Inclination is not entirely determinate for the will in Kant’s ‘2nd critique’1 because we have the ability to decide otherwise than from inclination- desire born from the senses- and thus to act otherwise than from inclination. Inclination is dealt with in a diffracted manner because it is the relevance of inclination to the act, of desire in the act, for the use of pure practical reason, that is to be determined for Kant. The analysis must be open ended because it is finally in the act that the decision of whether self-love or duty reveals itself, and as there are still acts to come, decision becomes the focal point of value in this Theatre. Kant’s theory of morality is thus constitutional, a general framework in relation to the continued use of pure practical reason. As every act has not been acted, and as we have the ability to decide otherwise than from the incentive of inclination, it is then finally up to us, in the self-determination of each man in each concrete decision we make- to make and determine ourselves, and thus to make and determine our world.
The purpose of this essay is to describe what constitutes the arena of judgment in Kant’s Religion Within the Limits of Reason Alone2. Judgment is a decision that takes the form of contest at the point of the adoption of a maxim, a traumatic contest that develops a dialectically bound relationship of justification. Through this piece I hope to contribute to the understanding of the nature of judgment and the anthropological limits of Reason in Kant. First I will write on the dynamic nature of sovereignty and how it effects structure through judgment. Next I will briefly sketch the scale and the trauma of human comparison in the notions of worth and value. From there I will attempt to sketch some marks of what constitute the belief in Greatness- first in the system of today’s Capitalism, and then in the system of the Religion... in relationship to that of the most infamous system of the Belief in Greatness.
And so I sing this song to Kant.
Sovereignty and Structure
He adopts, indeed, the moral law along with the law of self-love, yet when he becomes aware that they cannot remain on a par with each other but that one must be subordinated to the other.3 pg. 31-
Decision is contest. The nature of decision itself is such that options form heuristically in front of an agent in real form as limited options within the arena of what can really be accomplished, or what really seems possible. For any possible scenario judgment weighs out, plays out, the possibilities of each path and comes down to a handful of serious options. Judgment itself makes contest of options, agentless or not, in order to determine the ‘best’ course of action. The nature of decision itself is thus presented as struggle, as the contest of the self, in the comparison to the self of what is better. What is better between options. Bad decisions mean loss of self, suffering, and Death. The contest between judgment and itself is thus completely ineluctable, completely not only unavoidable, but inescapable. The combatants in the arena of man vs. himself, are really then man vs. his own mortality. This is the meaning and context of the definition of ‘solicitude’,4 and the structure of it’s judgment is then the structure of contest, of inescapable mortal contest where only the ‘best’ wins.
In the working and in the interest of a life in the battle of dominion, greater might is to the advantage and necessary for sovereignty. For function- resources labor and ‘intellectual capital’ combine in a strength of efficacy, in a mastery of function in the division of labor so clearly examined by Adam Smith5. It is clear from this analysis, and history itself, that an organization’s results benefit from a division of labor. More can be accomplished. This however is nothing more than the subordination of all the interests of life to one, specialized and focused in order that the entire organization and its mission will benefit more. This division and subordination thus order the world twofold. It organizes the world by function, and more importantly it also organizes the world by people- in the manner of agreement. Agreement brings the world to order- in a subordination and diffraction of the immediate self. Without subordination the world is merely noise- a cacophony without beauty, without order.
In this process it is clear that the individual participates in a greater power. And as the participation in the group binds the individual to others that share his interest, the participation involves him in a combination of forces that work toward his interest. The individual is totally engaged, and thus his power is totally engaged, caught up in focus- and so the combination with others that have the same interests has an enlarging effect, not only in power, but also in purpose. The individual becomes ‘greater’ vicariously through participation in a ‘greater’ purpose and a greater power. Participation in a greater good thus always seems like it is also a better good, because it completely enlarges and enhances the values, and the value, of the individual involved. This is what Kant means in the 3rd component of a ‘predisposition to animality’6- what Kant calls ‘community with other men’ or ‘the social impulse’.
That ‘One must be subordinated to the other’- is precisely the principle that brings order to the group, forms the group, form in Reason as the group as unit. The generation of order, so to speak, brings the world under dominion for our use, wins the battle of might- and thus dominion- with the world, thus has dominion ‘over’ the world. The mantra of this is ‘together we participate in a greater purpose, a greater power, a greater sovereignty- together we participate in Greatness. The participation in a greater good Is followed out in the logic of Kant’s formation of the highest good, through a ‘Kingdom of God on Earth’ 7 , the notion of a greater good through an organized purpose, an organized mission.
This social forming is nothing less than the forming process, the coming to form of the dialectic of sovereignty or as Hegel termed it, the master slave dialectic8. But where is freedom in the dialectic? Hegel shows that all are still bound in the relationship. Whether the master is master of his domain, he still is bound to the domain by his sovereignty, and is still dependent, even more dependent because he is dependent to all. He needs the agreement of all underneath him to remain sovereign. Further still the sovereign is bound by the welfare of those in the group - bound by each, by their own relationship to the sovereign as the representative of the whole. As the sovereign claims sovereignty and assent from those in the whole. But the manner in which the system is formed is from the charge of movement involved in the process of power in movement, from those involved in its sweep, as they come to power in the cloak and perception of ‘Greatness’.
Sovereignty is making sovereign. The entire mode of Necessity in any thinking stems precisely from the solicitude spawned from the ineluctable day-to-day mortal contest of thinking. The demand involved in subordination- the ‘you must’- will always then be a necessity from the position of victor. The process makes subordinate those that have lost the contest of the battle for sovereignty, for after the battle has been waged, the resources and means are on the side of the victor. The other has been ‘shown his place’, has been ‘put down’, and is in full feeling of the defeat. Victory and defeat thus effect enormously the frame of judgment, the place and color by which judgment frames the world.
The sovereign gives the rule- legislates- but this is because through the pulse of a real life the sovereign has been chosen, either through election or by the battle of election to give the rule. But the battle for sovereignty is fought precisely in the process of making- in the making of a thing, the making of a world. Making binds efficacy, sovereignty and possession. In the making of a life, in the making of a world, in making these things and processes mine.
After the struggle of contest with the other, subordination offers this sense of making the world to the individual no longer sovereign. One can participate in the sovereignty of making the world by being the member of a kingdom. By being subordinate, you become better than yourself, you are associated with greatness. This we offer you.
But when a man does not give the rule, when man does not make his world, it is not his, it is never his world. So even if what is offered by the now sovereign other is in material almost exactly the same, it is not only other, but alien. It is not even alien- the world of the other is not even present, does not even exist, because for all intents and purposes this world has been made to vanish. The Other says ‘I will make you’, and in the process destroys the value of what has been made by the other. The world of the other is present like some monster sent to devour9, no matter how strong and shining the advantages of his world. So in all instances the battle for sovereignty is not only the battle for the very existence of myself, but always and forever equally the battle for the very existence of the world. It always takes the form of my world vs. destruction, and the vision of all judgment sees it this way. My thinking is always urgently involved, and the defeat of my thinking is made apparent by this difference.
The conflict of interpretations10 is fought with missiles as much as with discourse, the fusion of horizons11 occurs after the heat has burned and fused the weaker. What does the pain and labor of the negative12 look like when the advancing stage of spirit is dominated by a tyrant. If anyone anywhere has ever believed in a mission, the defeat of this mission is then always total defeat. ‘The world is at stake! The consequences are forever! The time is now!’
Solicitude brings this ‘sense’ of life to the very structure of a thinking in contest, sooner or later judgment always takes up arms, for it must. For as men will die, the battle of every battle is the battle against death, and this is a battle that eventually I will join, and I will fight, no matter who, no matter where, no matter how. Now it must though be you, for you are my opponent and thus my death. So long as I am in contest.
The formation of a maxim thus comes from contest, and the result of this contest of thinking- should the individual in contest be victorious over death- is thus always both sovereignty and subordination. Sovereignty, and thus freedom, are inescapably always first won, no matter how else they may be defined, and subordination brings mission to form in the ‘you must’.
