20260527--Reading Omri Boehm's Radical Universalism

 You know I agree with the critiques of identity politics as narrow-minded and ignoring something "universal" in human being.

I do not like how quick Boehm distinguishes his universalism as something "free of biological, zoological, historical, and sociological facts" (20). Since he emphasizes that his use of the term "absolute is not gratuitous," I beleive he also wants to talk about some sort of human condition. He agrees that something that is "not man-made" may be the way out (23). 

I agree that "The fight against systematic injustice and fake universalism can only be acrried out in the name of true universalism. Not in the name of identity". (22)

What I have in mind, as you might have already guessed, is our ontological structure or hermeneutical condition. 

Like you, I like his critique of the "fake universalists" as "identity politics for whte men." (21)

Well, that is correct in many ways, especially when I have Gadamer's discussion of Western classics and Heidegger's das Man in mind. 

I am seriously thinking about studying Nietzsche at this point. "Monotheism, 'he writes, or 'the faith in one normal god beside whom there are only pseudo-gods--was perhaps the greatest danger that has yet confrotned humanity'" (24) footnote 16: The Gay Science.

Freud calls Moses's Universalism as "the most vilent form of intolerent religion" 

Yes, they are all opposing a way of understanding the world that allows no other ways of understanding. 

But the question is, what should we do against it? And what should we do, now that there is not ONE way of understanding. 

Is "liberal tolerence" really a "progress of Western tradition from Jewish Ehyption monotheism to more tolerant polytheism?"

Well, the author thinks that such a depiction of intolerent violent religion is a misunderstanding of Biblical Universalism.

I find the concept the "one true God" still subjects "to a higher justice standing above him" very interesting. I mean, such discussions are already taken places during the time of scholastic philosophy (though they attribute all that is just and perfect to God probably for seizing secular powers). (25)

"There is only oen true God, but the authority of universal justice stands above it." (25) This makes Christianity and monotheism much more sufferable, but I doubt whether this is the case. So I am looking forward to see how he is to grapple the authority of interpreting the Scriptures. 

So, according to him, Kant and him has a very different interpretation of Abraham's story than Kiekergaard.

I am not sure how well I can take in his idea on "a law that is not man-made, but it remains firmly in human hands".

What is this law? How to justify it? How is it in human hands? 

I do not like how he takes the rule of not killing people as a white rule. 

I really can't agree with him on disregarding all the Wissenschafts:

"Humanity cannot be conceived as biological species any more than it can as a zoological, historical, anthropological, or sociological concept. Neither would Darwinian sicence reduce humanity to blind evolution--to think that it can is to misunderstand the concept as biological in the first palce. Humanity can only be a moral concept" (57)

Call me an intellectual romantist, I do believe a true description of human being requires a unity of all arts and sciences. 

And I agree with his reading of Kant. That is the true critique of pure reason--marking the limits of reason. And I see why you think I should read it. I sense so much hermeneutical insights! They are all about humbleness and knowing one's place while making the best of whatever we have self-consciouslly.

And I am an Aristotelian, I do beleive what we are is interrelated to who we are.

Contra: 'Their humanity consists in the fact that, in contrast to natural species, who they are cannot be reduced to what they are. It depends not on what they do or on how they live but on their being open to the call of what they ought to be doing.'

His support of the Brown terrorist annoys me. I would say Camus would feel similarly because he deems "not killing" as his own universalist concept. 

I find the concept of dignity interesting, it is talking about self-evident value. 

dignity, abstraction, universalism, and authority are inseparable in Boehm's discussion of Kant. I like how he discusses abstract and universalism as something shared by all human.

59

"Dignity depends on freedom, which is the capacity not to be determined by concrete facts. Therefore, it can only be abstract. Since it is abstract, it is univeral in scope, applying to all. And for the same reason, it is also categorical, that is, univeral in authority: No circumstance or consideration can ever interfere or undermine it.

I personally hates the naive dichotomy between freedom and determinism (causality). I believe freedom is inseparable from causality. And what we should do is to offer more knowledge so that people will have more chance to think about their decisions. If one is provided with different degree of knowledge and information, they have different degree of freedom. We can blame them when they have other choices. This is based on an assumption that people choose by adopting their understanding of the world. Their behavior, ideally, are the development of their worldview. We punish those holding worldviews and carries them out that hurts us.

60

Ah, yes, I agree that the story of Sodom and Gomorrah shows that there is a justice in Bible. But this may be Abraham's trick to remind God his own rule instead of something transcendent.

61

I doubt whether justice really "stands also above the authority of the only true deity" (61)

Okay, page 61 is very important because Abraham says if God do something, that is bad. The author is trying to say that God's authority has to be placed beneath whatever rule of justice is. And that is a unviersal justice. My question is, what is this universal justice? And is this really what the bible trying to convey? Isn't it obvious that people may say that God would never do it because that is his own rule, and the challenge to authority is actually based on the rule of non-contradictory of that same authority?

62

So here's his reading of the Binding of Isaac.

Kant is right to denounce Abraham's obediance, which is based on universal justice. The author thinks that Kant is right and he is right because this is the very concept in the bible.

The criticism of Jefferson being a slave owner and Kant a racist are . . . merely ad hominem . . . I think it's stupid that the author even have to address these issues. The intellectual world is really depressing nowadays.

Ah, but I agree with his claim that the ad hominem accuses are trying to causally relate Kant's idea of universalism to his racism. That is a legit detection of rhetorical manipulation of language and strategies. 

And it's a nice stragety to point out that Kant, being a racist, holds the universal value/justice despite his discriminations. That's true universalism--they are lesser human, but they are human anyway. The same kind of Pozzo!\

And I like the necessiating of abstract concept!

"Once concrete facts about humans replace Kant's abstraction, the delicate ground of absolute dignity is compromised" (69)

yet, this is very dangerous. We need a reciprocal relationship advocated by Adorno and Gadamer. Between the universal and the particular.

And I think it's ludicrous to suggest that Kant would have supported Brown. I mean, Brown KILLED people! There's no way that it does not violate Kant's imperative category! Brown abducted and killed five proslavery leaders. His plan to distribute muskets to Slaves must have include LYING.