DanielOlj79 wrote:
Ok, Daniel, but, that was exactly the "impression" that you were making with those prior posts.
So you do understand that there is a big difference between a "blind faith" and a "rational faith",
and that these two never should be "conflated" now?
You would be correct about
"scientism" not being accurate, but, evolution and science are the most
accurate "tools" that we do have for discovering these truths and these facts of Reality and of Life.
Both are "methods of discovering" and their knowledge is not complete without acknowledging what
is most fundamental: Consciousness. Both the "Cosmic and Universal Consciousness of the Creator",
and the individuated one, or the Divine Spark that's all within your own self.
Yes, no science has all of the answers, yet, and even of exactly how life began and the failure of science
to even acknowledge "spirit or soul or consciousness" that "is within everything and that everything is all
within it" reflects science's self-imposed limited method of ever getting to that one great Whole Truth of
Reality.
I think that Yockey got it backwards giving "souls and spirits" to "Civilizations", as opposed to "race souls"
actually giving rise to them, of which actually makes more sense and really puts the horse before the cart.
Hegel with his
"spiritual dialectic" does seem closer to the truth of history than Yockey's "given stages" of
"cultural and economic" evolution. His attacks on evolution and of
Darwinism as just being "materialism"
do seem to me to be mostly from his "Christian bias" and that being acquired from when he had gone to
the
Catholic University of Notre Dame. Evolution is "materialism" only if you accept the false notion that it
is what really exists, as opposed to the Whole Truth of Cosmotheism, that the Consciousness within all,
and that's within one's own self, alone, is what really exists!
Yockey was a product of his time and of his
own limited knowledge of what was known in 1948. Nevertheless,
it is an interesting read with many of
his original ideas being truly inspired and inspiring, even if they were not always being "factually-accurate",
and were "greatly-influenced" by
Spengler and his writings.
Best regards,
Cosmotheist