Tracing God's Providence: After the Fall of the Berlin Wall - Day 5

So, without further ado, let's carry on chasing God's providence after the fall of the Berlin Wall. Last time, we looked a little bit at what happened, not going back too far, just to the end of the First World War. Before the First World War, the world was a world of empires, and then there was the breakup of empires. I want to have a little refresh here. If you think about it, what is God's goal? Well, first of all, it's a goal of God's providence. We normally talk about God's goal as realising the Three Blessings, which were originally envisioned right from the very beginning of everything, really, within religious literature. It's given different names, but I want to work out of a biblical tradition, so it's called the Kingdom of God or the Kingdom of Heaven. This is always a vision of the biblical tradition: establishing the Kingdom of God, the Kingdom of Heaven, on earth. We can think about it in terms of our own lives, and sometimes we talk about Canaan, as we are on our march to the blessed land of Canaan with our lives. That's also part of that imagery or metaphor.

In our own spiritual tradition, we talk about oneness, which, as we know, means somehow that two become one. You might wonder where that imagery of two becoming one comes from. It goes all the way back to the second chapter of Genesis, where Adam and Eve become one. That was the whole point: a man leaves his father's house and joins with his wife, and they become one flesh. So that's a kind of imagery there, as a husband and wife united, with oneness expanding to the family, community, society, nation, and the world. So, when we talk about the Kingdom of God or Heaven, what are the principles of the Kingdom of God based on? Father said that the Family Pledge is the constitution for the Kingdom of Heaven. These are some of the words I plucked out of the Family Pledge. Obviously, the word 'family' occurs in every single one of those eight verses. The word 'ownership'—our family is the owner of Chung—is also incredibly important. God occurs there in the first one, the Kingdom of God, and God occurs a few more times. Love is very important, as are freedom, peace, unity, and happiness. These four go together: freedom, peace, unity, and happiness. The sequence is actually very significant because you can't have peace before you have freedom, and you can't have unity before you have peace, and you can't have happiness before you have that either.

Are there any words that you can see that might be missing? Would anybody like to volunteer, unmute themselves, and say any important concepts that you think might be missing from the Family Pledge? Any important buzzwords? 'Liberation'? No, liberation is there; freedom and liberation are already there, and the last one, 'complete liberation' and 'complete freedom', is right at the end of the Family Pledge. 'Harmony'? That goes together with peace and unity, like harmony. 'Responsibility'? Well, okay, that goes with freedom; there's no freedom without responsibility. 'Restoration'? Well, hopefully in the Kingdom of God, you won't need any. Yes, that's a good one; I hadn't thought of that one. 'Obedience'? That's there: absolute faith, absolute love, and absolute obedience are already there. I think it's the second last one, as far as I remember. We looked at that in terms of absolutely listening to and obeying your conscience; that's what the meaning of that is. Okay, this is what I thought of: 'justice'. Do you think that's an important concept for establishing the Kingdom of Heaven, a good society? I think it's pretty fundamental myself.

When God introduces Himself to Moses, He introduces Himself as a God of compassion but also as a God of justice. God says, 'I forgive the innocents; no, I forgive those who repent and apologise, but those who refuse to do that, they get punished.' This is a very important concept in the biblical tradition: that God is a God of love and a God of justice. We go right back to the very beginning of God's providence when God called Abraham. God said, 'I've chosen Abraham so he will direct his children and his household after him to keep the way of the Lord by doing what is right and just, so the Lord will bring about for Abraham what He has promised him.' Right at the very beginning, you can see justice is very important. We looked at different kinds of justice before; one is the rule of law, where criminals get punished and sent to prison. The other is about fairness; it's very unfair for some people to be incredibly rich while others are incredibly poor. The importance here is distribution, so that everybody has enough to live a dignified life. This idea of justice has two different aspects, which are incredibly important in the biblical tradition.

We saw that when we looked at the stories from Joshua to Jesus, examining the prophets and how they always talked about how God, through the prophets like Amos and the others, wanted to see a world of justice. What upsets God and breaks His heart more than anything else, causing Him to grieve, is violence. Several times it says God saw that violence, violence, violence, and it's that which broke God's heart because there was no justice; people weren't receiving what they deserved, and there was no rule of law. To be honest, I think this is an important concept, and I think the Family Pledge should be revised to add the word 'justice'. But I'm afraid to say, somebody would probably just accuse me of being a heretic, as usual. So why justice then? If you look at biblical philosophy, this is biblical epistemology, which is about the theory of knowledge. There are many different ways to interpret a text; you can read one verse in the Bible and find 70 possible ways of interpreting it. In other words, there isn't one correct way of interpreting every single verse in the Bible. I say there are 70 possible readings, which means we are always arguing and discussing about which one makes the most sense.

