Love

Posted on by

There has been a lot of talk here lately about Christians and Jews. here is a short sketch of my views on Christianity and Christ.


IMO Christ did not come to found a religion, although it was inevitable that his followers would organise themselves into what would become the various factions and sects that is the Chrstian religion.


His descent, passion and resurrection was a turning point in the evolution of the Earth. It was a turning point in the transition from group consciousness to individual consciousness. His prescription was one that anyone can follow whether they are Jewish, Muslim, atheist, Christian, agnostic or whatever other human invented category they align themselves with.


To truly follow Christ one only has to do as He asks:

John 13: 34 A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.

and:

Matthew 5: 43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. 44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;.

Very easy to say, but the hardest of paths to follow.


Evolution is a path towards individual conscious freedom. The problem is that humans now bear the responsibility for the future outcome of the direction that evolution will take and it is much easier to follow selfish desires than to love unconditionally.

The latter is something I aspire to but fail miserably to live up to.

80 thoughts on “Love”

  1. Tom English: For me, the crucial question is how to respond compassionately to the millions of Americans who see Trump as their champion, and to the millions of others who see Trump as an instrument of God. It’s hard not to be angry with them. I am angry with them. I despise their meanness, hypocrisy, and willful ignorance. But the circumstance is that the president of the United States is doing his damnedest to disunite the citizenry. And the only sane response, no matter how difficult, is to take personal responsibility for doing what I can to unite.

    I have struggled with this myself and have alienated not only Trump supporters but those who say they don’t like him but have nothing against his supporters (and claim that disdain for the regular folk–calling them the basket of deplorables and making allegations of racism makes Trump’s success the “left” media’s fault).

    It’s a difficult situation for sure, but blaming the left rather than people who actually voted for the dipshit just makes me angrier.

  2. “But if we look at how modern culture has evolved we can see a progression towards freedom.”

    ‘Chance & ‘evolution’ aren’t synonyms. You’re speaking colloquially, not as an actual cultural theorist, correct CharlieM? And are you a British or a USAmerican citizen suggesting this ‘progressive freedom’ narrative?

    Why do I ask? Because the notion that culture ‘evolves’ is indeed contested nowadays; it is not a simplified given with ideological closure around it.

    Do you disagree? Can I back up that position? Yes. Amply. I’ve spoken with many scholars who reject ‘evolutionary theories’ in their fields of thought & also the literature is full of push back against loose ideological evolutionism swallowing perceptions in the field. Check this out as an example: https://philpapers.org/rec/FRADCE

    D.S. Wilson is among the worst perpetrators of this now, smarmed in lovey-dovey nonsense in the name of a kind of ‘spiritual, but not religious’ atheist worldview. A general rule seems to hold in the field of theology: the woollier the ‘theologian’ the more ‘evolutionary’ they get. Teilhard was borderline if not actually heretical. Is that what CharlieM prefers?

    “CharlieM should read Teilhard de Chardin or (even better) Hans Jonas.”

    Not really. Jonas was gnostic Jew, not an agnostic or quasi-atheist, it seems like KN. His work does little to push forward the discourse. There is no orthodoxy KN could suggest to you, CharlieM, because he believes in none. A better recommendation than KN’s usual disbelief would be Nicholas Rescher.

    Usually people follow Steiner into a cave of unconventionality. Yet, love, yes, the Steiner School, like everyone else, still sings about that. ; )

  3. CharlieM: So if it is us who are commanding ourselves then we are capable of free will?

    Kant would say yes — we’re capable of rejecting the moral law and acting according to our selfish inclinations instead.

    So where does the obligation come from? Can I will myself to do something against my own will?

    You can chose to reject pure practical reason, if that’s what you’re asking.

    The problem is that in laying down universal moral laws, moral standards which must be obeyed, does not lead to freedom. This does not mean that there should be no laws of the land laid down. We need these precisely because we are imperfect and need these restrictions to safeguard society.

    True enough, though to be precise, the moral law (as Kant understands it) nothing other than acting in ways that uphold the dignity of all rational beings, including oneself. It’s got nothing to do with any conventional laws established by legislatures. Whether a conventional law is itself just or unjust depends on (Kant would say) whether it is consistent with the moral law.

