[email protected] 805-875-5153
oblozhka 8 1024x538

Christianity and phallocracy, 8: “Everything they had in common, and everyone was given what someone had a need for: if that were the case now, then Christians would convert the whole universe”

0 Comments
Spread the love

Today: 219

Christianity and phallocracy, 8: “Everything they had in common, and everyone was given what someone had a need for: if that were the case now, then Christians would convert the whole universe”

Last time we talked about a bunch of Christianity – Kierkegaard's sexuality. Now let us add to this the third element that interests us in this cycle — sociality.

Xii.

Kierkegaard's historiosophy – as was already said last time – for my taste, he has an amazing thing. On the one hand, everything depends on history: on such historical events as the Incarnation and Atonement, which occurred 1800 years ago. On the other hand, history does not mean anything; it distracts the subject from his existential affairs, from deciding on his eternal bliss, that is – in a most surprising way – from his decision on what happened 1800 years ago. This is closely connected with the furious Kierkegaard criticism of Hegel, that is, the philosopher who brought Christian historiosophy to perfection.

Hegelianism is the Christian philosophy of history, Christian theology, translated into the language of philosophy – and this is true even with Hegel’s atheistic interpretation. See, for example, Kojeve's Introduction to Reading by Hegel, where Hegel appears as a radical, consistent atheist, and still keeping Christian theology at the center of his thought – his atheistic thought. The theme of attraction is here with us: after all, according to Hegel – Kojeve, man is “created” by desire of desire; sociality, history born of the separation of desire from nature (more here). History is a history of drives (the dialectic of recognition, the Master and the Slave).

Historical Verification of Truth

Hegel is a unique figure. For he not only summarized all the philosophy that preceded him, but also gave rise to all subsequent: existentialism, Marxism, psychoanalysis, etc. Moreover: we ourselves, the whole of modernity, are actually located on the pages of his "Phenomenology of the Spirit." As Kierkegaard, the great anti-Hegelian, wrote:

“When some people claim that they’ve gone further than Hegel, this should at best be viewed as a bold metaphor by which they try to express and designate the solidity with which they studied it, and also describe the long run they needed to penetrate his thought, – just the very inertia of this run-up did not allow them to stop in time, but pushed them beyond the limits of these ideas. ”

Pre-Christian philosophy was the philosophy of substance, Christian philosophy is the philosophy of the subject, says Hegel. Philosophy must speak the truth. Truth is about all that can be said, that is, about substance (world) and the subject who finds himself in this world. The subject, however, is different from substance (peace, nature), which denies it, thus starting History (denies the world in Labor, that is, in transforming nature, in freedom not prescribed by biological laws, this is the meaning of the Marxist doctrine “labor made a monkey a man ", over whom they love to make fun). Thus, the ultimate truth (“absolute knowledge”) is the sum of the truth about the world and the truth about history. Thus, we will not receive the ultimate truth until the story is finished. The ultimate truth will appear at the end of the story. There is no absolute truth, but it will be: humanity creates it with its history.

The fundamental significance of Christ in all this lies in the fact that Man and God are united in Him, that is, Christ is all possible fullness, the Universal embodied in the Private. Christians, however, hold this God-manhood only in their consciousness, but not in their reality.

Christ is central. The whole of pre-Christian history was preparing the manifestation of the ideal of Christ, all the following – realizes it. In this implementation – and the whole question.

Consider Kojeve's interpretation. First of all: absolute truth will appear in the form of a Man who has become God, or a God who has become a Man, or rather, a self-created humanity or a deified humanity? In other words: God-manhood or humanity? When Kozhev to his French audience (and it should be understood that such, for example, key figures like Lacan, Sartre, Girard and many others are largely determined by Kojeve's thought), interpreting the “Phenomenology of the Spirit” explained the End of History as a phenomenon of anthropotheism, its audience did not Could know what connotations for the Russian ear has the concept of Man-worship. But Kojeve, the author of the dissertation about Solovyov (with his "The Tale of the Antichrist") and in general a man formed in Russia, the beginning. XX century – that is, in the midst of the Russian religious Renaissance – knew very well. That is, the dilemma is very simple: who – Christ or the Antichrist – will finish the story (more here)?