Traditional forms of Sovereignty have been a claim of dominion over people within the designated area of what constitutes a place. Where geographical place once played a large part and defining role in the determination of economics, that now is no longer the case. The advent of the corporation and share ownership combined with the advance of communications technology have allowed distance to be eliminated. The dynamics of share ownership diffract and disperse dominion, so that it is merely the efficacy of the powers of dominion that matter in the market contest. People are from a place, but place no longer has concrete value in the life of a nation, because there is no longer distance. There is no place left on earth but only the place in the order among men in the contest of dominion, of power. Without distance, every place is now the same, and the earth has been made to vanish, and the oceans of the world are only the oceans of mankind.
There is no place on earth, but only the place among the order of men. As a predisposition toward humanity man compares himself towards others in a way driven by each his own self interest. Man’s world is now a common world in the arena of men. Meaning is derived from a social common value, accomplishment is measured only in relation to others!! Where once preparation to get through winter was a common social goal- it is not so anymore. The storms and catastrophes that occur now are those constructed in the relations among men. From the structure of down-sizing to the elections of need, the choices within the market create an arena of contest which decide the fate of individuals vying to meet the call of a need projected into the swirling phantasm of mankind.
So for Kant, the lifelong sovereignty of the good principle over the evil principle, in a life well pleasing to god, leads to a sovereignty over death. Freedom from dominion leads to freedom from the dominion of death. To be free means to be sovereign and salvation means to be free and to live. Thus all liberation theology is thus soteriological in nature. Liberation and salvation thus both are for Kant a path traveled and an end, in the time of a life well pleasing to God expressed so well by Dickinson- “Some keep the Sabbath going to church, I keep mine at home.... instead of getting to heaven at last- I’m going all along.”13
Victory constitutes freedom in this our modern age, and if not then the present is always and everywhere filled with the black portents of apocalypse. The Portents of apocalypse pull me towards the battle, and I will charge, and will try, and everything in my effort will be exhausted. Here it does not matter what I fight, for I will fight, and I will try, and I will. And for attacking what I love “you will pay, and you will cry, and you will see, you will- understand”.
When one finds oneself in the ‘bosom of the covenant’1 4, in the social contract15- in agreement already given- the choice presented is from the position of Sovereign to the position of subordinate. It is the choice of agreement as being less, as affirming others as greater or you will receive nothing. Deprivation becomes a condition of the social contract, and a condition of affirmation itself. Thus the structure and balance of agreement involved in covenants and thus in any sense of order is never that of equals, but of the agreement of inequality, in subordination and its acceptance. The master slave dialectic is thus a dialectic damaged,16 wounded17 by the battle for sovereignty in which the sovereign is ‘dependent’, but not nearly so much as the slave, or constituency. The pact, the agreement involved in the social contract, in the pact of employment, in the pact of purchase, in the covenant of man with God, is always in some sense an agreement of surrender. It is an agreement to not be master, to submit to the demand, decree, order and thus to not contest the social order present. “Submit to my power, for it is good.”
Worthiness Before God
If indeed the question of whence comes evil centers around whether in a maxim the principle of self-love is subordinated under the principle of morality, then the notion of value- the notion of worth- becomes magnified and places under extreme scrutiny the principle assumed by society of what constitutes worth. How do we justify discrepancies of worth, of value as man is under a predisposition of a self-love which is physical yet compares. To judge a man worthy or unworthy means that conditions have been fulfilled which allow us to include or exclude someone from society, from the us.
Kant states in the ‘Religion..’18 that it is in the inversion of the form of the maxim, in adopting the principle of self-love as a maxim, that man acts in a manner that results in evil, the example of which given by Kant is physical suffering. Let us explode and examine then the point at which the maxim is adopted, and how and why a maxim is adopted, within the limits of reason alone, within the very voice of reason itself.
Wanting to do more places ambition in the role of action or labor, in a direction that is accepted at each level of exchange- commodity, price, market, nation, world. It speaks to others in their own language and exhausts their own reason, overruns their own reason, leaving the position of judge impotent with regard to the further presentation of evidence- further justification.
But to use this excess to advantage falls back on the ineluctable weakness, the affective fragility, of man that allows his own value to be placed in question- to allow the question of value to be valid. Am I worthy?? Am I worthy, of my own, by myself, of the world??- Am I worthy, of my own, by myself, of God?? Do I, on my own, constitute any kernel of worth at all in the arena and the eyes of the absolute??!!
This question is thus first always a question posed to a higher power, to a higher judge which in-relation-to determines the response. If the answer to this question is yes, then life is the determination, if not- then suffering life. This question recreates the conditions of contest, by placing the self in suspension. But in this question of dominion over life, the answer is always resoundingly NO!!! I am not worthy! I am never worthy!! There is always greater, always higher, always more. In comparison to the absolute I am always unworthy, always guilty. “Just look at how much more, in God, look at the mountains, the sky, the sea, the stars...”
Wanting to do more and wanting to have more both possess the kernel of excess in ambition or greed. But the excess here comes from within a natural part of the drive of man, and of reason, and of judgment. In the depths of the soul, hidden and protected from the sight and knowledge of the world, at the point of each and every decision, of each and every thought- is where the battle of justification is fought. This is the point at which the maxim is adopted- sometimes so very unconsciously. A free and floating, an unsettled comparison of worth in relation to others, of self worth. Thoughts of anger, feelings of frustration- at the point of decision these are worked out, weighed out, scaled and at this point of decision others are exalted or degraded prior to the act. Focus is brought to what is of import to us, and this scaling places others in the background- forgotten. We choose at this point what we care about, we choose what is of import.
At each and every instance of judgment there is a free comparison, a comparison in which a man must constantly measure, must assess power and the use of power or the possibility of its use on himself. If this instance of judgment is multiplied by active contest from another, then the measurement is always that of oneself in comparison with another. In every negotiation of price, in every decision of purchase, in the acceptance of another days work, in how man executes an everyday routine, in the very manner in which he addresses another, man is in constant measurement of himself with others. The world constantly confronts man as contest in these instances- as force, as resistance. Man exalts himself and degrades others in the minutiae of all life by the very structure of judgment.
Appearance and pain, experience and desire flash from scene to memory to thinking to scene in the confrontation of one with another. The world seems to wrestle with itself, utilizing all the science, experience, wisdom, planning and desire of the world- from both sides of the conflict. The contest is like a fissure, a fracture in the soul of the world, for one wonders why the work that benefits us all, the work done after the contest, cannot be done before such contest.
This is the point where worth is established, in what we value of our self, in the import we can find in ourselves and in the world. Man in touch with his own wretchedness, his frailty, his weakness, his mortality, his ugliness. Man pulsates his own suffering and anxiety, hates himself. It is this, the man of every man, that comes to participate, that must decide and choose, that must compare, and there is no guide present to tell him what to compare to. The wretched, the malignant, the wounded self battles whether there is worth- decides whether there is worth, and so is asked to judge at each decision and each moment the worth of his own humanity and doing so judge the worth of the entire world. Alone in the wretchedness of the self, and without relation, without form or order, man may find the world wretched.
The world becomes aswirl in contest not because we view the other as alien, as wholly other, but because we do view the other as the same. The sanctity and coherence of selfhood dissolves as we view ourselves in this image. We know, we know absolutely the other as same, as exactly the same, but are confronted by this image as now monster. It is as if the world I know liquefies before my eyes and I see myself devoured. I see myself as other. I see myself as master, I see myself as monster, I see myself as King, and I know absolutely the difference. I know the difference, but am confronted by this and cannot escape it- I am in contest. And I loathe myself in the image of this weakness, and I love myself in the image of the exalted- in the fantasy of greatness, in the pleasure of the adorned.
It is precisely this absolute difference that allows the bifurcation, that creates the distance between Merit and Guilt, for it is precisely in the self dynamics of contest and its own reflection that these distinctions come about and become magnified. It is I that is deserving and it is also I that is guilty. The defeated I sees no difference between the victor and himself, no qualitative difference but only the force imposed by such a victor, and the weakness of his own self. In the core of comparison and contest, of a self in contest with itself, thus with its own death, this self comes to hate itself for this death, comes to hate itself for this weakness, and thus comes to hate others.19 This split reflects the range and vectors of thinking formed from the generative structure of affective fragility and solicitude, and thus value-worth- the sacred20- is a dialectic of comparison formed from a humanity that both loves and hates.