    But if we look at how modern culture has evolved we can see a progression towards freedom. The Ten Commandments were laws laid down from without much like present day state laws. They were laws which the people were obliged to follow. And most of them were telling the people what they should not do. Jesus said basically, ‘I am telling you something that, if you as an individual can achieve, will make these external laws unnecessary.’ You will then act within the law, not because you are compelled to do so, but because you want to do what is right and just.

    I don’t entirely disagree with the idea of an arc towards freedom at work in history.

    So you believe in an unknowable, ‘thing in itself’?

    Almost, but not quite — I take Kant to have shown that traditional approaches to metaphysics must fail because they don’t take into account the kind of constraints that finite minds bring to bear in how they construct the world as they experience it. That doesn’t make metaphysics impossible but it does make metaphysics a far more difficult project than anyone pre-Kant took it to be.

  4. Blame is a useless concept. Particularly in games, such as elections.

    Going forward, one might question the wisdom of labeling a large chunk of one’s traditional voters as deplorables. I know this is unasked for advice.

    Trump is certainly a name caller, but he refrains from alienating his supporters.

  5. petrushka: Blame is a useless concept. Particularly in games, such as elections.

    Going forward, one might question the wisdom of labeling a large chunk of one’s traditional voters as deplorables. I know this is unasked for advice.

    Trump is certainly a name caller, but he refrains from alienating his supporters.

    It seems to me that both sides are required to attack the other viciously to retain their supporters. That’s precisely what these folks want to hear.

  6. newton: I do have empathy for the members of my species.

    I’m glad to hear it.

    CharlieM: Nothing that stems from Trump has any effect on this love.

    You could say the same about person without any feelings towards Trump at all.

    Yes but that wouldn’t be very interesting when we are actually talking about the relationship between Trump and others.

  7. Gregory: January 5, 2019 at 10:33 pm

    “But if we look at how modern culture has evolved we can see a progression towards freedom.”

    ‘Chance & ‘evolution’ aren’t synonyms. You’re speaking colloquially, not as an actual cultural theorist, correct CharlieM? And are you a British or a USAmerican citizen suggesting this ‘progressive freedom’ narrative?

    Yes you are correct. And I am British. I would say that cultures evolve in that they change over time. Nothing is static.

    And I should clarify what I mean by progression towards freedom. I do not mean that society necessarily progresses so as to allow individuals to act more freely. From my own personal experience I would say that my children and grandchildren have had and are having a less freedom than I had when I was growing up. And the advancement of modern technology is having the effect of restricting people’s freedom. It gets pretty complicated when we consider society as a whole, groups within the society and individuals.

    When I said progression towards freedom I meant a progression towards free thinking individuals. We can have our freedom of action strictly curtailed by the society we live in but still be free thinkers nevertheless.

    Why do I ask? Because the notion that culture ‘evolves’ is indeed contested nowadays; it is not a simplified given with ideological closure around it.

    Do you disagree? Can I back up that position? Yes. Amply. I’ve spoken with many scholars who reject ‘evolutionary theories’ in their fields of thought & also the literature is full of push back against loose ideological evolutionism swallowing perceptions in the field. Check this out as an example: https://philpapers.org/rec/FRADCE

    I would say that cultures evolve in that one culture may rise to dominance over other cultures, maintain their dominance for a certain period of time, and then decline. But even though they decline they still have an effect on the path that the next dominant culture takes. I am thinking of today’s dominant Western culture and where it sprang from.

    D.S. Wilson is among the worst perpetrators of this now, smarmed in lovey-dovey nonsense in the name of a kind of ‘spiritual, but not religious’ atheist worldview. A general rule seems to hold in the field of theology: the woollier the ‘theologian’ the more ‘evolutionary’ they get. Teilhard was borderline if not actually heretical. Is that what CharlieM prefers?

    “CharlieM should read Teilhard de Chardin or (even better) Hans Jonas.”

    Not really. Jonas was gnostic Jew, not an agnostic or quasi-atheist, it seems like KN. His work does little to push forward the discourse. There is no orthodoxy KN could suggest to you, CharlieM, because he believes in none. A better recommendation than KN’s usual disbelief would be Nicholas Rescher.

