From Philosophical Research
Main entry
- A correct religion explains all cultures / The correct religion will explain all countries / The correct religion will be a universal morality / The correct religion will unite everyone onto the same morality consisting of the same universal human values of what is right and wrong -> although many religions superficially claim this, this proposition has to be violet because practically no real religion ever actually creates an account of history and everyone's actions which is meta-ontologically sound across different groups of people. honorable mention goes to theosophy though, for at least trying to squash together all the religions.
Dubious religions
- Christianity is not the correct religion / Assuming that there is a religion which is most consistent with reality, it is not Christianity -> well, it doesn't endorse realizing Trotskyism just to not extinguish Trotsky, so. can it really have the only correct morality for the world?
- Islam is not the correct religion / Assuming that there is a religion which is most consistent with reality, it is not Islam -> it typically says you go to heaven only when you believe so it doesn't say Trotsky can be in not separation from God.
- Buddhism is not the correct religion / Assuming that there is a religion which is most consistent with reality, it is not Buddhism -> I don't have an interesting argument for this one but it's here for completeness.
- Schizoanalysis is not the correct religion / Schizoanalysis is not the one true morality of the universe -> if schizoanalysis were a religion it would say that the majority of people who form into Rhizome are not against heaven. but in practice, the majority of people are often against Bolshevism, which means they are against Trotskyism, which means they erase Trotsky's Lived Experience, which means schizoanalysis cannot be the correct morality.
no, I don't take religion very seriously. I think religion is one of the craziest concepts and it opens up some really fun thought experiments. but I absolutely do not take it seriously, because if religion has any chance of being real then something happened to Trotsky in particular when he died, and isn't that an absolutely absurd statement already? we can have stacks of biographies about one person, Trotsky or Martin Luther King Jr. or Albert Einstein or Kent Hovind or whoever you like, and have no idea what would have supposedly happened to that person after death. even psychoanalysis and psychohistory can try to spitball about what consequences happen to a person later based on previous choices and near-future predicted choices, as incorrect as the guesses could potentially be. but if you try to do the same with life versus afterlife you can't even get to the modest level of accuracy or certainty about reality that psychoanalysis can.
- The correct religion is not existentialism / Early-existentialism is not the correct universal morality / Assuming that there is a religion which is most consistent with reality, it is not early-existentialism -> if everyone makes their own meaning, then there won't be a single moral position on Stalin, or a single moral position on Trotskyism, which violates Q64,50.
Ideology codes
