A further refinement of what I said last time: Not only does he hold his ancestors in contempt, but also his descendents (if any). For the fruition of his evident ideological commitment appears to be such as would absolutely deny them any opportunity of living in liberty, as free men. Any reader interested in the details of how this “new paradigm” plays out is invited to read C. S. Lewis’ The Abolition of Man.
To provide context, what is being gotten rid of is something along these lines:
At the level of common sense, it is evident that human beings have experiences other than sensory perceptions, and it is equally evident that philosophers like Plato and Aristotle explored reality on the basis of experiences far removed from perception. The Socratic “Look and see if this is not the case” does not invite one to survey public opinion but asks one to descend into the psyche, that is, to search reflective consciousness. Moreover, it is evident that the primary nonsensory modes of experience address dimensions of human existence superior in rank and worth to those sensory perception does: experiences of the good, beautiful, and just, of love, friendship, and truth, of all human virtue and vice, and of divine reality. Apperceptive experience is distinguishable from sensory perception and a philosophical science of substance from a natural science of phenomena. Experience of “things” is modeled on the subject-object dichotomy of perception in which the consciousness attends the object of cognition. But such a model of experience and knowing is ultimately insufficient to explain the operations of consciousness with respect to the nonphenomenal reality men approach in moral, aesthetic, and religious experience. Inasmuch as such nonsensory experiences are constitutive of what is distinctive about human experience itself – and of what is most precious to mankind – a purported science of man unable to take account of them is egregiously defective. [Ellis Sandoz, ed., “Editor’s Introduction,” in Collective Works of Eric Voegelin, Vol. 12, 1990; p. xx.]It goes without saying that an ethical model that places its ultimate value on sexual freedom and “political innovation” has little use for understandings of this nature. Hence the necessity of “ending history,” of erasing the past, in order to advance such propositions.
Well, my two cents, FWIW.
Betty..Hence the necessity of “ending history,” of erasing the past, in order to advance such propositions
Irish...The only past they seek to erase is the more recent past, specifically that of the rise of Christianity. In reality though, evolutionary humanists are taking us back in time to pre-Biblical paganism; the days of human-gods, witches, mysticism, divinations, gross superstition. In those days of hylozoism, ‘mind’ and ‘life’ were imprisoned within ‘nature” (matter). The higher thinking of Plato, among others,literally released ‘mind’ and “life” from matter. Modern materialism has once again imprisoned mind and life within matter (nature). Because they cannot account for how they “know” they’ve resorted to revamped mysticism, or what they like to speak of as ‘deeper understanding’ or ‘intuition’ (neo-hylozoism/divination/aughery/etc). Neo-hylozoism/divination/augery-—this is what Dawkins “memes” and biosemiotics are really all about.
Solomon tells us that there is nothing new under the sun; all things that have been, will be once again. Truer words were never spoken.
Thanks for the beep, boop