In contest with others, the world becomes loose, an arena swirling and spinning, with no earth to stand on and no firmament to gaze at, and all the world is only the opponent, and all life depends on victory. ‘Come with me for we must strengthen our resolve, hurry we must join the battle- for we believe in our cause and know it to be just. Rush for the enemy is near, looking to take what is ours from us, looking to bring us evil, looking to make us slaves’. With victory comes freedom, with defeat bondage. With victory comes sovereignty, with defeat comes tyranny. With victory comes justice, with defeat comes evil. Contest with others- in the same bright sun and the same caressing sky- makes of peace a tempest, makes of silence a howl that haunts the soul, and makes dark the sun. Contest makes dead the living and takes from them their things.
Contest brings death toward the living and out of it comes mastery of function. Death as contest makes science, brings science into the service of man. Both forms of Contest- of judgment as contest with itself, and of my judgment with the judgment of another- comprise the arena of practical reason and bring mankind into the full capability of its powers. Contest brings to life its urgency. The world is at stake, the consequences are forever, the time is now.
By himself and all alone, having left the world in his solitude, it is here where man must listen for the voice of the world as his own, as his voice at this point speaks for the world. In each and every action, man makes the world in his own image, with how he acts and how he judges, with what he degrades. This dynamic is at work at each moment of a humanity that is radically- and in severe question- of itself.
Kant, in the ‘Religion’ frames the question of worthiness to God- to the highest power this way- ‘Am I more worthy than my neighbor, in comparison to my neighbor am I more worthy of God, and for God.21 Thus this fragility is redirected and placed within my sphere of power. Am I less worthy than my neighbor? Kant thus places the direction of justification not towards an impossible absolute suspension, but back upon itself in the sphere of a measured humanity- a humanity with a self-love that yet compares its’ self to others. That is why Kant’s theology of justification- why his ‘Religion’ is ‘Within the Limits of Reason Alone’22- as judgment compares man to man, and it will be for Kant, the better man that wins the favor of God, in an evangelism of what I call, the ‘Religion of the Great’.
Self-worth, within the dynamics of comparison, becomes radically altered by the individuals place in the dynamics of any society. Self-worth becomes inflamed in the involvement with those of a group with similar interests, purposes and goals. Because of the participation and the increase in power, the individual is involved in something ‘greater’ and his feeling of self-worth experiences this, is inflamed by this involvement and multiplication. This dynamic of an inflamed self-worth, combined with a material increase to the individual, further compounds this feeling of self-worth, of exaltation and change in social place. With attention from society, by vehicle of the groups power, and influence on the national and world stage, this further inflames this notion of ‘rightness’, and gives the individual then a feeling in the participation of what they believe to be an objective reality, a ‘destiny’- of events. It is as if the world, and the events themselves, justify not only the position of the individual in the system, but the rightness of the system itself. The system conversely seems ‘justified’, regardless of the sufferings or deprivation of those that do not benefit from it. The degradation of others become then invisible to those- not in power- but successful within the system. The sufferings of others become- ‘justified’.
The analysis of value theory in Capital23 is from the viewpoint of the individual involved at the micro point of the exchange of money for a good, and the exchange of labor on a thing and the assignment of value to that thing- it’s price. This level of value at first seems to be all there is of interest for the purchaser of the good, but not so for the interest of the supplier. The supplier’s interest also is focused on these points of exchange which are common in others, that share common ground with others. The scope of the capitalist’s interest is measured by the scope of the market he intends to exchange with, so that what occurs is at each and every point of individual exchange is an implied justification of profit, in that the interest of the owner/supplier is larger, at the point of each individual transaction, than that of the purchaser- and larger than that of the employee. Ambition- aggression- here ‘justifies’ itself, sanctifies itself by showing that its own need is larger than others, whether this need is material or not. that it’s need is larger, and therefore more important, than the life of others. Justification means- attempts to diminish the negotiating position of the individual contesting in the exchange, in relation to my position, by the inflation of my position. Justification attempts- means- to degrade others, by an inflation of the value of the self of the worthiness of the self, by clothing it’s logic in the values and idioms of the opponent, and leaving the opponent thus smaller in relation. This type of justification subsumes the entirety of the claim of the opponent, completely accepts the claim, and then shows that it’s own position is that of ‘also’.
But the exchange of commodities in its original state is precisely the contest between parties to determine the exchange value of goods, and as contest more importantly- through this contest- to determine, to set in place, the conditions of relation by which this exchange will effect the well being of both in the future. The Micro economic process of price targeting assumed, it is precisely this relation- this social relation- which Is determined in the exchange. Therefore exhange value is a use value for the owner- for in the approach of this exhange value, what the owner wishes to accomplish is the establishment of the master-slave relation in which he- the owner- is master, is sovereign. This being effected through the negotiation of price and wage, the two parties in the exchange of money and commodity/labour, agree in effect to the structure of the social relation itself.24 By buying the product, the purchaser also ‘buys’ that the owner of the product is the owner- and also therefore master/sovereign, By buying the product, the purchaser accepts- as well- to perpetuate this relation. And if the purchaser of the product is not also an owner in his own right, then by purchasing the product and by selling his labour he also accepts his position in the agreement, in the arrangement, as “slave”, as less. So therefore what is being determined are the very conditions of exchange which have been established in the battle of worth, ownership, sovereignty, and these conditions of exchange then calibrate the aggregate demand a product may have, and the relative value that the exchange value has. The first and foremost demand set forth therefore, is that the very nature of the exchange of the product makes the owner of the product master- that he benefit more from the exchange.
This is nothing less than the economic arena in the battle for autonomy, for self-determination in the material world. This battle materially determines the structure of the material form of social relation, of social order, and thus determines the value of a particular self in the social order.
The very nature of the exchange then- no matter what is said in the matter of how a person is addressed in the approach to the act of exchange- from one person to another- the manner then of this exchange is a voice that says ‘you are not yet, you are less’. From the side of the purchaser- the voice says ‘we are here equals, I agree’, and no more. On one side there is an exchange of equivalences, on the other side what occurs is an exchange of completely different interests. In the area of my interest, due to the structure of the system of exchange- ‘you are less than I ’- here, at this point, we are equal.
This justification rises up, makes itself larger, becomes angered, fights to win the character of the exchange. This justification withholds involvement, denies involvement until it is satisfied that it has won the exchange. Until I am paid, I will not... Such is the fight, the war, that is involved in every exchange throughout all material life in today’s capitalism.
In another type of justification just as sacred to Reason, what seemed to Marx like the arbitrary addition of surplus value of the profit in the price of a commodity, really hinges on the Market’s collective individual common spirit of judgment to not pay, to pay less- ‘lower prices!!’- to degrade a commodity and its producer materially. This spirit sets in motion the process by which individuals in the Market become subject to those in the positions of power- of employer and of production- where labor is a commodity. ‘Why should I pay for labor when I could pay less or not pay’. This is the universally understood feeling inherent in the self-interest of the consumer, of Reason, to not pay- and thus degrade.
Here the universal appeal of judgment is to the wish of sovereignty, placed in the service of self-interest. The self-interest of the consumer and employee to degrade a product, so inherent to the structure of judgment, is harnessed by the producer to his own advantage. It is the consumer and employee’s own self-interest, this structure of judgment to degrade, that allows the employer to degrade the wage of his employees. The employee cannot deny his lower place on the scale because he is in contest here also, because he is attempting to do the same. His wish to be sovereign, to be higher on the scale is so strong that it condemns him to his spot. The strength of justification put forth by the sovereign isn’t so much that the inequity of the relation is proper or good in itself, or that it would be the best for society, but that if the subordinate were in the position of sovereign, he would do the same. In the contest of value and the social relation, this is a justification the subordinate cannot deny, because the subordinate himself wants the sovereign’s position. The subordinate- if he could- would be master.
The meaning and involvement of the self in contest is affected by this involvement. The self rises up, inflates to the feeling of the truth of the position of the individual involved, clouding and diminishing the consequences of the contest. Another type of justification justifies itself by sheer power. By backing the claim of Reason with sheer force, resolve is tested to the extreme in this justification. This type of justification attempts to find the level at which opponents will cease to risk welfare to support their claim, then it goes further so far as to attempt to eradicate completely opponents with other claims. To win the contest of dominion through sheer will, to determine value by withholding exchange until the desired value is received. The value is this...because it is so.
