珍妮弗 said last night, when we went for dinner:
We do not have to be all excellent – it is much more important to be healthy and happy.
Yes, I guess, she is a little bit right, but there is something else that seems to be more important, concerned with the question: What are the standards and who is defining them?

This is something we find so difficult to understand, making us to coevils, companions of the evil, not to say devil, even if it possibly too off their sheepskin …). When it comes to objects of desire – for upper and middle classes, and of course for all others, is a bit more complicated – and the attentive reader of Marx Introduction to a Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy will surely know it:

For one thing, the object is not simply an object in general, but a particular object which must be consumed in a particular way, a way determined by production. Hunger is hunger; but the hunger that is satisfied by cooked meat eaten with knife and fork differs from hunger that devours raw meat with the help of bands, nails and teeth. Production thus produces not only the object of consumption but also the mode of consumption, not only objectively but also subjectively. Production therefore creates the consumer.

In principle, the same pattern as we find it in Modern Times and on occasion of the Invasion of the Body Snatchers.

Un pensiero riguardo “Christianity – after secularisation …


Inserisci i tuoi dati qui sotto o clicca su un'icona per effettuare l'accesso:

Logo di

Stai commentando usando il tuo account Chiudi sessione /  Modifica )

Foto di Facebook

Stai commentando usando il tuo account Facebook. Chiudi sessione /  Modifica )

Connessione a %s...