Secondly, how exactly will the End of History, the realization of the ideal of Christ, take place? Socialism? Liberalism? Something else? Hegel himself initially believed that History ended in Napoleon and his Empire, after that in the Prussian state (Fukuyama, a follower of Kojeve, not so long ago a former influential liberal ideologue, believed that with the collapse of the USSR and the “victory” of liberal democracies). This, of course, now seems ridiculous. History has not yet ended, but this means that there is no truth either, because the ultimate truth is the sum of the truth about the world and the truth about history, and it will not exist until the history ends. And this means that which of Hegel’s interpretations will win in the end — history will decide, that is, among other things, we. For philosophy, religion, ideas in general are checked for truth not in disputes, but with the help of historical verification: what idea is embodied really and historically, and this is true (for example, Ilyenkov, a veteran of World War II, an eminent Soviet philosopher, believed that the essence of World War II – in the struggle of the right and left Hegelianism, that is, which of them is right, was decided at Stalingrad, and not in the philosophical departments).

The position of the historical verification of truth was also adhered to by St. John Chrysostom – the Christian truth will triumph when it is socially embodied:

“Why now not all believe? Because our affairs are not good, and the reason for this we ourselves. Then everyone “had one heart and one soul; and no one called his own thing from his property, but they had everything in common, and everyone was given what they had need of ”(Acts 4: 32,35), and they lived in angelic life. If it were the same now, then we would have turned the whole universe.

When a pagan sees that the one who is commanded to love and enemies, is frantic, robbing, incites enmity and treats fellow tribesmen like wild beasts, he will call our words empty nonsense. When he sees that we are loving and servile to other passions, he will be even more committed to his teaching, not thinking of anything great about us. We, in truth, are guilty of the fact that pagans remain in error. Let, you say, they think about our ancient men?

But they do not believe at all, but they want to see people living now. Show us, they say, faith from your deeds; and there is no work. On the contrary, they see that we are tormenting our neighbor worse than animals, and therefore they call us the ulcer of the universe. This is what keeps the pagans and does not allow them to join us. ”

So, the whole universe would turn to Christ if Christians socially embodied Christian truth – a community of possessions, and without it, Christianity is empty nonsense, including our ancient men, that is, the apostles and other saints.

This is what it means that we all, all of our time, are located on the pages of the Phenomenology of the Spirit. And however much you deny Hegel, you are just one of the ideas in his dialectic. For who, if not Hegel, showed that negation is the main course of the dialectic, that is, denying Hegel, you continue its dialectic. This is how Marx and Kierkegaard – their plot with Hegel is traced in the most wonderful book by Karl Levit, From Hegel to Nietzsche. Revolutionary change in the thinking of the XIX century. Marx and Kierkegaard, in line with which I will continue to write – up to retelling close to quoting.

Marx and Kierkegaard as twins

Marx and Kierkegaard, two mirrored twins, opposingly similar, both – the sons of Hegel with clear oedipal rage attacked their father. What did Hegel do? – He declared the bourgeois society of the XIX century ideal, the end of history. It could not arrange either one or the other.

Both came out of the false dead end of materialism / idealism into which humankind had driven the Enlightenment. Both materialism and idealism ignored concrete experience, existence. Both killed reality with their generalizations. Both therefore did not know God. Idealism is the ideology of autonomy of self-consciousness. Losev showed its class essence: idealism, being the doctrine of the primacy of ideas over matter, is the ideology of slavery (domination in general): the attitude of the lord – the slave is transferred to the entire universe in the “idea – matter” scheme. But Christianity, as Losev showed, is an anti-slavery, anti-Gods idea. The difference between slave-owning idealism and bourgeois idealism is that the former proclaimed supremacy openly, the latter instils in the subject the illusion of freedom (for it is already “infected” with Christianity; the subject is exploited by the bourgeoisie otherwise than by slave-owners). German idealism, although it carried traces of Christianity, was not Christian, it was an ideology of capitalism criticized by both atheist Marx and Christian Kierkegaard. Marxism and Christianity know that the subject is enslaved; the teachings of these two are not about freedom, but about liberation, not about “self-consciousness”, but about a specific person.

Both Kierkegaard and Marx are enemies of idealism, both Hegelians are enemies of Hegelianism. Marx and Kierkegaard criticized Hegel in connection with the speculative, contemplative, "philosophical" solution of real problems. Both of them, remaining, of course, “inside” Hegel’s thoughts, translate the solution of problems from the field of speculation to reality: Marx to the social, Kierkegaard to the existential. In this sense, "Capital" and "Unscientific afterword" can be placed under one cover.

Somehow it is rarely noticed that Marx does not have books against religion, but there are two against against atheism, the Holy Family and the German Ideology, two books against the left Hegelians, against their petty-bourgeois radicalism. Kierkegaard fights against the speculative philosophy of the Hegelians, generally against the modern spirit of speculation, which does not notice a particular individual in its abstractions: modernity is hostile to a particular individual. But Marx, the "Holy Family":

“In real humanism there is no more dangerous enemy in Germany than spiritualism, or speculative idealism, which puts“ self-consciousness ”or“ spirit ”in place of a real individual person.