‘All you want to do is make a good living?!! That is not enough!! ..... and We want to provide cars with better brakes and navigation systems so that the whole world will be a safer place to drive!! ....and We want to provide our city with better education’s so that the next generation of citizens in our whole city will have a better life!! ..... and We want to provide excitement and entertainment to the depressed citizens of our country so that the daily worries and fears subside for a while. .....and We provide health coverage for thousands of businesses, that’s alot of peace of mind!! We make better!!!! ....Just look at how much we do!!! and We are doing something special!!! Haven’t you ever wanted to do something more??!! Something special??? We work hard, we deserve it’. Ambition and aggression, all ever-present.
“ I am a leader, I empower others to reach for their full potential, teaching skills and bringing out performance in others, I effect more in a positive manner. I should be paid more.”
“ I allow others to make decisions for themselves, I ask them about process and get them to look at this process and function. I show others the way, I hold them accountable. My position deserves to be paid more.”
“ I want to have more, I want to do more, I want to become more.” This is the primary mode of justification in a humanity that possesses a physical self-love yet compares, a justication that is common to our sense. This justification is central to what may be called a ‘Religion of the “Great” ’.
What today’s capitalism wishes- through sovereignty of private property- is to control the nature and conditions of individual exchange for an entire market, to have sovereignty over the exchange of goods and money. Through the sovereignty of private property the owner of a business has sovereignty over the labor pool which provides labor for the product of the business. The owner has sovereignty over his employees and therefore wishes to control the character of exchange. In a free market thus only the owner- only the capitalist is free, only he has sovereignty- the remainder of his employees reside in his dominion. The capitalist thus wishes to have sovereignty over a type of exchange, the conditions of the exchange. To win the election of offering of all others at each and every moment of choice, to make this particular type of exchange ‘mine’.
The hope in this future is to be rich, to easily afford a comfortable life. To send kids to college, to be able to purchase things, to be able to travel, to have leisure time, to be on top. The realities of this particular vision of life mean that you wish to have a great many people working as much for your benefit as for their own, so that you make money as they work, so that each and every household participates in your product, so that your market is the whole world. Today’s Capitalism is totalitarian in nature25, wanting dominion over men as employer, wanting control over markets as supplier, wanting everything to be in its possession.
Today’s Capitalism is totalitarian in nature, but no more than any other kind of belief or thinking- Democracy wishes to promote democracy throughout the whole world, capitalism wishes to open markets- throughout the whole world, communism wished to revolutionize- the whole world, and so it is with technology, so it was with Hitler & the Aryan Race, and so it is with what Kant calls “The Kingdom of God- throughout all of humanity”. Reason, thinking, belief, all demand totality, demand the absolute, proclaim the “Better” life, the “more” for you.
In giving our best we make the best, in wanting to have more, in wanting to have- to receive- the best for ourselves, in comparison of what others have, we simultaneously also make the wretched more in number. The ‘Pathetique of Misery’26- the pathos, the tears in the nature of judgment, in the nature of comparison. Such is the sadness of judgment in election, with those amongst the choices vying as if not to die, like the children of the choice given Sophie in ‘Sophie’s Choice’- who will live and who will die. Those chosen bear the burden, the responsibility of the wretched more, and the guilt of sameness and common ground. This is what it means to materially judge value- to choose the best, to exalt one and to make the wretched more.
Judgment does possess a teleology, a teleology of greatness, formed within the dialectically bound, inescapable logic of contest- within the inextricable logic of victory and defeat.27
“Behold, I set before you this day a blessing and a curse” 11:26
“Behold I set before you this day life and good, death and evil.” 30:15 Deuteronomy 28
The Religion of the Great-Belief in Greatness
Religions of the great appeal to the notion of Greatness, both in personality and in function, and thus belief. The appeal to excellence in function has an objective quality. The common material realities of disease, alimentation, dwelling- all necessary for the support of human life- possess a character that is independent of fiat, whim, and the subjective decisions of any one individual in power. The material truth character in decisions of making are thus beyond tyranny. Excellence in the domain of any one of these categories of material life thus appeal to- and serve- all of us. Thus there is a type of meritocracy in this practice, and the value of contribution of any person in the work of material life is viewed both as somewhat independent of the dialectic of compensation- the limited pool of people and resources. Function brings its own reward- this is the hope of functional greatness. Also attached to this perspective is an open horizon of hope, in that the workings of functional excellence are not determined by place, the past, or by reputation, but determined solely by performance. The landscape of the functionally great is determined only by performance and action. Performance determines the field of excellence and nothing else- therefore performing excellence, and therefore greatness, is open to anyone.
Religions of the Great also appeal en masse to the notion of a place, a social place, more exalted- higher- than the one currently occupied by the recipients of the appeal. One becomes greater through us... one becomes stronger. The appeal of the belief in greatness appeals to a change in the scale and distribution of valences, in the arrangement of power in the social order. The appeal of all religions of the great is that this order will changed and that every individual spoken to will be exalted- through the bearers of this word. The social order of power and place will be changed- corrected- to its ‘proper’ place, its ‘proper’ arrangement. And its ‘proper’ place is always one in which the individual receiving the appeal is exalted.
The cult and hyperbole of the ‘Great’, of those successful in the system, is such that no group or class, outside of function or performance, is excluded by any other basis. This thinking however becomes blind to the social process of power and benefit, so that those deemed unworthy are deprived of materials and benefits. The unconscious degradation goes as such. The focus and the wish of the individual is to achieve the great deed, perform the great feat- and the accompanying exaltation of worth, power and material (monetary gain) that accompanies this position of greatness makes the individual unaware of the deprivations and sufferings brought on by the change in social relation to others, by reaping the material benefit of his ‘great feat’. It is not, in the structure of this dynamic, the conscious decision of those- the ‘great’- to deprive the lower class, the ‘unworthy’ of materials. In fact, the class of the ‘great’ claim -once again- ‘worthiness’ to the benefits due to their ‘achievement’, the fact that they receive a monetary increase seems incidental to the position of their achievement. However, depriving an individual of a needed benefit, whether consciously or unconsciously, voluntarily or involuntarily, is felt by those deprived merely as deprivation, and also as either conscious degradation, even if their is no face attached, or worse yet as fate, felt in an unconscious self-degradation of themselves.
There is no exaltation of excess material worth in the name of ‘greatness’ that is materially benign- and therefore there is no extreme worthiness, that does not simultaneously deprive and degrade. So the claim put forth by those that have ‘achieved the great’, that their contribution has benefited society more, is chimerical if indeed their increase in material denies more people availability to those resources. The ‘great’ then merely make more vertical the sense of subordination, and the sense of ‘enslavement’, of those subordinated in the social relation. Such is the reason for the increase in poverty, crime, homelessness and incarceration, as the ultrawealthy grow in the increase, and the remainder of the world becomes poorer. It is natural, it has been- ‘justified’.
Religions of the great, in the effort to encompass an attitude or way of life appeal en large. At the point which these movements become articulated in detail, they become a philosophy which can be critically opposed, supported, studied and researched. At this point however the detailed character of philosophical enterprise and understanding of them make the larger aspects of the particular religion belief unappealing to those in the general public.
For any belief to have a wide appeal, the structure of its tenets must be constitutional, sweeping in nature, general in scope. The extent of individual involvement, in the action of the details, fills out, determines the fullness of he constitutional shell and brings to reality the promise of the appeal. Involvement fills out and crystallizes the shell of theory, brings reality to words, brings blood to words. With involvement, with action, words become the nerve system of desire, words become the harbinger of a shared truly human spirit, a shared physical way of life. Electric in nature, the words of a philosophy become a flow, and in involvement these words become larger and become life- animate all on their own, and then become large enough to carry a person, to carry a group, to carry a nation, to carry us all- away. With involvement- words step out and walk from the page, turn into a living feeling, a living thing. With involvement words transport a common love, words transport a common pain, words transport can carry the vitality of the world. In ‘appeal’ the word becomes God.