    Usually people follow Steiner into a cave of unconventionality. Yet, love, yes, the Steiner School, like everyone else, still sings about that. ; )

    Shouldn’t I be reading the works of people from all sides in my field of interest, not just those that I believe align with my views?

    I believe that love and freedom go hand in hand and if someone believes that this is not the case then they cannot be thinking about unconditional love as I understand it. There is nothing sentimental about this type of love.

  8. Kantian Naturalist: January 6, 2019 at 12:59 am

    CharlieM: So if it is us who are commanding ourselves then we are capable of free will?

    Kant would say yes — we’re capable of rejecting the moral law and acting according to our selfish inclinations instead.

    If we are acting selfishly then we are allowing our actions to be dictated by how they affect our state of being. These are not unconditional acts and are therefore not free.

  9. CharlieM: Shouldn’t I be reading the works of people from all sides in my field of interest, not just those that I believe align with my views?

    Well, as you’re asking, IMHO, the best thing for you would be to STOP reading Steiner and Barfield and try to recover from them. You’ve absorbed a ton of nonsense from that quarter.

  11. Kantian Naturalist:

    So where does the obligation come from? Can I will myself to do something against my own will?

    You can chose to reject pure practical reason, if that’s what you’re asking.

    What I am getting at is that if I am duty bound to act, can this action be said to be carried out by my own free will?

    Here is an extract from Steiner’s book, The Riddles of Philosophy from the chapter The Age of Kant and Goethe where he gives us his account of Kant’s views on morality and duty:

    “But the objects of the highest questions of reason — God, Freedom and Immortality — can never become phenomena. We see the appearances within ourselves; whether or not these have their origin in a divine being we cannot know. We can observe our own psychic conditions, but these are also only phenomena. Whether or not there is a free immortal soul behind them remains concealed to our knowledge. About the “things in themselves,” our knowledge cannot produce any statement. It cannot determine whether the ideas concerning these “things in themselves” are true or false. If they are announced to us from another direction, there is no objection to assume their existence, but a knowledge concerning them is impossible for us. There is only one access to these highest truths. This access is given in the voice of duty, which speaks within us emphatically and distinctly, “You are morally obliged to do this and that.” This “Categorical Imperative” imposes on us an obligation we are incapable of avoiding. But how could we comply with this obligation if we were not in the possession of a free will? We are, to be sure, incapable of knowledge concerning this quality of our soul, but we must believe that it is free in order to be capable of following its inner voice of duty. Concerning this freedom, we have, therefore, no certainty of knowledge as we possess it with respect to the objects of mathematics and natural science, but we have moral certainty for it instead. The observance of the categorical imperative leads to virtue. It is only through virtue that man can arrive at his destination. He becomes worthy of happiness. Without this possibility his virtue would be void of meaning and significance. In order that virtue may result from happiness, it is mandatory that a being exists who secures this happiness as an effect of virtue. This can only be an intelligent being, determining the highest value of things: God. Through the existence of virtue, its effect is guaranteed, and through this guarantee, in turn, the existence of God. Because man is a sensual being and cannot obtain perfect happiness in this imperfect world, his existence must transcend this sensual existence; that is to say, the soul must be immortal. The very thing about which we are denied possible knowledge is, therefore, magically produced by Kant out of the moral belief in the voice of duty. It was respect for the feeling of duty that restored a real world for Kant when, under the influence of Hume, the observable world withered away into a mere inner world. This respect for duty is beautifully expressed in his Critique of Practical Reason:

    Duty! Thou sublime, great name that containest nothing pleasurable to bid for our favor, but demandest submission, . . . proclaiming a law in the presence of which all inclinations are silenced although they may secretly offer resistance. . . .