Kierkegaard, of course, would not write about humanism, but everything else is almost word for word — like Kierkegaard. It is his endless invectives, they say, you, gentlemen, speculative philosophers, talking about "self-consciousness" and so forth. Things, have forgotten a particular person, but only in him everything happens. This is not only a philosophical argument: the spirit of the time does not want to know the specific existence, is hostile to it. The same says Marx, but political economically specifying:

“Communist workers employed, for example, in the workshops of Manchester and Lyon, do not think that it is possible, by“ pure thinking, ”using only reason, to get rid of their masters and their own practical humiliation. They feel very painfully the difference between being and thinking, between consciousness and life. They know that property, capital, money, wage labor and the like are far from the ghosts of imagination, but rather practical, very specific products of the very alienation of workers and that therefore they must also be abolished in a practical and concrete way so that a person can to become a man not only in thinking, in consciousness, but also in the mass being, in life. "

Kierkegaard repeats a thousand times: “pure thinking” will not lead you to eternal bliss, and indeed to anything else, because it does not exist, because this particular person, and not some non-existent “pure thinking”, exists. Marx writes:

“Since the“ religious world as such ”exists only as a world of self-consciousness, the critical critic, the theologian ex professo (by specialty), can never come to mind that there is such a world in which consciousness and being are different from each other” –

Here, it would seem, anti-religious statement. But why anti-religious, if it simply stands for a specific, real-life subject against idealism, against the tale of "self-consciousness", that is, just for the point of view that the great Christian thinker Kierkegaard advocates? Let's continue the quote of Marx:

"Meanwhile, it is necessary, on the contrary, to show how the state, private property, etc., turn people into abstractions, or are products of an abstract person, instead of being a reality of individual, concrete people."

Time after time, Kierkegaard writes: there are individual concrete people, speculation kills them. Quotes can be endless, check for yourself: read alongside Kierkegaard’s Final Unscientific Afterword and The Holy Family, Marx’s German Ideology: “speculation” (that is, speculative philosophy specifically, and broader: Kierkegaard’s spirit of time and Marx’s capitalism) destroys a particular individual, turns it into an abstraction.

Summing up: both are struggling with what is known as alienation, Kierkegaard – on the existential front, Marx – on the political economy. Marx began to formulate his theory of commodity fetishism, which he found in the very heart of modern civilization, studying the critical literature on religion. In reverse Kierkegaard does not discover Christianity in the Christian world.

In general, Kierkegaard’s dissolution of a person in “speculation” is very similar to the reification of people described by Marx and the “humanization” of things. Kierkegaard is horrified by the subject's dissolution in “objectivity”, from oblivion of existence, his own inner life. But Marx describes the same thing economically: humanity is alienated, goods and capital “live”, and not the people who gave birth to them.

Marx: the goods in the use-value (that is, in their real, human-needed properties: the stolnosti table, apple apple) are real and equal with other goods, but in exchange value (in their price list) they are separated. Exchange value, moreover, in essence, does not depend on the consumer. Also a person: as people, we are equal in ourselves, but as a “soldier”, “banker”, “janitor” – no, despite the fact that these social functions are not directly related to the essence of man. And the task is to free people and the world from these dregs.

Kierkegaard: thinking about a person in general, people have forgotten what it means to be this particular person; in objectivity, subjectivity disappears; The “use value” of a person is his existence, dissolved in the “exchange value” of objectivity. Both Marx and Kierkegaard thus repeat the basic gesture of Christianity: man as such is not born in a world where he is always embedded in certain hierarchies, but in the face of God. In the face of God, we are quite people, people as people, not functions. And it is in the face of God that everyone is equal: "neither the Hellenes, nor the Jew, nor the slave, nor the free, nor the man, nor the woman, nor the lord, nor the slave."

The main goal of capitalism is the accumulation of capital. Capital increases due to the surplus value generated by labor. Labor is human activity. The goods are produced by the workers, its price is the investment of the workers in the creation of the goods. That is, capital steals humanity itself, activity itself, the very existence of a person, his life, his time. The speculation criticized by Marx and the speculation criticized by Kierkegaard are one and the same, taken on different levels: both there and there the subject is leveled for the sake of the System.

