Wednesday, 2 March 2011


None of those males who succumb to the beauty of females, who marry and beget children, have a right to speak out against the idols of their church, or indeed to deride the Creator-equivalent star in back of them; for such images of the deities they worship simply reflect their own limitations as average men.  Only a ‘philosopher king’, aloof from the world like Schopenhauer and Nietzsche, has the right, granted by his celibacy and non-familial solitude, to oppose thingful deities from his vantage-point in metaphysical sensibility, even if he knows, in his heart of hearts, that they remain – and will continue to remain until ‘Kingdom Come’ – relevant to the common woman-oriented man.

Of course, the above would have more reference to Catholics than to Protestants who, at least in the case of Puritans, tend to eschew images or carvings or statues in favour of 'the Word of God', with reference in particular to the New Testament.  But even they have never managed to completely dissociate themselves from what exists 'in back' as 'Creator' or 'Father' or 'God', and are thus beholden, even if more via Anglicans, to the root star-like concreteness, so to speak, of Christianity as an extrapolation from Judaism.

No comments:

Post a Comment