That said :
Part of the Two Routes is a suggestion that we admit that there is no common humanity, but that there is a humanity that needs such an ideal. I think perhaps The psychologist who shall not be named is playing to this crowd. The goal, though, would be to develop a philosophical understanding that is aware of this role, the responsibility Philosophy has to the actual truth of what humanity is by what it does: People need religion. And so the responsible thing seems to be to give it to them, but also to recognize that the religious ideas of “partial reasonings” are in the service of compassion for the common good, and less “true” about what is actually occurring. Less a patronizing, and more a recognition and acknowledgement of the truth: most people simply do not wish to know, and to give them all the information sometimes just confuses people and makes life more difficult. I think it is possible The psychologist who shall not be named is doing this, trying to supply a meaningful world to those who don’t want to really know, but without the awareness that this is what he is doing. We need people, philosophers who are aware, not just in a power struggle for righteousness. I feel that philosophy needs to recognize and accept what it is able to do and be responsible for it, to actual people, and not just responsible to the idea Of transcendence it appears to denote.
this picture might be cool: let’s allow the truth to be what it is instead of being trapped by an eternal encompassing phenomenal religious correlation.
In order for this real awareness of what the human being is by what it does to be actualized, a partition in knowledge is needed.
Postmodern defines a state of existence. It does not indicate anymore another philosophical proposal, but instead shows us what we are up against as philosophy.
I argue we have a responsibility to become aware, and to thus move out of the centralized religious philosophical subjectivity, all the while recognizing that not everyone can or will. Our mode is help, and less imposition.
And I will reiterate: It is not necessary for people to have this larger philosophical understanding of truth. It is unnecessary to educate people as to the relativity of their religious belief. People do not function with a certain quality or quantity of mental health if they are forced to think of something that they are not able to think of; which is to say, to hold within one’s knowledge the idea of the truth of things that is not true is a different level of thinking that most people exhibit psychological symptoms of distress over because they are unable or simply do not prefer to think in this manner. And this is to pronounce ideology.
The liberal idea of education would say that we need to educate everyone to be philosophically liberal minded enough that whatever their religious belief is they have to be open minded enough to except someone else’s religious belief as possibly true also. I am saying, that the people who are religious, the people who need that kind of finitude that kind of servitude of their reality, should be allowed to have that identity as indeed a true and functioning world, with out fear or challenge that their belief is merely a ‘belief’.
Part of this realization, this responsibility that I’m talking about, not occur for those people. This is to say, that people do not get into battles and wars merely over their religious beliefs; on the contrary, on one hand people, people just fight because that’s what they do. People disagree and they fight and there’s nothing that we’re going to do to be able to prevent that, even while we may be able to prevent or mitigate particular instances of conflict occasionally and under certain conditions. But on the other hand, people get into battles with other religions because of this liberal idea that wants to place an umbrella over the rest of humanity and call it “education”. What is liberal philosophical ideal does is invalidate, it effectively invalidates every single other person’s belief by the simple assumption that there is a common humanity that needs to be raised to this great enlightenment ideal of being human.
I’m saying we need to change that approach. Think differently of how to affirm religious truth with out making it a relativity and thus needing of violent assertion over other religions. Think differently about what is actually occurring. How might we do that? Is the significant and challenging question. I suggest that one way might be to realize what the human being is as a universal object, find ways to work with that object, as indeed something that we then now know as true.