    That the highest truths are not truths of knowledge but moral truths is what Kant considered as his discovery. Man has to renounce all insight into a supersensible world, but from his moral nature springs a compensation for this knowledge. No wonder Kant sees the highest demand on man in the unconditional surrender to duty. If it were not for duty to open a vista for him beyond the sensual world, man would be enclosed for his whole life in the world of the senses. No matter, therefore, what the sensual world demands; it has to give way before the peremptory claims of duty, and the sensual world cannot, out of its own initiative, agree with duty. Its own inclination is directed toward the agreeable, toward pleasure. These aims have to be opposed by duty in order to enable man to reach his destination. What man does for his pleasure is not virtuous; virtue is only what he does in selfless devotion to duty. Submit your desires to duty; this is the rigorous task that is taught by Kant’s moral philosophy. Do not allow your will to be directed toward what satisfies you in your egotism, but so act that the principles of your action can become those of all men. In surrendering to the moral law, man attains his perfection. The belief that this moral law has its being above all other events of the world and is made real within the world by a divine being is, in Kant’s opinion, true religion. It springs from the moral life. Man is to be good, not because of his belief in a God whose will demands the good; he is to be good only because of his feeling for duty. He is to believe in God, however, because duty without God would be meaningless. This is religion within the Limits of Mere Reason. It is thus that Kant entitles his book on religious world conception.

    Steiner then goes on to write about Goethe’s world view in relation to Kant:

    The self-conscious ego by itself does not find a place in the nature picture of modern times. If the self-conscious ego, in filling itself with thought, is not merely aware that it forms this thought, but recognizes in thought a life of which it can know, “This life can realize itself also outside myself,” then this self-conscious ego can arrive at the insight, “I hold within myself something that can also be found without.” The evolution of modern world conception thus urges man on to the step: To find the thought in the self-conscious ego that is felt to be alive. This step Kant did not take; Goethe did.

    In all essential points, Goethe arrived at the opposite to Kant’s conception of the world. Approximately at the same time that Kant published his Critique of Pure Reason, Goethe laid down his creed in his prose hymn, Nature, in which he placed man completely into nature and in which he presented nature as bearing absolute sway, independent of man: Her own and man’s lawgiver as well. Kant drew all nature into the human mind. Goethe considered everything as belonging to this nature; he fitted the human spirit into the natural world order…

    So for Goethe the development of free thinking, self-conscious humans is a process whereby nature reaches the stage whereby she can look upon herself and become aware of her own being.

  12. Kantian Naturalist:

    The problem is that in laying down universal moral laws, moral standards which must be obeyed, does not lead to freedom. This does not mean that there should be no laws of the land laid down. We need these precisely because we are imperfect and need these restrictions to safeguard society.

    True enough, though to be precise, the moral law (as Kant understands it) nothing other than acting in ways that uphold the dignity of all rational beings, including oneself. It’s got nothing to do with any conventional laws established by legislatures. Whether a conventional law is itself just or unjust depends on (Kant would say) whether it is consistent with the moral law.

    No but, according to Kant, it has to do with carrying out one’s duty according to laws laid down by a postulated, unknowable god.

  13. CharlieM: No but, according to Kant, it has to do with carrying out one’s duty according to laws laid down by a postulated, unknowable god.

    That’s not correct. According to Kant, the moral law does not originate with God; it originates with reason itself. In fact Kant goes so far as to argue that even if there were divine revelation, it would be binding on us only insofar as we take it to be binding and we do so only in terms of whether it is reasonable.

    Kant thinks we must believe in God in order to believe that virtue will be rewarded with happiness, in this life or in the next. But God doesn’t give us the moral law; He organizes the world so that our virtuous actions (which are what we give to ourselves) will tend to be rewarded with the satisfaction of our inclinations.

    Put otherwise: if we didn’t believe in God and immortality, we’d be faced with a tragic view of life, according to which we could be as virtuous as possible and yet fail to be happy.

  14. walto: It seems to me that both sides are required to attack the other viciously to retain their supporters. That’s precisely what these folks want to hear.

    What i don’t understand is why anyone thinks this particular political atmosphere is new. It’s been this way all my life. I remember vicious cartoons about Eisenhower.

    On thing that is a bit new is that the media of my youth were mostly owned by Republicans.

    But we have always been at war with Russia.

  15. walto: Well, as you’re asking, IMHO, the best thing for you would be to STOP reading Steiner and Barfield and try to recover from them. You’ve absorbed a ton of nonsense from that quarter.