When the word becomes an involvement in action, the word becomes ‘more’. The glimmer and brightness of exaltation is electrified by involvement. Scintillated and lifted, light as a feather, the tickle throughout every single nerve and throughout all senses. There becomes a hyper-aware state of ecstatic supercharge, and the world is lifted. The cool air seems to tickle, the sun seems to bathe, the wind seems to whisper in a frequency that is meant only for you- that only you can hear. The colors of the earth warmly laugh and caress the soul and the flux of physics and power come together in a billion swirling sparkling fragments, form and extend like a giant and clear hand, held open in offering.
The magic of appeal is that the wish becomes what it wants, and out of the air comes a rich material, a substance, not previously present. The antagonism of contest- the opposing energy of each combatant- get turned in the same direction and converted to the same frequency, and multiply in valence. Appeal soothes the storm of conflict and combines energy in the same direction. ‘Look, we are the same’. Resistance surges into a rush, force combines with another and becomes more in flow, collision becomes vector and then becomes some-thing. Life quickens as one is with another and force moves in a wondrous tumble-dance, rolling and thrusting forward with what we know is our best, and we are certain. Reorder always is reorder, but here it also matches rightness, feels right, one becomes with another and thus becomes the world. ‘Come~!! Join with me’ !! Together- in a common sense, we!!
It is this way, in which power forms to value, and in this way that man experiences it.
The same light is brighter, the same burden lighter, the same touch closer to skin, the same sound sweeter. Joined with another, everything is made different, the world has become more. Thus real, terrestrial, solid. Joy makes the world materialize out of nothing, crystallizes flow, and gives it form. With you, the pleasure of God. Thus the same properties present in Hegel’s description of the dialectical properties of the ‘also’, do not exist independently of each other in a state of exclusion, but exist together, and allow each the other to exist. The world as material exists because it is asked to, and because it is joined.
The strength of evangelical appeal of any Religion has the appearance of clarity, and this clarity fades when the action and detail of what the general position means in reality comes into play- prohibitive decree must then be very general so that the individual can determine what the living reality of any belief will be.
Greatness and excellence both mean to be greater than others and to be more excellent than others. To be rich as an individual participant in the realm of economics means nothing more than to be richer than almost anyone else.
Capitalism and the ‘Great Man’
The substrate of the Religion of the Great of Capitalism centers around the figure of the ‘Great Man’- the leader. Modern management theory makes an evangelical appeal based on the notion of individual greatness in the form of leadership. The notion of success drives this theory of leadership, but success is nothing but the form of rationale, the justification by which the conqueror has won.
This theory of success is objectified by lists of characteristics common to leaders by which success can be yours. The theory of success is a static theory, whereby if one succeeds, one obviously possesses leadership characteristics, if one does not, then something was missing. This theory is extended throughout, from the achievement or non-achievement of the stated goals of the mission to the rationale of individual promotion. Leadership theory thus possesses an exclusive sense of choseness, of destiny or innate greatness. ‘Leaders are born’ is the mantra of Y.P.O., and the proof is in the success itself. Success justifies itself.
Leadership theory is thus an ideology of Victory from the standpoint of power and justification, from the standpoint of a contest won, but it becomes dynamic because it is done in the form of appeal. The objective reasons for victory simultaneously serve as an appeal to subordination and the justification for the deprivation or resources. “You too can realize your destiny, you too can be the chosen, just follow me”- follow the ‘great’ man, follow the ‘great’ idea. “You, however, are not yet a leader”, “you have yet to have achieved”.., you are not yet chosen, you do not yet belong to the exclusive group of the great, but you can be. The ideology of leadership is thus also a vehicle of subordination, a means of battle in the arena and feeling of self-worth. Leadership ideology is a sublimated rationale for degrading those in the organization and outside the group, and for depriving them of resources, and simultaneously an appeal to greatness and the participation in it. ‘You are not yet, you are less’, but it is possible’- ‘just look at us’.
The ‘path’, the way in which the individual can achieve this greatness in the Ideology of Leadership is first through the individual function under the sovereign, in the mastery of this function, and then repeating the steps of the leader up the ladder. The individual becomes involved in the Mission and dynamics of the organization, learning new function and developing new skills, and this process of individual development is then used to further justify the position of the ‘Leader’. The effects of the initial defeat of being told that ‘you are less’ are thus turned back upon those in subordination and made appeal to as a wish, and as certain as defeat was, how sound the Rationale seems now. You are still not the leader, but you are becoming a leader.
The ideology of leadership resurrects in part the doctrine of Kings, in that the authority of the king was seen to come directly from God. The claim of the King in the order of dominion was that the King was a personified form of God, and his authority was therefore absolute and beyond question. Through the claim of greatness, the sovereign in Capitalism aspires to be God. Mastery of function is not enough reward, nor is even just more wealth than others. It must be exorbitant wealth that proves the greatness of the sovereign, it must be the forceful bending of wills to his, it must be an absolute difference in the quality of life, a different life- an adorned life- in order to demonstrate this greatness in difference between you and I. Greatness of power is the absolutely great in the battle of dominion in the order among men. The sovereign’s power must cause the death of others. The sovereign aspires in order to choose who lives and dies and pretends its ‘just business’, -the sovereign wants to make this choice. The subordinate accepts subordination here because he wants to be the sovereign. The sovereign wants to be God.
Religions of the Great offer their pinnacle to everyone, to all within the whole, tell them - their whole- that all of them can be greater than others, greater than the rest. To be successful in the United States means precisely to be more successful than others. These dynamics constitute the real parameters of hope and thus the very structure of possibility in the world of material life- of economics and power. Possibility as it exists is offered within the crucible of social contest with others vying for a greatness, a more exalted social place and material life. The real arena of possibility and opportunity is thus limited in the realm of the Religion of the Great we know as Capitalism. It is the religion and belief in Great Wealth through the hope of being the Greater Man, by being the ‘Great Man’. You can be greater than others, you can be richer than others, you can be the one that is chosen.
Two Systems of the Religion of Greatness
There is what I call an evangelism of the ‘Religion of the Great’ that is professed by Adolph Hitler in the written exposition of his philosophy, in Mein Kampf 29. Hitler elaborates what I would like to call a teleology of dominion, within a Religion of the ‘Great’. He writes a philosophy of dominion within the religion, the belief, in the social dynamics of what he thinks it means to be ‘Great’. Kant in the ‘Religion’ Within the Limits writes on the individual and social characteristics of judgment that speaks its desire through the greatness of God. They both, believe, then, in one sense, in a ‘Religion of the Great’. So whence comes evil? Is it in the racism? Undoubtedly yes, but the similarities- that are striking in the nature of how each thought elaborates itself- suggest to me that we have found a deeper and more common source, a source in the heart of thought itself. Perhaps what makes Evil so ‘Radical’ in the Kantian sense, is that Evil may be an irrevocable part of the very structure of all material judgment. Perhaps racism is thus only a manifestation- one form- of the deeper, immediate and universal character of material judgment to degrade others. Greatness on one pole, and the degraded on the other pole, thus form the scale and valences of the dialectical relationship of justification for both the form of any social order formed from contest, and also the sufferings that those on the bottom of this order bear.
It seemed to me from the beginning of writing this essay that Mein Kampf may show more to me than the extreme nature of the hatred and racism that has been the single most central theme of the holocaust. This hatred and racism of one man does not come close to explaining the overwhelming mobilization of the great part of a nation and the great part of its people in order to accomplish the organized murder of millions. It seems to me that The power involved in message involves elements much more central to humanity- to the structure of thought itself, to how people organize themselves- to enable this level of complicity, to allow the incalculable amount of decisions and individual acts to allow this to occur, and to make the events of the holocaust seem almost natural, the long and increasing degradation of others almost invisible to those involved in the power structure, even when the remainder of the world was aghast at its glaring and striking extent and nature of this degradation. And Now to make the poverty, crime, and incarceration invisible, almost justified to us in the United States, for the vast number of people that we have defeated.
