Sermon Series (2 of 4) The Metaphysics Of Totalitarianism

 

Chapter I 

    We first begin by examining the works of Bishop George Berkeley, whom was a proponent of 'subjective idealism', which meant that 'to be is to be perceived', meaning that objects are not real unless observed. this ontology was the source of accusations of solipsism by many scholars, Hobbes particularly, who saw all things being all physical matter, in a realist, materialist, physicalist sense, that nothing was considered 'imagination' that all things that were in appearance can be deduced by the most elementary of particles, a tiny atom, made of charges, neutral, positive and negative. Berkeley, on the other hand, saw everything as only existing in our minds as we perceive them, which leads to the question of who is perceiving them when no one is around, well Berkeley had an answer to that in the all seeing eye of God himself. Hobbes was the creator of the Leviathan, a monster that represented the state. So how was Hobbes able to construct the organs of the state body when Berkeley saw it in more metaphysical terms rather than pure physicalism? The idea that the state even needs organs to function is impertinent, but its worse to think that an eye is always watching your every move in society. Thatcher, a champion of Monetarist liberalism once stated, "there is no society, only individuals and families" but thats the idea put forth by those who favor small government over large

government and the idea of an eye observing humanity from afar, that no object may escape its grasp, is terrifying. That's why Thatcher was so dismissive of a society, that the Lockean individualism of liberalism was so indebted to her philosophy that the spectre of Orwell's 1984 loomed large, despite the punk movement seeing her as anything but. With this in mind, what perceives these individuals equally can form what we call society as there is always a guiding light that gives society a sense of being called out for their actions. If Thatcher was so oppressive why didn't she stomp punk rock into the ground and declare a police state? She didn't want to be seen as Orwell's Big Brother (or Big Sister, rather, in this case) because it would destroy her reputation as a bastion of all things liberty. The problem with Thatcher was that she was too liberal, she never kept an all seeing eye on the public as a leader and policed the city the way she should have, although I, the writer, is skeptical of her strikebreaking ways. Other than that, she was ineffectual, the punks were right about her in all the wrong ways. 

Chapter II: 

So these punks weren't the brightest, but they did hate Thatcher for being oppressive, but the problem wasn't she was too oppressive but rather, not oppressive enough. Berkeley's views and Hobbes' views differ in that with Hobbes, the body, the state organs, are the most important, whereas with Berkeley its the head, the hydra, the all seeing eye of God, making sure that all things were in their place. Hobbes' major mistake was a body without sight, thats why his perfect state wouldn't be able to be absolute without sensory perception of the organs that inhabit the body of the state to function as well as they should, Hobbes state of nature therefore is corrupt and brutish, which is why its flawed. Berkeley wasn't a man of politics like Hobbes but at least an invisible seeing eye of God could make sure whats being done is done and what's in its proper place is in its place. therefore all should answer to the eye rather than the corrupt parliment of the body, as the body cannot function without observation, as if someone doesn't take care of their body and notice anything wrong with it, how is it to diagnose the problems it has and to give itself the proper treatment? As with a state, the body of the state gives its function to regulate the people with in it, but it needs the eye of God, a moral guideline to help that body function properly. A state without a leader is just as bad as a state with a leader, who by the definition of denying society as being a part of the state, it ceases to control antisocial elements present within it. those issues are persisstent with crime, whether it be vandalism to near bloody murder, and if the judgemental "I" of society, whether invisible or visible doesn't correct this, the body suffers. 

Chapter III: 

The Body politic is a important part of political theory, as advertised by Thomas Hobbes, each organ can be seen as a regulator, the police, the firemen, the post office, the law office, the bank, the parks & recreation committe, etc., housing commission, that all function as organs in a proper society. By God, though, Thatcher didn't see it that way, she saw individuals serving purposes even though all of them were part of the organs, the organs were invisible to her and therefore, couldn't be observed by a socially blind woman. Berkeley knew that the eye of God was important to guide these organs to moral means, but Thatcher never saw a society nor had the moral guidance to stop anything that was going on underneath her noses, even if labor committees saw she violated their rights by allowing rights, even though the concepts rights, as seen here, seems to be absolutely arbitrary. If someone gains rights, someone has to lose them, such as the gaining of female suffrage at the expense of men, the rights of blacks at the expense of whites, which is the fruits of Thatcher's labor, she allowed so much "rights" under her regime now its come to roost, and the same rights she afforded to all are now taking a left turn and allowing rights for the non-majorities. This is what happens when you let your body do what it wants, you gluttonize, you stop moving, you stop keeping tabs on your health, and so, society decays. That's why she should have been harder on individual rights, which would have flown in the face of the Tory establishment.

Chapter IV: 

One of the defining principles of Empricism is that things are organized by a logical, straightfoward approach to morality, that weighs the facts and opinions of each argument and decides on logical ways to act and illogical ways to act, that decide the moral guidelines of a given society. However, most modern empiricists are godless heathens who laugh at the presence of a God or an all seeing eye of society, the watchman who keeps an eye on a community that should be morally, and logically, in the right. Bishop Berkeley was the only one who saw it this way, and the only way for logic to operate is that if there is a base moral code to organize on what is logical and illogical in which ways to act on a particular subject. the problems with the irreverent "scientism" of modern empiricism is that of universality, that all moral ethics are to be applied to all in an orderly manner, that all laws apply equally to all, and this is why liberalism became neoliberalism, of course, neoliberalism can be as totalitarian as any fascist, monarchist or communist dictatorship, trading in God's laws for the laws of universalist science, that if we descended from apes, we should love one another, because we as individuals are all descended from apes, this kind of universal ethics applied to men vs. women, gays vs. straights, blacks vs. asians vs. hispanics vs. whites, its neverending. We're all apes, so we should be treated equal? The answer is a resounding NO, because science can offer facts, it cannot make ethical and moral distinctions. The idea of equality is a false god, and science perpetuates this lie. Nowhere in any religious doctrine does it call for equality of anyone, and science can only go so far before it repeats those mistakes it once already did. With Berkeley, there was the eye of God, seeing all of society as it was, making sure there was no fornication, stealing, lying, cheating, swindling because if its being observed, it exists, and none of these deeds go unpunished. For the police state in Orwell's 1984 was not a warning but an unwitting instruction manual for a perfected state.