    I’m glad that you’re so concerned about my beliefs. Of course I’m sure you realise that I won’t be taking your advice.

  16. Kantian Naturalist:

    CharlieM: No but, according to Kant, it has to do with carrying out one’s duty according to laws laid down by a postulated, unknowable god.

    That’s not correct. According to Kant, the moral law does not originate with God; it originates with reason itself. In fact Kant goes so far as to argue that even if there were divine revelation, it would be binding on us only insofar as we take it to be binding and we do so only in terms of whether it is reasonable.

    Kant thinks we must believe in God in order to believe that virtue will be rewarded with happiness, in this life or in the next. But God doesn’t give us the moral law; He organizes the world so that our virtuous actions (which are what we give to ourselves) will tend to be rewarded with the satisfaction of our inclinations.

    Put otherwise: if we didn’t believe in God and immortality, we’d be faced with a tragic view of life, according to which we could be as virtuous as possible and yet fail to be happy.

    Of course you are right. It’s good that I can be safe in the knowledge that any mistakes I make will be picked up and pointed out to me so quickly. (This is not sarcasm, I’m being serious here).

    So according to Kant it’s not the unknowable god that generates the moral law it is reason. Who’s reason? The reason of an unknowable self? How through reasoning can I tell the difference between right and wrong?

    According to Steiner moral laws originate in the minds of individuals. So if I am just doing what everyone else should do because that is my duty then I am obeying an external law laid down by some other individual and it is not a free act. But if I act as I see fit purely out of my love for the deed with no other conditions then I am acting in freedom. My motive is love and not duty.

  17. CharlieM: walto: Well, as you’re asking, IMHO, the best thing for you would be to STOP reading Steiner and Barfield and try to recover from them. You’ve absorbed a ton of nonsense from that quarter.

    I’m glad that you’re so concerned about my beliefs. Of course I’m sure you realise that I won’t be taking your advice.

    IIRC, you did ask what you should (or shouldn’t) be reading. I’m not at all surprised, however, that you will continue to read whatever garbage floats your boat.

    And why shouldn’t you?! It’s your life and that stuff makes you happy! My advice was intended only to be taken to the extent to which you were interested in having more true beliefs and fewer false ones. But, unlike some philosophers, I don’t think you have a moral obligation to have all and/or only true beliefs.

    So yeah: read whatever the hell you want! It’s your right.

  18. petrushka: What i don’t understand is why anyone thinks this particular political atmosphere is new. It’s been this way all my life. I remember vicious cartoons about Eisenhower.

    On thing that is a bit new is that the media of my youth were mostly owned by Republicans.

    But we have always been at war with Russia.

    Yes, the visceral attacks are nothing new. I was born right around the day of Eisenhower’s first election, so I can’t comment on that administration or the next couple. But it’s been ugly since I’ve been an adult.

    Certainly, “making America great again” could not reasonably require some kind of “return to civility.”

  19. Disclaimer: I am no fan of the Federal police, the CIA, Homeland Security, NSA, etc. I consider my vacation in Vietnam to have resulted from one of many ill-considered ventures in managing the world.

    In my lifetime, these have never subsided. The US intervenes in foreign elections, and it actively works to depose foreign leaders.

    Usually, about ten or twenty years later, we wake up with a hangover.

    Now, the world is an ugly place, and it is remotely possible that some foreign military and political actions are actually in self defence. I am not qualified to judge. But my suspicion is that the official reasons are entirely bogus. And that most are counterproductive, except for those who profit from endless war.

    I mentioned Eisenhower because I think he is underrated as a president and as a thinker. He popularized the phrase Military Industrial Complex. The first American president and first high ranking military leader to suggest that conflicts were driven by profit rather than by the clash of good (US) vs evil.

  21. So people are sorting themselves not just into socioeconomic groups, but by what they believe. That segregation has been going on for a good 40 years or so. And it is absolutely my belief that politics is the new religion. We do see each other as outgroups with our God being superior to the other person’s God.

    Tribalism seems to be a naturally occurring state. I find it amusing when the one true tribe encounters resistance. Interesting, in the Chinese sense.

    My observation is that some personality types simply can’t resist the urge to tell other people what to think and feel.

