Hell

I was using Chomsky so as to critique the founding assertion of Marxism: i.e. that the world is wholly material. We have Marxists on the White Right: they style themselves: “National Bolsheviks”.

Here is page 239 from The Essential Chomsky (2008):

‘…on human freedom is illegitimate and must be confronted and overcome. Al-though the later development of such thinking abandoned the Cartesian framework, its origins lie in significant measure in these classical ideas.

‘The Cartesian conception of a second substance was generally abandonedin later years, but it is important to recognize that it was not the theory of mind that was refuted (one might argue that it was hardly clear enough to be con-firmed or refuted). Rather, the Cartesian concept of body was refuted by seventeenth-century physics, particularly in the work of Isaac Newton, which laid the foundations for modern science. Newton demonstrated that the motions of the heavenly bodies could not be explained by the principles of Descartes’s contact mechanics, so that the Cartesian concept of body must be abandoned. In the Newtonian framework there is a “force” that one body exerts on another, without contact between them, a kind of “action at a distance.” Whatever this force may be, it does not fall within the Cartesian framework of contact mechanics. Newton himself found this conclusion unsatisfying. He sometimes referred to gravitational force as “occult” and suggested that his theory gave only a mathematical description of events in the physical world, not a true “philosophical” (in more modern terminology, “scientific”) explanation of these events. Until the late nineteenth century it was still widely held that a true explanation must be framed somehow in mechanical or quasi-mechanical terms. Others, notably the chemist and philosopher Joseph Priestley, argued that bodies themselves possess capacities that go beyond the limits of contact mechanics, specifically the property of attracting other bodies, but perhaps far more. Without pursuing subsequent developments further, the general conclusion is that the Cartesian concept of body was found to be untenable.

‘What is the concept of body that finally emerged? The answer is that there is no clear and definite concept of body. If the best theory of the material world that we can construct includes a variety of forces, particles that have no mass, and other entities that would have been offensive to the “scientific common sense” of the Cartesians, then so be it: We conclude that these are properties of the physical world, the world of body. The conclusions are tentative, as befits empirical hypotheses, but are not subject to criticism because they transcend some a priori conception of body. There is no longer any definite conception of body. Rather, the material world is whatever we discover it to be, with whatever properties it must be assumed to have for the purposes of explanatory theory. Any intelligible theory that offers genuine explanations and that can be assimilated to the core notions of physics becomes part of the theory of the material world, part of our account of body. If we have such a theory in some domain, we seek to assimilate it to the core notions of physics, perhaps modifying these notions as we carry out this enterprise. In the study…’

It’s so long since I deconstructed christianity for my own mind I am only now reminded of the cheap and evil tricks it uses, tricks that advertisers and swindlers use.

Having to be baptised for original sin is so outrageous it should not need debunking, it’s easier to understand the alluring promise of eternal life in heaven by accepting christianity/jesus to avoid eternal torments of hell been a factor in people’s minds.

The etymology of the word “hell” from a positive indigenous European idea to a christian rebranding as negative is typical of the take over culture they employed.