Time and subject are the main categories of existentialism: Marxism explains that the atom of capital is an atom of labor expended on the production of goods and stolen by the capitalist. Capital is the squeeze of working time (labor and time of a person), that is, human freedom. Capital, money – and there is a possibility, freedom – the freedom of those who have money; money is the stolen freedom of the workers. The conflict between the real dependence of capital on production and the illusory independence of speculative capital is inevitable, sooner or later it ends in a crisis. A speculative philosophy will also end the crisis: it always depends on real existence. All this ends with the horror of world wars, totalitarianism, existential nausea.

Marx will attack Hegel’s political philosophy, Kierkegaard will attack Hegelian philosophical Christianity: both carry out a cumulative attack on the bourgeois Christian world. Kierkegaard against the masses, for the “individual” —that is, against the state, against society. But after all, Marx is from the opposite side against the state, against class society: communism will liberate the individual (concrete existential, according to Kierkegaard).

Гегелевское «примирение» государства и Церкви привело к социальному восстанию Маркса и религиозному восстанию Кьеркегора. В своей борьбе с христианством они в глубине едины: Маркс отвергает современное ему христианство как ложное сознание, но и Кьеркегор, этот великий христианский мыслитель, тоже борется с современным, предавшем себя христианством во имя христианства подлинного, тоже против «ложного сознания». Маркс в статье «К еврейскому вопросу» утверждает, что атеистическая критика религии изжила себя: единственный возможный бог при капитализме — деньги, в современности никто буквальным образом не может верить в Бога. Но и Кьеркегор критикует современное ему христианство, в сущности, за то, что его не существует: субъекта, всерьез поставившего себя перед Богом, днем с огнем не сыщешь. И тот, и другой говорят: современность не знает Бога, Бог из нее ушел.

Капитал, производя мир вещей, уничтожает мир людей; рабочий вынужден работать, чтобы прокормить себя, то есть ведет себя как животное, которое тоже ведет себя так, как ведет, чтобы не умереть. Тогда как настоящая сущность человека — свободная самодеятельность — выражается вне работы, в удовлетворении потребностей. То есть в труде, в подлинной человеческой сфере человек сведен к животному, а свободу он проявляет в животной сфере — в удовлетворении потребностей. В труде — не свободен, вне труда — свободен, хотя его сущность — труд (воление, творчество; отсюда и радости потребления, вся свобода уходит сюда, ибо в труде мы порабощены); все перевернуто и извращенно, ибо человеческая сущность украдена капиталом и инвестирована в производство. Труд — специфически человеческое действие, отрицающее природу, порабощает субъекта труда — рабочего, загоняя его во «вторую природу» классового общества.

Кьеркегор тоже прекрасно понимал сложные отношения труда и капитала. «В том, что я стал писателем, виноваты главным образом моя меланхолия и мои деньги». Если меланхолия погрузила Кьеркегора в самого себя и приблизила его в вплотную к религиозным вопросам, то отцовское наследство позволило ему не трудиться и заниматься философским творчеством. При этом «наглость заключается в том, чтобы абсолютно всю духовную продукцию совершенно безоговорочно рассматривать как товар. Посредством денег публика вновь получает власть над издателем, издатель посредством денежных отношений — над автором», — пишет Кьеркегор, но мог бы совершенно также писать и Маркс. Всем правит капитал. Кьеркегор может позволить себе «экзистировать» только потому, что у него есть деньги, рабочему как-то недосуг экзистировать. При этом все равно Кьеркегор подчинен капиталу, ведь его проповедь — это «духовная продукция», которой просто негде больше быть, кроме как на рынке. Экзистенциалист ты или не экзистенциалист, совершаешь ты прыжок веры или нет: «наглость» денежных отношений правит тобой. То, что «абстракция», «спекуляция» не существуют как конкретные индивиды, не означает, что они реально не угрожают конкретным индивидам: нет, они как раз вполне реально стирают конкретность индивида. Абстракция денег стирает конкретность индивида.

Деньги vs любовь

Все это имеет прямое отношение к нашей главной теме — к влиянию христианства на сферу пола. Мы уже говорили о взгляде Маркса на эту проблему: капитал, товаризируя все, превращает секс в товар, все отношения ныне — лишь проституция, а социализм, уничтожив товаризацию, освободит любовь. Ту же мысль мы находим у Кьеркегора в «Или-или»:

«Средой, создающей препятствия, стали деньги, — сквозь эту среду и продвигается теперь любовь, так что опять мучаешься на протяжении четырех актов, не зная, существуют ли основательные виды на то, что в пятом помрет наконец богатый дядюшка». Любви ныне противостоят деньги. Распад всяких духовных союзов в связи с темой любви:

«Невидимая духовная связь, сообщавшая вещам значимость, исчезла. Но пусть время наше продолжает быть прожорливым, — чем больше оно сможет поглотить из того субстанциального содержания, которое заключено в романтической любви, тем с большим ужасом оно когда-нибудь, — когда такое уничтожение ему наскучит, — осознает, что именно оно утратило, и ощутит с отчаянием свое несчастие». Время обезбоженности, пролетаризации есть время прожирания романтической любви и вообще любой «духовной» связи.