  22. petrushka: My observation is that some personality types simply can’t resist the urge to tell other people what to think and feel.

    But not us, though.

    Not us.

  24. walto:
    https://phys.org/news/2018-11-bias-based-analyst.html?fbclid=IwAR1493-1pv5fIVoepozJc_I9_pl0QRYBsc4pjlepd7MOWlSt2W6m-mic_Cw

    Thanks for the link. It’s very sad but I’m not sure why anyone would be shocked that this sort of thing happens.

    With our present system of governments in the West economics has too much power and people are competing against each other in politics, business and the like. From the start we are always advised to “look after number one”. We are often taught to think in terms of us and them and it’s no surprise that this culture produces extremists and fanatics who think nothing of destroying the life of others.

    We either produce home grown extremists who have difficulty in empathising with any group who are seen as different from themselves or we foster resentment in other cultures where extremists cannot see past the system to the individuals living within that system.

    Steiner’s threefold social order is a system which would encourage understanding and cooperation instead of division and resentment.

    In this system there are three spheres controlled independently; the cultural, political and economic spheres.

    The cultural sphere is set up to allow for individual freedom. Free to follow our beliefs, be creative and educate our children without state interference. Equality isn’t relevant here as individuals have different abilities and talents which should be recognised and encouraged.

    Equality in the political, legal sphere means that everyone has equal rights under the law. Obviously people are not free do do as they want in this sphere.
    The economic sphere deals with manufacturing and distribution of commodities in an atmosphere of fraternity so that the needs of everyone are met. Money is not distributed equally as individuals just take according to their needs. Obviously it takes more money to produce and distribute some commodities than others. So equality is not relevant in this sphere. It’s not freedom but dependence on each other that is required in the economic realm. People need to work together for the benefit of all.

    Whatever happens in the future, the present system has to change and people have to change if we are to avoid disaster.

  27. walto:
    CharlieM,

    Charlie, do you have links for the Steiner stuff on the “three spheres”?Thanks.

    The Wikipedia entry on social threefolding is a good introduction to its general format. Although Steiner did stress that what he laid down as being relevant for his time and situation would have to be altered to suit the conditions of any other time and place. Nothing should be set in stone.

    I’ve provided some links below if you were to feel like wading through it, although there is a lot of repetition.

    books
    Basic Issues of the Social Question
    The Renewal of the Social Organism
    &
    The Threefold Social Order

    lectures:
    The Threefold Order of the Body Social – Study Series I
    The Threefold Order of the Body Social – Study Series II
    &
    The Social Future
    Here from the beginning of the first lecture from The Social Future:

    According to our own views of life or our circumstances, we may regard the conceptions coming to light in this socialist proletarian movement, either critically or approvingly. But whatever be our attitude towards it we can only accept it as an historic fact which must be dealt with as such. And whoever reflects on the terrible years of the so-called World-War, (World-War I) even though one may feel compelled to see causes and motives of different kinds for these horrors, must acknowledge that it is the social demands, the social contrasts which have to a great extent caused them. Especially now that we are at the end, at least for the present, of those terrible events, it must be clearly evident to everyone that over a great part of the civilized world the social question has sprung to life as a result of the World-War. If the social question has sprung to life as a result of the World War there is little doubt that it was already concealed within it.

    The quote doesn’t have much to do with threefolding per se but it gives an idea of the context in which it was developed. During the war years Steiner was based in Switzerland working together with many anthroposophists coming from various backgrounds from both sides of the conflict.

    He knew that the carnage and needless slaughter of WW1 hadn’t really solved any of the underlying issues and unless things changed there would be further trouble ahead.

    There is also an essay which is available to read:
    Spiritual Life, Civil Rights, Industrial Economy

    There is probably more available information but I think I’ve probably overloaded you as it is 🙂

  29. I looked at Threefold Social Order, but, unfortunately it’s an abridgment of something called “Towards Social Renewal” which is not available free on-line, and there’s not much meat in those excerpts.

  30. walto:
    I looked at Threefold Social Order, but, unfortunately it’s an abridgment of something called “Towards Social Renewal” which is not available free on-line, and there’s not much meat in those excerpts.

    Have you looked here?

Leave a Reply