The only serious anthropology and the only serious leadership are both religious.
I'm 'unaffiliated' and will likely continue into syncretism, but I have great respect for Orthodox Christianity (don't read too much into my silly trolling of what is probably more feminine Episcopalians) and Islam.
Contemporary philosophy can (and does) have technical innovation ('linguistic elaboration')—here's one nested example: anthropoetics.ucla.edu/ap2701/2701kat…—but in the end everything new must reconcile with origins
and anyone responsible, who wants to found and help others (no one sustains himself as a leader if it stays always about yourself, and honestly all that you're called to do cannot continue without that superhuman energy),
will reckon with and sincerely absorb religion. It's not to say the non-religious cannot be very excellent contributors to a team and a movement (I feel I'm caught in between this, trying to get atheists and theists to understand each other through new modes of thought,
much like Gans and Adam do), but a leader of all leaders must preside over all of our moral history and there's no discarding religion.
The atheists can stomp their feet about that fact all they want, but there is only so much time to act and build things. We must grow up and extend what we can understand.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
