Monday, November 24, 2003
(2:21 PM) | Adam Kotsko:
Jesus is my categorical imperative
Today, Dennis Bratcher weighed in on the appropriate way to respond to those who are perverting the gospel. I think it's stirring and wonderful, but it sounds suspiciously like the way conservative pundits recommend the Democrats should behave. That is, don't advocate your principles, but act them out, and don't waste your time denouncing those who act otherwise -- and when your time comes, bend over and take it.
Whether or not that is the route Jesus actually took, this sounds to me like the categorical imperative. Christians think that if everyone would act according to the gospel, the world would be far better, and they believe that they need to follow the gospel regardless of the outcome. Universal applicability and unconditional obligation are the key components to Kant's concept. Also, interestingly enough, even though his idea is often derided as rule-following, what's that famous quote? Oh yeah: "Two things amaze me: the heavens above me and the moral law within me" (paraphrase; emphasis added). Don't Christian writers take Jeremiah's saying about "writing the law on your heart" to refer to Jesus? I know that Kant's a modernist and we should hate him, but still.
I posted on this on dialog before, but only one person responded, and a variety of emotional issues related to God kept me from responding with the kind of vigor people are accustomed to getting from me. Also, I have Kant at second hand, mainly from Lacan, Zizek, and Zupancic, so maybe there's something that I'm missing. I plan on plunging deeply into Kant and Hegel by this summer at the latest, so I'll recant (ha) if it seems that Lacan, Zizek, and Zupancic are all completely wrong.