Kant asks the question whence comes Evil?30 And if indeed it is a radical evil, it is present in the very core of man, perhaps within the very core of judgment. Philosophy must look itself directly in the heart here and come to grips with what self-proclaims to be ‘one of its own’, Evil within the limits of Reason. Philosophy will want to deny and shy from this comparison, deny that Mein Kampf elaborates any philosophy at all. But we must look at the forms and power of a thought in order to send the warning when we see similar structures, so that it never happens again, and maybe, perhaps, see the ever so subtle evil, present, dormant, and buried in our own reason, buried in the justification of our system and those that suffer from it. This is a brief outline of what I believe to be central to the social dynamics of the evangelical character- the appeal- of a ‘Religion of the Great’ in the text of Mein Kampf.
Let us now look at the similarities of language in word and in appeal in each category, first in Religion Within the Limits of Reason Alone, then in Mein Kampf.
1) The exaltation of the individual and the changing of the existing social
relation in relationship to others, this change places you in power, reorders society, corrects injustice, exalts the feeling of self worth.
Kant
pg. 106- A Saving Faith 31
pg. 85-no greater advantage than freedom from the sovereignty of evil. To become free, to be freed from bondage under the law of sin 32.
pg. 85-This is the highest prize he can win. 33.
Mein Kampf
pg. 343-in restoring a German Reich of greater power and glory 34
pg. 683- People are not freed by doing nothing, but by sacrifice. 35
pg. 577- The National Socialist doctrine is not the servant of individual federated states, but shall some day become the master of the German Nation. It must determine and reorder the life of a people, 36
pg. 353- on the veneration of genius and an uplift and enlightenment by his example. 37
pg.- 353- when human hearts break and human souls despair, then from the twilight of the past the great conquerors of distress and care, of disgrace and misery, of spiritual slavery and physical compulsion, look down on them and hold out their eternal hands to the despairing mortals! woe to the people that is ashamed to take them! 38.
pg. 577- The more complete the victory of its ideas will be, the greater may be the particular liberties it offers internally. 39
pg. 572- A powerful national ..., which takes into account and protects the outward interests of its citizens to the highest extent, can offer freedom within, 40
2) The appeal to the universal socialization dynamic of involvement. Together-With others- greater purpose, greater power, and thus greater reward - and the inflationary effect this has on individuals sense of worth- involvement in a great power makes you great, sweeps you up in a sense of importance.
Kant
pg. 89-Again, just as the state of a lawless external (brutish) freedom and independence from coercive laws is a state of injustice and of war, each against each, which a man ought to leave in order to enter into a politico-civil state 41
pg. 89-But because the highest moral good cannot be achieved merely by the exertions of the single individual toward his own moral perfection, but requires rather a union of such individuals into a whole toward the same goal- into a system of well-disposed men, in which and through whose unity alone the highest moral good can come to pass42
pg. 86-As far as we can see, therefore, the sovereignty of the good principle is attainable, so far as men can work toward it, only through the establishment and spread of a society43
pg. 86-At the same time there is a certain analogy between them, regarded as two commonwealths, in view of which the former may also be called an ethical state, i.e. a kingdom of virtue. The idea of such a state possesses a thoroughly well-grounded objective reality in human reason (in man’s duty to join such a state), 44
pg. 114 K- Such, therefore is the activity of the good principle, unnoted by human eyes but ever continuing- erecting for itself in the human race, regarded as a commonwealth under laws of virtue, A power and kingdom which sustains the victory over evil and, under its own dominion, assures the world of an eternal peace. 45
Mein Kampf
pg. 572- A powerful national Reich, which takes into account and protects the outward interests of its citizens to the highest extent, can offer freedom within, without having to fear for the stability of the state. 46
618- Natural destinies are firmly forged together only by the prospect of a common success in the sense of common gains, conquests; in short, or a mutual extension of power. 47
509- Once such a movement has been called to life, it possesses a certain practical right of priority. It should really be obvious that all men who fight for the same goal should join into such a movement and thereby add to its strength, this better to serve the common purpose. Especially every active mind must feel that the premise for any real success in the common struggle lies in such coordination. Therefore, reasonably, and presupposing a certain honesty, there should be only one movement for one goal. 48
3) You are the chosen, by being a member of a class that is limited to you and those like you, and this condition is natural and permanent, you are the one chosen for greatness, or the participation in greatness. The combination of #1 above with #2 above, is a multiplication effect in the stream and sweep of power, and gives the an overwhelming feeling that your rising is a ‘destiny’, that these events themselves conspire by some other power, by God, that this is a reality of the world- as objective as the principles of gravity and chemistry.
Kant
pg. 114 K- Such, therefore is the activity of the good principle, unnoted by human eyes but ever continuing ( Destiny)- erecting for itself in the human race, regarded as a commonwealth under laws of virtue, a power and kingdom which sustains the victory over evil and, under its own dominion, assures the world of an eternal peace. 49
pg. 105 The token of the true church is its universality; the sign of this, in turn, is its necessity and its determinability in only one possible way. 50
pg. 88- Now here we have a duty which is sui-generis, not of man toward men, but of the human race toward itself, for the species of rational beings is objectively, in the idea of reason, destined for a social goal, namely the promotion of the highest as a social good51
pg. 86-At the same time there is a certain analogy between them, regarded as two commonwealths, in view of which the former may also be called an ethical state, i.e. a kingdom of virtue. The idea of such a state possesses a thoroughly well-grounded objective reality in human reason (in man’s duty to join such a state), 52
Mein Kampf
pg. 343- The goal of a political reform movement will never be reached by enlightenment work or by influencing ruling circles, but only by the achievement of political power. Every world moving idea has not only the right, but also the duty, of securing, those means which make possible the execution of its ideas. Success is the one earthly judge concerning the right or wrong of such an effort, 53
pg. 577-578 - The National Socialist doctrine is not the servant of individual federated states, but shall some day become the master of the German Nation. 54
pg. 618- Natural destinies are firmly forged together only by the prospect of a common success in the sense of common gains, conquests; in short, or a mutual extension of power. 55
4) The appeal to contest and to mission, Vigilance.
Kant
pg. 86- For only thus can we hope for a victory of the good over the evil principle. 56
pg. 85- The combat which every morally well-disposed man must sustain in this life, under the leadership of the good principle, against the attacks of the evil principle57
He continues to be exposed, none the less to the assaults of the evil principle; and in order to assert his freedom, which is perpetually being attacked, he must ever remain armed for the fray. 58
pg. 86-for the sake of, the laws of virtue, a society whose task and duty it is to rationally impress these laws in all their scope upon the entire human race 59
pg. 85-This is the highest prize he can win. 60
Mein Kampf
pg. -635- it must teach our people to look beyond the trifles and see the biggest things, not to split up over irrelevant things 61
pg. 423- The struggle that rages today is for very great aims. A culture combining millenniums is fighting for its existence. 62
pg. 511- For nature itself in its exorable logic makes the decision, by causing the different groups to enter into competition with one another and struggle for the palm of victory, and leads that movement to the goal which has chosen the clearest, shortest, and surest way. 63
pg. 586- For being convinced of the inferiority of an existing condition does not suffice to entitle one to speak of a conviction in the higher sense; no, the latter is rooted only in the knowledge of a new condition and in the inner vision of a condition the achievement of which one feels as a necessity, and to stand up for whose realization one regards as one’s highest life task. 64
635- never to forget that the aim for which we must fight today is bare existence of our people, and the sole enemy which we must strike is and remains the power which is robbing us of this existence. 65
5) The urgency and exaggeration of appeal as mission: the world is at stake, the outcome will be forever, the time is now. a) Urgency of your involvement- we need you, the difference in outcome hinges on you, you can save the world
Kant
pg.92-Rather must man proceed as though everything depended upon him; only on this condition dare he hope that higher wisdom will grant the completion of his well intentioned endeavors. 66
Mein Kampf
pg. 683- People are not freed by doing nothing, but by sacrifice. 67
b) Exaggerated Consequences as either/or: salvation or damnation, freedom or slavery, reward or deprivation
pg. 85- no greater advantage than freedom from the sovereignty of evil. To become free, to be freed from bondage under the law of sin 68
pg. 114 K- Such, therefore is the activity of the good principle, unnoted by human eyes but ever continuing- erecting for itself in the human race, regarded as a commonwealth under laws of virtue, a power and kingdom which sustains the victory over evil and, under its own dominion, assures the world of an eternal peace. 69
Mein Kampf
pg. 516- Great, truly world shaking revolutions of a spiritual nature are not even conceivable and realizable except as the titanic struggles of individual formations, never as enterprises of coalitions. 70
pg. -635- never to forget that the aim for which we must fight today is the bare existence of our people, and the sole enemy which we must strike is and remains the power which is robbing us of this existence. 71
pg. 423- The struggle that rages today is for very great aims. A culture combining millenniums is fighting for its existence. 72
pg. 640- salvation of an embattled Aryan Humanity 73
pg. 427- Assuredly this world is moving toward a great revolution. The question can only be whether it will redound to the benefit of Aryan humanity or to the profit of the eternal Jew. 74
6) The mode of ‘we are under attack’ from the evil invader- slavery, injustice and importance of involvement-
Kant
pg. 85- The combat which every morally well-disposed man must sustain in this life, under the leadership of the good principle, against the attacks of the evil principle 75
pg. -86 ...gain the upper hand over evil which is attacking them without rest. 76
pg. 85- He continues to be exposed, none the less to the assaults of the evil principle; and in order to assert his freedom, which is perpetually being attacked, he must ever remain armed for the fray. 77
Mein Kampf
pg.- 635-never to forget that the aim for which we must fight today is the bare existence of our people, and the sole enemy which we must strike is and remains the power which is robbing us of this existence. 78
pg. 65- Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the almighty creator: by defending myself... I am fighting for the work of the lord. 79
7) Consecration of the deprivation, evil/suffering of others as 1)- sacrifice necessary for success- as struggle and casualties of war or 2)- part of God’s work 3)- for their own good. 4) As ‘purification’.
