Obviously he was merely speaking extemporaneously, and I think they touched implicitly in part 1, for a brief moment, on the understanding that “religion” is by no means merely the stuff of the supernatural, *and* I am hardly an expert on the matter - but my gut finds it doubtful that the Greeks he spoke of at the end were a-religious. Surely their supreme, unified conceptions of morality, duty, etc. were the essence of religion? …just something that would be interesting to look further into. (I started from a point of apathetic public school atheism like most of our age, so I don’t go this way for the sake of a strong personal bias for or against really, but I have been leaning more and more towards the idea that organized religion is somehow a necessity to human nature, and only a specific type can serve a larger, advanced society; i.e. I think the intangible/mystical aspect might be important, if only for mental health; I don’t know that Rousseau’s “cult of the state” or similar could fill the void. We’ve pretty much been coasting on the momentum of our ancestors so I wouldn’t point to modern prosperity and technology and say it’s proof of success because of a lack of or despite religious belief. If anything, I’d trace a direct line from Protestantism, through the French legalists and Whigs to the 1890s Nihilists and Progressives/Socialists et al, and onto the post-moderns into Critical Race Theory/BLM/DIE etc; people desperate for moral certitude - or rationalizations of -, perhaps warped by the Prot understanding of pride and vanity, expurgations to strengthen dogma, purging rituals of guilt and so on… I’d say all of that never stopped being primarily religious in motivation. They were essentially all Christian heresies. Though that’s not a jab at Christianity - seems that most Christian heresies were corruptions by asiatic philosophies, if you want to point to a common source of intellectual degeneration. It seems all the needs fulfilled by the Church in the past have been balkanized and parceled out amongst various scientisms; which, as was mentioned, try to support only that which can be assuredly validated - made impossible by moral relativism and the very nature of materialistic positivity - which end up either contradicting each other or turn like Deconstruction upon never ending revolt. That’s inherently unstable and doesn’t offer mental/spiritual relief but just eternal skepticism and insecurity to true believers and a path to endless manipulation by the unscrupulous - has to be exhausting, no? Too big an idea for a comment tangent though.) Anyhow, first time *seeing* Hayek instead of reading. I’ll definitely be looking for more.
![[UNCUT] The Loyal Pin ปิ่นภักดิ์ EP.15 (1/4)](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/TLBjiHvkKtE/mqdefault.jpg)
Hayek was way, way ahead of his time. Centuries.
You cannot make this claim because it has been only 40 years.
But yet he has come to his enlightenment through the study of centuries past. Isn't it ironic.
@@Giorno. he obviously exaggarates a bit for emphasis
Obviously he was merely speaking extemporaneously, and I think they touched implicitly in part 1, for a brief moment, on the understanding that “religion” is by no means merely the stuff of the supernatural, *and* I am hardly an expert on the matter - but my gut finds it doubtful that the Greeks he spoke of at the end were a-religious. Surely their supreme, unified conceptions of morality, duty, etc. were the essence of religion?
…just something that would be interesting to look further into.
(I started from a point of apathetic public school atheism like most of our age, so I don’t go this way for the sake of a strong personal bias for or against really, but I have been leaning more and more towards the idea that organized religion is somehow a necessity to human nature, and only a specific type can serve a larger, advanced society; i.e. I think the intangible/mystical aspect might be important, if only for mental health; I don’t know that Rousseau’s “cult of the state” or similar could fill the void.
We’ve pretty much been coasting on the momentum of our ancestors so I wouldn’t point to modern prosperity and technology and say it’s proof of success because of a lack of or despite religious belief. If anything, I’d trace a direct line from Protestantism, through the French legalists and Whigs to the 1890s Nihilists and Progressives/Socialists et al, and onto the post-moderns into Critical Race Theory/BLM/DIE etc; people desperate for moral certitude - or rationalizations of -, perhaps warped by the Prot understanding of pride and vanity, expurgations to strengthen dogma, purging rituals of guilt and so on…
I’d say all of that never stopped being primarily religious in motivation. They were essentially all Christian heresies. Though that’s not a jab at Christianity - seems that most Christian heresies were corruptions by asiatic philosophies, if you want to point to a common source of intellectual degeneration.
It seems all the needs fulfilled by the Church in the past have been balkanized and parceled out amongst various scientisms; which, as was mentioned, try to support only that which can be assuredly validated - made impossible by moral relativism and the very nature of materialistic positivity - which end up either contradicting each other or turn like Deconstruction upon never ending revolt. That’s inherently unstable and doesn’t offer mental/spiritual relief but just eternal skepticism and insecurity to true believers and a path to endless manipulation by the unscrupulous - has to be exhausting, no?
Too big an idea for a comment tangent though.)
Anyhow, first time *seeing* Hayek instead of reading. I’ll definitely be looking for more.