Самая суть дела состоит в том, что денежные отношения несоизмеримы с человеческими, а наше время — время капитала:

«И теперь, оставаясь наедине с тою, кого ты любишь, ты смиришь себя и свою любовь перед Господом; ты действительно захвачен и потрясен, но внимание, — сейчас я произнесу слово «община», — и тотчас же, как в песне поется, все исчезнет снова. Подняться же над определением внутреннего — это, я думаю, тебе никогда не удастся (…) Ты очень хорошо разбираешься в абстрактных отношениях к окружающему миру, когда сама их абстрактность уже, по существу, снимает возможность отношения. Тебе даже нравится, что нужно платить священнику, приходскому служке или чиновнику–правоведу, поскольку деньги — превосходное средство, чтобы держать на расстоянии всякое отношение; именно поэтому, как ты мне сам признавался, твой план состоит в том, чтобы никогда ничего не делать и не предпринимать, — пусть даже речь идет о самой незначительной услуге, — не отдавая или не вынуждая (партнера) получать при этом деньги. (…) Стало быть, больше всего ты боишься положения, когда личные отношения — под видом расспросов, поздравлений, похвал или просто подарков, — станут претендовать на то, чтобы скрепить с тобою связи, несоизмеримые с денежным выражением, когда эти отношения будут открыто навязывать тебе всяческое участие посторонних (…) С помощью денег можно избежать множества смешных историй. Деньгами можно заткнуть рот тому церковному трубачу, который иначе станет трубить для вас хоть до самого Страшного суда; благодаря деньгам можно уклониться от того, чтобы вас объявили супругом, — настоящим супругом перед всею общиной».

Это важный отрывок, ибо здесь прекрасно описан современный субъект, боящийся встречи с другими субъектами:

«Ты вскоре увидишь, как эгоистично твое наслаждение, увидишь, что по сути никогда не отдаешься, никогда не позволяешь другим насладиться собой».

Все эгоистическое наслаждение современного субъекта — в том случае, если у него есть деньги на это наслаждение, — наслаждение в одиночку, без подлинного человеческого контакта. «Община» уничтожена деньгами. Вспомним диалектику эстетического — этического — религиозного по Кьеркегору. В процитированном только что отрывке этик бранит эстетика за то, что эстетик не-этично с помощью денег дистанцируется от людей. Это плохо, но, как мы помним, религиозное — это эстетическое, прошедшее через этическое, ведь религиозное тоже отказывается от этического, от общественного, чтобы в здесь-и-сейчас предстать перед Богом, не опосредуясь людьми, общиной, этическим долгом и т. д. Человек остается один на один с бессмыслицей мира: вот исходные экзистенциализма. Но именно здесь Кьеркегор видит идеальную возможность для подлинной субъективной веры. Так и Маркс видел прогрессивную (античеловечную, но прогрессивную) роль капитализма в уничтожении всех связей кроме товарно-денежных: оставшись один на один с ними пролетарий их порвет, дабы построить новую общность (все это полностью вписывается в описанную нами диалектику Соловьева). К этому мы ещё вернемся.

Гегель был последний, кто соединял христианство и секулярный современный мир: все, кто шел за ним, с разных сторон разрывали их. Маркс отвергал христианство, Кьеркегор вскрывал антихристианскую сущность современности. И конечно, Гегель был прав: современный мир — продукт христианства, но сказать, что современный мир христианский, мы не можем, тут нужно думать со всей возможной диалектической сложностью. Мы должны «примирить» христианство и современность — так, как делал Гегель, и более гегелевски, чем он сам, исторически: мы не умозрительно соединяем Кьеркегора и Маркса, но мы чаем, что сама история их примирит. Нам нужно экзистенциалистское прочтение Маркса и марксистское прочтение Кьеркегора — но не на бумаге, а в реальной истории. История есть разворачивание христианства, капитализм — эпоха, где это разворачивание стоит в стадии антитезиса, антихристианства; социализм будет временем синтеза, возвращением христианства.

В следующий раз — о совпадении экзистенциальной революции Кьеркегора и социальной революции Маркса.

Subscribe to the usa-health-online.com channel in Telegram, so as not to miss interesting news and articles!

Join us on the Yandex.Dzen channel!