Kant
pg. 86- for the sake of, the laws of virtue, a society whose task and duty it is to rationally impress these laws in all their scope upon the entire human race. 80
pg. 86- morally legislative reason also unfurls a banner of virtue as a rallying point for all who love the good, that they may gather beneath it. 81
pg. 86- may also be called an ethical state, i.e. a kingdom of virtue. The idea of such a state possesses a thoroughly well-grounded objective reality in human reason (in man’s duty to join such a state), even though, subjectively, 82
Mein Kampf
640- For the rest, may reason be our guide, may our will be our strength, may the sacred duty to act in this way give us determination, and above all may our faith protect us. 83
pg. 65- Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the almighty creator: by defending myself... I am fighting for the work of the lord. 84
pg. 583- when the new philosophy of life as far as possible has been taught to all men, and, if necessary, later forced upon them85
pg. -516- Great, truly world shaking revolutions of a spiritual nature are not even conceivable and realizable except as the titanic struggles of individual formations, never as enterprises of coalitions. 86
pg. 577-578- Moreover a young victorious idea 87
8) The unworthiness of those you replace in the change of social relation, the devaluing of others, very much a part of the justification of the change in social relation- very natural to the judgment process of man, could be called the aggression in judgment, the aggression involved by the suspension of the self in the core of comparison.
Mein Kampf
pg. 635- never to forget that the aim for which we must fight today is bare existence of our people, and the sole enemy which we must strike is and remains the power which is robbing us of this existence. 88
The sense of mission, of import of social task and purpose brings people together, forms groups into hierarchies, and the extent to which the individual is involved and benefits in the process determines the extent to which we voluntarily become more subordinated to the process, the sweeping up of the individual in the process becomes a type of invisible justification not noticeable by those benefiting from the system. It is this sense of mission and inclusion in the mission that makes all the difference between subordination or slavery, salvation or damnation, between destiny and fate. This is why both books possess strong evangelical elements to them, part of what I have referred to in a previous essay as the hyperbolic character of thinking, in the social dynamics of an evangelism of the great- and it’s invisible -sublimated- process of justification.
First I should say that the first four headings in the outline can be considered components in what Kant calls ‘self-love’ or what comprises self-love. Here the self-interest of the individual participates in a process which completely absorbs, effects and distorts the ability to compare events and scenarios. The individual in this process is empowered, in-power, and experiences the swirl of this inflammation as exaltation.
Next, in the process of justification, how effectively the first 5 headings are implemented, how thoroughly a people are subordinated to the sense of mission and involvement and benefit, determines more how much the last category can be converted to physical degradation and deprivation- to the point which the enemy can be considered nothing human at all, nothing like ‘us’. This was not only the structure of the philosophical appeal in Mein Kampf, this was supported materially through the power of the state.
Kant splits the domain of power into state power and sovereignty, and Ethical power in the form of an Ethical Commonwealth. Kant ‘s ethical system offers the promise of an exaltation after the lifetime of ethical action, of making oneself worthy in the course of life, in a life well-pleasing to God. This domain of power is not only unified in Mein Kampf, but also exacerbated by the urgency and time frame of the appeal. So the appeal character of Mein Kampf seems at first to be materially stronger than that of an Ethical Commonwealth separated from the seat of material power.
Kant’s Ethical Commonwealth is not however completely separated. Kant admonishes those against the evil principle present in a political system, evidenced by the reference to the sufferings and depravity of the people in North America. Suffering and depravity of others are results of action done from evil. So for Kant this sense of the suffering of others will be our guide to the limits of our own power. For as we cannot thus see it as it is made invisible to us, the voice, the audible character of duty in the voice of the other, demands that we listen, for the Ethical call, with our ears and our hearts. If our system is truly great, we will hear no great cries, we will build no great prisons, we will kill none of those in our system, we will deprive no others of basic involvement, there will be no great death to justify. If our system is truly great we will not make the wretched more.
‘Look at the price I demand to be Great!! and feel that it equals the depth of my hate!’
Of Gifts and Difficulty
Some will say that in matters of purpose and efficacy that all individuals are not born equal- that some possess innate gifts and talent that others do not. In some there is a facility for math and science and the understanding of abstract and complex equations, in others the facility for organization, for medicine. In others there is a facility for music, in others for languages or painting. In athletics there is the phrase ‘You can not put in what God has left out’. Sometimes the role chooses you as the facility comes so easily, so naturally to the level of function- absent in almost all other people. Difficulty in function is overwhelmed by gift, by the rare facility, by the uncommon, so much so that indeed it is not even the same level of difficulty which two people speak of. For every person on earth, to some extent this is so.
No Race has advantage over any other here, nor does either sex have advantage, nor does any Nation.
Perhaps as a man I find that I possess a gift of function- why must I demand more money from this when this is precisely the level I am good at- because I can master more functions than others? Why must I deny others of the dignity of life when I am merely meeting up to the level of my own capability? If I can try more- shouldn’t I? If I can do more- shouldn’t I? if I can make more for others shouldn’t I?
But as we now clearly hold our temporary domain over the world, dominion is only a question in the order among men, and has no real function in the survival of the species. The level of competence, function, and power of a position is compensation in itself. The work is more challenging, more interesting, more engaging, and the individual so capable. On line monitoring markets in London at 5:30 a.m., meeting with managers of different properties discussing systems at 9:00, at 10:00 overlooking reports and the details in the system-looking for glitches; phone calls to subordinates giving feedback and then monitoring decision processes through 11:00....
Perhaps as a man I look and see others less capable, or with a different facility and say that I would not want their life because mine is more exciting, because mine is more challenging, because theirs is menial, elementary labor, unskilled and exhausting, because I see no creativity or imagination- Why then must I degrade their material life?? Why must I place these gifts in the service of dominion, for my own self interest?? What is this contest that I need to make myself- not the better, but feel the better?- and use my reason and intelligence as if they were only the instruments of a supreme lullaby, as if their supreme use were to sublimate the trauma of human comparison, to justify the material judgment in the ordering of other men for our benefit.
Out of the womb without food or care You came, You would not have lived one week. But came a common woman, your mother, and doing nothing extraordinary, but with a common gentle care, she nurtured your frailty and your Possibility but with a common love. As it was her duty to do her best, so it is your duty to do your best- to nurture the world by the possibility of your gift- to give your best but with a common love.
