The Cartesian-Kantian delusion is that human beings are REALLY disembodied, autonomous minds, pure will and freedom.
This cuts us off from our NATURE, which is a specific animal nature, although humans, qua rational, live their embodiment differently than animals.
This cuts us off from our NATURE, which is a specific animal nature, although humans, qua rational, live their embodiment differently than animals.
Thought through, one sees that physical nature, which would include our bodies, is an OBSTACLE to the domination of our disembodied autonomous mind-wills.
You know who IS a disembodied autonomous mind-will?
God.
God.
Modernity is the conceit that we are all really gods, who just HAPPEN to be stuck to bodies. But we don’t have to “accept” that stuck-ness.
Modernity has always been about “Fuck nature.”
There are only the early moderns, like Bacon, who knew we had to study nature to control it.
And late moderns who are avowedly “fuck nature.” Nature must be deconstructed. Human nature especially.
There are only the early moderns, like Bacon, who knew we had to study nature to control it.
And late moderns who are avowedly “fuck nature.” Nature must be deconstructed. Human nature especially.
The price of saying “fuck nature,” of course, is that nature always has her revenge.
How are we doing, species of only-contigently-embodied autonomous mind-wills?
We aren’t free of our identities yet, but we can PRETEND we can be, while living on the wealth of our fathers.
How are we doing, species of only-contigently-embodied autonomous mind-wills?
We aren’t free of our identities yet, but we can PRETEND we can be, while living on the wealth of our fathers.
The relation between the psyche and the body is fascinatingly complex, but what we are pretty sure CAN’T be right is straight up Cartesian dualism.
How the soul in-forms the body is a special case of how form (essence) makes something be what it is, which we haven’t really made much progress in since Aristotle.
After Thomas, nominalism effectively halted progress in philosophy. Descartes and the entire Enlightenment were an attempt to revivified philosophy under the dynamic of will and power rather than intellect and truth.
We were *always* going to arrive at the Will to Power.
We were *always* going to arrive at the Will to Power.
Oversimplified, to say the least, but I think this is the skeleton of the true metanarrative. 
Anyhow, this Enlightenment conceit that we are really, in our being, mysteriously-embodied and inexplicable mortal autonomous mind-will gods, is what underlies the atheistic idea that God exists in any way on the same moral plane that we do.
The answer God gives to Job is really the only answer:
Who are you, that you would question God?
And Job’s response is the proper one:
Who are you, that you would question God?
And Job’s response is the proper one:
The hubris, the arrogance it takes to attempt to pass judgment on God is staggering.
It is really one of the most detestable traits a human being can have.
It is really one of the most detestable traits a human being can have.
Any conception of God that places God on the same moral plane as human beings, in any way, eo ipso fails to be talking about God, and has idolatrously conceived God as a god.
