| not nihilist
Right off, your first sentence I don't agree. I don't live in a nihist society. Most of my friends and family believe in some sort of supreme being, but call it/her/him/them by different names. I think that you are right and that Nietsche did say we don't need a god, but that doesn't mean that the Goddess doesn't exist. In order to get to the state where there is no truth, no reason and no reality, one must definitely stop. I don't think we live in it, I think we choose to ignore it. Once again, doesn't mean it's not there, just that we haven't reached it yet. So I guess I don't agree with Buadrillard. It sounds like I disagree with Mafesoli's as well. I volunteer a great deal of my time working on human rights. This is not a situation of majority rule, but defining what makes society as a whole better. I think you can judge how advanced a society is by the way the most marginalized people live. In Canada, our system is premised on a belief that everyone is entitled to a minium income, housing, healthcare and food. Some of these started as private initiatives but government has endorsed them (and in some cases contributed.) For me, Rousseau's theory of 'Man in the State of Nature' is true, particularly with regard to the 2 primary insticts, self-preservation and natural compassion. I haven't read Husserl, but it sounds like I would agree. I think we are past post-modern. I agree with you that any Goddess would not be constrained by gender and exist independantly of us. What I don't understand is your assertion that the Goddess doesn't need us. Aren't we in part manifestations of the Goddess? Maybe we are how she apprehends this reality...  |