Why should anyone expect any less of me?? Why should I demand more for myself because of this gift?? Why should I make less of others because of it? Why should I demand more money and make the wretched more?? Have I really done all I could??!! Justify yourself to yourself and to the possibility of your gift.
The ‘Kingdom’ of God
What then could possibly constitute a Kingdom of God, and in what way could we possibly relate to this Kingdom? For it seems that any sense of dominion seems silly as man views death, and therefore all life, as struggle with an enemy.
Perhaps there is a place- in the heart, where one give oneself over to the certainty of death and human processes and work. It is a place that has no place in the order of men, but has a place in the real concrete life of man. A place that relates to each man his own, in relation to each his own other.
A kingdom of God appears in the instance of an act, and in this place, in an act and in a time. In a time where the order of men vanishes- dissolves before your eyes and there are only others. There is no master. The time of life truly lived is a life with no time, and no epoch, where the conditions of all humanity are the same and have always been the same, and what is given to and for others constitute an absolute relation that presents itself to others over and over and over again. The Kingdom of God arises within and beyond all contest, in the hearts relation to the act itself- in the rise beyond the acts’ own history as act- but for the sake of others. It is this Kingdom of God in act that reorders the history of the personal act of man according to its own chance and capability, and becomes one with the structure of finite possibility, in a finite eternity. With no crowd and no cheers, no trophies. The reward of this Kingdom of God is in the beauty of what has been done for others sake. The gift of oneself resolves the conflict with death by an act that passes another beyond his death, and thus crosses the individual over from the life and time of a world in contest, over to a different time, and thus human eternity. For as time is only motion in relation to a motion of standard appearance, the time of the act of eternity leaves its own time for the sake of others, and becomes the real in the time of God. The Kingdom of God is the time of God, in the place of an absolute time, in an absolute suspension, in a place within comparison- the heart, and beyond comparison, beyond judgment, thus without social place, where the earth appears once more.
There is a justification that does not Degrade? it is one that does not contest to compare to others, but contests with itself to do it’s very best. There is a justification, of others, to lift others for no other sake but theirs. There is a justification that struggles to do all it can, but for the sake of Others. Not for the profit they pay, but for their sake. To lift up others for their sake does not degrade because it is not in the relation of man to man, but of a man to himself, to the order of what he can make- to the possibility of others and to the time of his life. Come!! Join with me!! The World is at stake!! The consequences are forever!! The time is Now!!
Lift up you hearts.
With a common love the ordinary becomes the extraordinary worthy of a dignity. An extraordinary performance for one’s own wealth is indeed a great performance, yet also only a common justification, a common degradation, a common greed.
Lift up your voice.
The spirit throughout all of Kant’s work is that of limits. The limit of thought to know the object, the limit or thought to itself in antinomy, and now in the limits of the individuals sense of power limited by the call and the voice of the other, limited by the recognition of the other as same. Kant’s ‘Religion of the Great’ limits the idea of power of the great in man. Kant stops short of saying that only the great is the good, but the structure of his Ethical commonwealth claims rather that the good throughout is what is truly great. So from Kant I will vary, vary from the place of the social world to that of a truly exalted world, beyond the limit of Reason.
Lift up your life.
Through a life of moral discipline, in living a life well pleasing to God- through action, after action, after action after action- for others. Throughout the time encapsulated by a life, throughout the time of life. So that there is no unit measured but the span encapsulated solely by this action. Perhaps it is the quality of this action that is present to God, present perhaps directly before the face of God. But it is a time that is compared, and what is this time, this life-time compared to? This life-time is compared to the time of God, moves in the time of God, comes to touch God, and effects God in a way that can be called pleasure. Within and beyond action, through the course of a life, through the path of life. So that a life placing others above the interest of itself- approaches God, comes to touch God- be with God- as a moment in the life Divine. And so this is the type of exaltation I mean when I first listen to, and then speak of, the ‘greatness’ of God- in a dazzling exaltation of the whole of mankind, an exaltation that is without compare.
Notes
1. Immanuel Kant, Critique of Practical Reason, ( New York: MacMillan Publishing Co, 1956).
2. Immanuel Kant, Religion Within the Limits of Reason Alone, (New York: Harper, 1960)
3. Kant, (Hereafter ‘Kant’ is in Reference to Religion Within...) pg. 31-32.
4. Paul Ricoeur, Oneself As Another, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992), pg. 193.
5. Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations, (New York: Random House, 1937), pg. 3,
Chapter 1, ‘The Division of Labor’.
6. Kant, pg. 22.
7. Kant, pg. 85.
8. G.W.F. Hegel, The Phenomenology of Spirit, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1977) pgs. 111-119.
9. Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, (London: Penguin Books, 1985).
10. Paul Ricoeur, The Conflict of Interpretations, (Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1974).
11. Hans-Georg Gadamer, Truth and Method, (New York: Crossroads, 1986),
pg. 273.
12. Hegel, pg. 72-76, sections 119-129.
13. Emily Dickinson, ‘J. 324’, in The American Tradition in Literature, (New York: Grosset & Dunlap, 1974), pg. 97.
14. Paul Ricoeur, Symbolism of Evil, (New York: Paul Ricoeur in Arrangement with Harper & Row, 1967) pg. 70.
15. Jean-Jacque Rousseau, The Social Contract, (Middlesex: Maurice Cranston, 1968).
16. Carl Von Clauswitz, On War, (Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press, 1976)
17. Elaine Scarry, The Body in Pain, (Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 1985)
18. Kant, pg. 136-137.
19. Jacque Lacan, ‘Aggressivity in Psychoanalysis’, in Ecrits, (New York: W.W. Norton & Co., 1966), pg. 20
20. Mircea Eliade, The Sacred and The Profane, (New York: Harcourt Brace Javonovich, 1959).
21. Kant, pgs. 136-137.
22. Kant, pg. 136-137.
23. Karl Marx, Capital, (New York: Random House, 1906).
24. Marx, pg. 83.
25. Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1979, copyright Mary McCarthy West) pg. 302.
26. Paul Ricoeur, Fallible Man, (New York: Fordham University Press, 1986), pg. 10.
27. Martin Heidegger, Being and Time, (New York: Harper & Row, 1962), pgs. 305, 306.
28. Book of Deuteronomy, Vs. 11:26 & 30:15.
29. Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf, (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1971).
30. Kant, pg. 86.
31. Kant, pg. 106.
32. Kant, pg. 85.
33. Kant, pg. 85.
34. Hitler, pg. 343.
35. Hitler, pg. 683.
36. Hitler, pg. 577.
37. Hitler, pg. 353.
38. Hitler, pg. 353.
39. Hitler, pg. 577.
40. Hitler, pg. 572.
41. Kant, pg. 89.
42. Kant, pg. 89.
43. Kant, pg. 86.
44. Kant, pg. 86.
45. Kant, pg. 114.
46. Hitler, pg. 572.
47. Hitler, pg. 618
48. Hitler, pg. 509.
49. Kant, pg. 114.
50. Kant, pg. 105.
51. Kant, pg. 88.
52. Kant, pg. 86.
53. Hitler, pg. 343.
54. Hitler, pg. 577-578.
55. Hitler, pg. 618.
56. Kant, pg. 86.
57. Kant, pg. 85.
58. Kant, pg. 85.
59. Kant, pg. 86.
60. Kant, pg. 85.
61. Hitler, pg. 635.
62. Hitler, pg. 423.
63. Hitler, pg. 511.
64. Hitler, pg. 586.
65. Hitler, pg. 635.
66. Kant, pg. 92.
67. Hitler, pg. 683.
68. Kant, pg. 85.
69. Kant, pg. 114.
70. Hitler, pg. 516.
71. Hitler, pg. 635.
72. Hitler, pg. 423.
73. Hitler, pg. 640.
74. Hitler, pg. 427.
75. Kant, pg. 85.
76. Kant, pg. 86.
77. Kant, pg. 85.
78. Hitler, pg. 635.
79. Hitler, pg. 65.
80. Kant, pg. 86.
81. Kant, pg. 86.
82. Kant, pg. 86.
83. Hitler, pg. 640.
84. Hitler, pg. 65.
85. Hitler, pg. 583.
86. Hitler, pg. 516.
87. Hitler, pg. 577-578.
88. Hitler, pg. 635.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment