The weakening of the principles that have (and are still very much) governing the fall of Christianity and the fragmentation of its once-great Deity are the same principles that underlie, gird and necessitate the fragile foundations of the Scientific Endeavor: its overall method and narrative, its need for the unwavering confidence and unremitting faith in the veracity of its far-flung fruits of inquiry by its every practitioner, all of which require a certain non-philosophical and unscrutinizable adherence to a belief in the ultimate “truthfulness of truth”, one that demands its adherents unconsciously submit to the “existence” of an objective, unalterable Reality that can not only be systematically explored but empirically apprehended, the same submission that Christianity once required of each one of her confessors concerning the nature of God and the truth of His heavens not many generations ago.
No, the death of our Deity is merely the most catastrophic, obvious and far-reaching of a great many tragedies resulting from the metahistorical disintegration of the Objective Idea by the ever-evolving hands of subjective experience itself; Subjectivity which, far from bringing us any closer to others and “It” (whatever “That” might be), alienates and isolates a man from his fellows the more his experience grows in sensual complexity and emotive relativity; the evolution of “Experience” itself now nearing its unavoidable end, that which will culminate in man’s complete and utter inability to not only communicate with anyone outside himself, but even think a coherent thought so that he might successfully navigate his own emotional world; Coherence which, as the unconscious manifestation of one’s “internal order”, is the last, deepest and most primordial need of Subjective Man: the Subject that requires for its own coming-into-the-world the sensual subjugation of the objective grandiosity from which all “things” ambiguously spring.
The metahistorical movement towards ever-rarefied hierarchicalism in the arts, sciences, philosophy, theology and society is that which sees each successive generation of thinkers endeavor to rise no higher than the station of a scribe, one whose primordial function is to preserve, carry forward, build upon and, where applicable, improve the work of their predecessors, negating and refining only where the necessity of history unequivocally demands, and only then in the slightest and subtlest of ways, those which change nothing of the overall integrity and historical consistency of that which they inherited.
Because the “development” of thought during these epochs is comparatively minor and not at all unpredictable, extraordinary or revolutionary, few (if any) names of these quiet and steadfast secretaries stand or speak out to us from history, for such was their will to remain a wisp for the good of the race and the Lord their heavens.
For those ages whose meta-historical trajectory angles down towards ever degenerate expression of egalitarian relativism and nonsensical individuality – a process whose goal, paradoxically, must first flatten to the uttermost the height of that hierarchy by enforcing a policy of decapitation for even the most insignificant blade of heroic grass that seeks to raise the fruit of its head above the low-cut ground – the opposite aesthetic, philosophical, intellectual and moral spirit prevails, that which endeavors in ever more dubious and malicious ways to “deconstruct”, diminute, splinter and otherwise absurdify that system they inherit; ages that see every thinking man attempt to stand out, puff up and otherwise differentiate himself from the past so that through his so-called “revolution” his own name might be made great at the expense of the fathers and their now-ruined temples.
Truth is honesty, and honesty – maliciousness.
Against Philosophy’s “Spontaneous” Origins
There are no “hard” breaks in the evolution of a given language, no spontaneous inexplicability in the logic of its turns or incomprehensibility as to the pivots of its direction, but all the foreseeable consequence of aesthetic precedent and etymological precursor, no matter how swift the change or hidden the cause may seem to the haze of future generations.
Without a linguistic progenitor, any so-called “novel” use of a word or radical re-framing of an old, outdated term, would, by disallowing the speaker from being “objectively” understood by his cultural fellows who, according to their own thoughtless predilections only “know” a thing according to its inherited function, force such a one to bear the unfortunate brand marks of either a fool or kind of mystical quack whose primitive esotericism should well be left to more innocent and simpler times; esotericism whose glorious luminosity only the individual “sage” is privy and responsible, that which – subjective and impenetrable as it is – in no way evolves the overarching narrative of man but stands as a necessary impediment against which the actual Linguistician must struggle against and surmount in order to tell the true story of the times.
Devil walks into bar. Orders drink. Asks Philosopher sitting next to him: “And what do you do?”