Quote:
Originally Posted by Igzy
If you study the originators of influential, but harebrained, ideas, like Marx (communism), Keynes (Keynesian economics), or Ayn Rand (egoism), you see a common theme. Often they retrofit a philosophy to produce a final result they believe is worthwhile.
- Marx sought to uplift the proletariat, so he invented communism.
- Keynes believed government should seek to improve the economy and that lenders had too much power, so he invented his economic philosophy of deficit spending and money printing to lower interest rates and stimulate economies.
- Rand believed in the absolute freedom of the individual, so she invented her version of egoism, called Objectivism.
All these philosophies are major failures.
You have to put Watchman Nee in that group, too. Nee saw the division brought on by denominationalism, and invented the Ground of Locality doctrine to address it.
The Ground of Locality is a major failure as well.
All these people were brilliant. But their brilliance worked against them, and us--except as examples of how not to approach thinking about problems. |
An insightful thought - a philosophy constructed around a desired end (though the verdict is still out on Keynes...but please don't take the bait on that...
).
This is the opposite of what philosophy (and spirituality) should be. If you start with the premise that you
already know the truth, well, then 1) you have a certain crazy hubris and 2) everything starts looking like supporting evidence regardless of whether it actually is. You end up with some screwy hermeneutics...