A true capitalism is a faith-based system
Observation, first drafted on Sept. 14, 2007
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Now, this might not be a new finding, but given the fact, that it tends to be forgotten, it is worth the while to repeat
it yet again. For the truth of the matter is that capitalism is in deed a faith-based system . For too much does it
trust that reason and quality will ultimately prevail in the market place that it would not ask its followers now to
testify their belief by accepting an existential risk for it.
The reason, however, why this, (- let’s call it -) religious aspect of capitalism tends to be forgotten has to do with
the fact that it is increasingly been viewed as irresponsible and, hence unreasonable, to subject oneself to an
existential risk (- even if it is for defending the very idea of reason itself.) For too much do the apologetics of this
position believe, that the incarnation of truth is such an elusive and moving target, that anyone could now still
justify to jeopardize one’s livelihood for it.
The proponents of this assumption however neglect, that among all the uncertainties that surround the
manifestation of truth, there is one aspect that it is indeed unquestionable about it. And it is this the fact that the
determination of reason largely depends on actually exploring it. For too much is the practical testing of
possibilities, that eventually defines what is feasible, that one could now still argue that an existential risk taking
must be wrong by default.
No, if we want to be honest here, we have to accept, that the New World would have never been found if it had
not been for the daredevil fearlessness that went into the search. And so we cannot allow us now to draw the line
at categoric health concerns. For too much would we thereby limit us ourselves that we could now still hope to
successfully manage us.
Given therefore that we cannot hope to maintain our sanity without accepting a pioneering risk-taking faith, it is all
the more disconcerting that many of the leading proponents of capitalism try to minimize this fact by cloaking their
findings in a scientific speak. For too much do they thereby suggest that entrepreneurialism is a technique rather
than an art that they could now still hope to encourage it.
No, no, if we want to maintain our freedom here, we have to stop pretending that is (primarily) by interviewing
focus groups that the economy can be grown. And so we have to give up this quantitative thinking. For too much
do we thereby undermine our own risk-taking needs that we could now still trust to adequately manage them.
Observation, first drafted on Sept. 14, 2007
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Now, this might not be a new finding, but given the fact, that it tends to be forgotten, it is worth the while to repeat
it yet again. For the truth of the matter is that capitalism is in deed a faith-based system . For too much does it
trust that reason and quality will ultimately prevail in the market place that it would not ask its followers now to
testify their belief by accepting an existential risk for it.
The reason, however, why this, (- let’s call it -) religious aspect of capitalism tends to be forgotten has to do with
the fact that it is increasingly been viewed as irresponsible and, hence unreasonable, to subject oneself to an
existential risk (- even if it is for defending the very idea of reason itself.) For too much do the apologetics of this
position believe, that the incarnation of truth is such an elusive and moving target, that anyone could now still
justify to jeopardize one’s livelihood for it.
The proponents of this assumption however neglect, that among all the uncertainties that surround the
manifestation of truth, there is one aspect that it is indeed unquestionable about it. And it is this the fact that the
determination of reason largely depends on actually exploring it. For too much is the practical testing of
possibilities, that eventually defines what is feasible, that one could now still argue that an existential risk taking
must be wrong by default.
No, if we want to be honest here, we have to accept, that the New World would have never been found if it had
not been for the daredevil fearlessness that went into the search. And so we cannot allow us now to draw the line
at categoric health concerns. For too much would we thereby limit us ourselves that we could now still hope to
successfully manage us.
Given therefore that we cannot hope to maintain our sanity without accepting a pioneering risk-taking faith, it is all
the more disconcerting that many of the leading proponents of capitalism try to minimize this fact by cloaking their
findings in a scientific speak. For too much do they thereby suggest that entrepreneurialism is a technique rather
than an art that they could now still hope to encourage it.
No, no, if we want to maintain our freedom here, we have to stop pretending that is (primarily) by interviewing
focus groups that the economy can be grown. And so we have to give up this quantitative thinking. For too much
do we thereby undermine our own risk-taking needs that we could now still trust to adequately manage them.
Footnote: Now having said, what we have just said, it should also be noted that there can be many ways in which an existential risk
is taken. Because not every pioneering faith has to aspire to a civilizational breakthroughs, in order to legitimately called itself an
existentialist feat. For too much can it also be the raising of kids which is posing such a faith-based challenge here that we could
now allow ourselves now to limit the scope of the unheard to the unheard of itself.
No, if we want to be honest here, we have to accept, that a family responsibility too requires substantial sacrifice. And so we should
not deny it our due respect. For too much would we thereby denigrate the nerve-wrecking fear that goes into this, that we could now
still hope to appropriately test our own angst.
Given therefore, that we have no qualms in acknowledging in the audacity of a family life, we must ask the family representatives
now, to likewise grant us our own independent attack on the adventures of reason. For too little would we else have exercised these
powers that we could now still trust to successfully develop them.
No, and no again, if we want to be well calibrated here, we have to give the entrepreneurial pioneer the same daredevil rights that
we so readily bestowed onto the family man. And so it is only fair that we should ask him now, not to hamper us too much with his
salaried anxieties. For too little would he in this case superimpose his own priorities that he could yet still hope to adequately defend
them now.
is taken. Because not every pioneering faith has to aspire to a civilizational breakthroughs, in order to legitimately called itself an
existentialist feat. For too much can it also be the raising of kids which is posing such a faith-based challenge here that we could
now allow ourselves now to limit the scope of the unheard to the unheard of itself.
No, if we want to be honest here, we have to accept, that a family responsibility too requires substantial sacrifice. And so we should
not deny it our due respect. For too much would we thereby denigrate the nerve-wrecking fear that goes into this, that we could now
still hope to appropriately test our own angst.
Given therefore, that we have no qualms in acknowledging in the audacity of a family life, we must ask the family representatives
now, to likewise grant us our own independent attack on the adventures of reason. For too little would we else have exercised these
powers that we could now still trust to successfully develop them.
No, and no again, if we want to be well calibrated here, we have to give the entrepreneurial pioneer the same daredevil rights that
we so readily bestowed onto the family man. And so it is only fair that we should ask him now, not to hamper us too much with his
salaried anxieties. For too little would he in this case superimpose his own priorities that he could yet still hope to adequately defend
them now.
| © Landei Selbstverlag, owned by Wilhelm ("Wil") Leonards, Gerolstein, Germany. All rights reserved. Reminder: Noah denkt™ is a project of Wilhelm ("Wil") Leonards and his Landei Selbstverlag (WL & his LSV). Consequently, all rights to the texts that have been published under the Noah denkt™brand name are reserved by WL & his LSV. The commentary and the reasoning that was provided on this page is for informational and/or educational purposes only and it is not intended to provide tax, legal or investment advice. It should therefore not be construed as an offer to sell, a solicitation of an offer to buy, or a recommendation for any security or any issuer by WL & his LSV or its Noah denkt™ Project. In fact, WL & his LSV encourage the user to understand that he alone is responsible for determining whether any investment, security or strategy is appropriate or suitable for him. And to leave no doubt as to what this means we urge our user to also note our extended Legal Notice. |
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Project for Philosophical Evaluations of the Economy |