Hermeticism is an esoteric greco-egyptian religion from 2nd c. BC to 3rd c. AD, it used aesthetically pagan cosmologies and language, combines platonist philosophy and monotheism at core, believed in One God. It kind of survived in small occult circles, especially in intellectual ones. It's as similar as islam or christianity because monotheism, or is completely alien?
Do you conservatives think that pagan religions of your ancestry could be classified as "tradion", or it cannot be replaced by christianity? Technically tradition means passing by hand, but paganism is purely resurrected in this case, not by "recieving of hand". In my opinion could, but it is a bit of cognitive dissonance around, like christian socialists perhaps.
Do you socialists don't see the obvious connection with chrsitianity in ethics? There is an important overlap and even inheritance from christianity into socialism, yet socialism often is atheist and rejects christianity.
Considerați că liberalismul are mai multe în comun cu conservatorismul sau cu socialismul? Vreau sa argumentați in detaliu mai mult decât doar "liberalismul e de dreapta", filosofie și valori unde ar cădea într-un bloc ideologic.
Considerați că liberalismul are mai multe în comun cu conservatorismul sau cu socialismul? Vreau sa argumentați in detaliu mai mult decât doar "liberalismul e de dreapta", filosofie și valori unde ar cădea într-un bloc ideologic.
Ma consider anarhist, apropo. Sunt exotic in convingeri?
How can someone be seriously a "social democrat"? Isn't this abomination a hybrid of liberalism with socialism? A cognitive dissonance of enormous proportions? I think it should be far more ridiculed than already it is, all this "wise" moderates are full of bullshit, they are not smart at all, they just don't have a core coherent principle to follow. Do they believe in anything coherent on long term? Do anyone really believes that democracy can be ever mixed with capitalism? At this point why do they call themselves social if they don't have anything for a long time to do with socialism and abandoned it for profits?
Which is more weird? To be socialist and chrisian, or conservative and atheist? The irony is that socialism despite rejecting religion historically, it has christian similar concepts more so than conservatism, you know charity, helping the poor, compassion, etc.
Which is more cognitive disonant, to be Christian socialist and ignore that socialism was against religion and it's authority in the past, or to be atheist socialist and ignore the obvious connections to christianity? I mean strong connections conceptually. If you ask me, conservatives seem more similar to antique pagans than to Christians in this modern context.
Which is more weird? To be socialist and chrisian, or conservative and atheist? The irony is that socialism despite rejecting religion historically, it has christian similar concepts more so than conservatism, you know charity, helping the poor, compassion, etc.
Which is more cognitive disonant, to be Christian socialist and ignore that socialism was against religion and it's authority in the past, or to be atheist socialist and ignore the obvious connections to christianity? I mean strong connections conceptually. If you ask me, conservatives seem more similar to antique pagans than to Christians in this modern context.
Is Hermeticism the religion most elevating reason? From what I remember in the last part of Asclepius, it is said that only reason is the light through which can The One be known. I am not aware of any other religion which speaks higher about reason.
Despite the fact that individual anarchism is both anti state and anti capitalism, do you find more tolerable than communist, ecological or other kinds of anarchisms? From my knowledge capitalist anarchism originated as inspiration from individual anarchism. If yes, why?
Doesn't rationalism tries to replace historically neoplatonism implicitly by deconstructing the host religions like Christianity, islam and Judaism? Why I don't find anything meaningful about this apparent clash?
I appreciate your sub since it is a rarity, I just got enlighten by rationalism after I struggled understanding politics for a long time, I would like to learn the basics, but it is hard to find something structured as a tutorial. I like to think that my reasoning is the best achieved via individual anarchism.
Why is psychiatry so afraid of labeling religions as insane? For example in antiquity Jews would be seen as "mentally ill" from a collective perspective compared to all other side of humanity which was polytheist. Not saying that only Jews are, but potentially all collectives can have mass psychosis, any religion or shared imaginary framework can be. Why aren't ancient or modern Jews in this sense collectively labelled schizoids, schizotypals or even schizophrenic?