In this way of interpreting the text, trying to understand through arguments, we pursue the truth and argue for the sake of truth and better understanding. Through that, they come to the conclusion that there are many ways of making sense of reality. In other words, there isn't just one view that is the right view; every single human being is an individual, a unique expression of God, and sees things from their own unique individual point of view. That's inevitable; it can never be anything other than that. Since every human being is an expression of the divine from a biblical point of view, that means we should respect every person's view because every person sees things from their own point of view. In that sense, it's a point of view from which we can learn something. That's the story of the blind men and the elephant; I think I told that once, but I can't remember when now because of chemo brain. So, that's important here: respect every person's point of view. Of course, in order to be able to do that, listening is very important. The most important virtue within Judaism, the biblical tradition, is listening. That's why God says, 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord is one.' Listen to God, listen to the voice of conscience, and then, of course, obey and follow the voice of conscience. Listening is very important.

But also, there's a recognition here that everything is limited by language. I mean, anybody here who's not English can probably speak more than one language fluently. When you can speak more than one language fluently, you realise that when you're thinking in one language, the world looks different than when you're thinking in another language. You can never have an exact translation from one language to another because every noun and every verb has slightly different meanings and nuances in every language. That's why when you look into a dictionary, one word usually has five or six alternatives when it comes to translating, and you find the one which you think most represents what you want to say. That's just the nature of reality. So, that means that everybody's perspective is also limited or conditioned by the language in which they speak and the language in which they see the world. Therefore, there's no absolute understanding of the world in which we live because every language is a social construct; every language is relative, and so every point of view is also relative in that sense.

Anyway, we can get a full holistic view of the world by listening to other people and how they see the world, how they interpret it through their own language and cultural assumptions. This is even more important in the world today when we look at what's going on in Russia and Ukraine. It's so difficult to understand what the other side is thinking, and it's very easy to rush to judgment because we don't understand where they're coming from. We don't listen to each other. I think a lot of the problems going on in Russia and Ukraine are because people weren't listening to each other and understanding where the other side was coming from, and that leads to a huge amount of problems. Out of this idea that there are many ways of making sense of reality comes the understanding, which I looked at when we examined the time of Noah. There are many ways of living a good life. From the biblical view, there are only seven laws of Noah, which are universal and establish the moral limits of behaviour. Just seven basic laws which are universal, which I looked at before. There are many nations and languages, so from a biblical point of view, the plurality of nations and languages is good and natural.

I looked at it another time, last time I think. After the flood, it describes the descendants of Noah, his sons, grandsons, and great-grandsons; I forget how many generations it goes on for. It says that each one of these established their own nation with their own language. After the flood, there were 70 nations, each with its own language, laws, culture, and traditions. It was understood that this was the way God liked it to be because that is a better way in which we can grasp the nature of reality when we have to listen to people who speak different languages and look at things from different points of view. It's a lot more interesting, and apart from anything else, biblical political philosophy is based upon reflecting on history. It's all about memory; it's not an abstract political philosophy like we find in the European Enlightenment tradition. It's very grounded in history and memory, reflecting upon these experiences.

Biblical political philosophy is based around two major experiences the Jewish people had. The first is the understanding that God saved the people of Israel twice. The first time was through Moses, who led them out of Egypt and delivered them from the tyranny of the state. When they were living in Egypt, Pharaoh was regarded as a god in a totalitarian society, and they were living in part of the Egyptian Empire, which had slaves from many different places. They left Egypt, went into Canaan, and then followed the period of the judges. We looked at this when we examined the period from Joshua to Jesus, and we saw how it was under the judges that it quickly descended into anarchy, or what we would now call a failed state. The Israelites, having settled in Canaan, fell into anarchy, and really terrible things went on, which I described before. It's clear from the judges that when King David came along, he delivered them from anarchy. Based upon those two fundamental historical experiences, the rabbis reflected on this and said the Bible understands the political order as oscillating between the imperial totalitarian state, which was the Tower of Babel, and Egypt and other empires that came later, and anarchy, which was the period of the judges. The first leads to bondage, and the second leads to civil war; neither can serve as a basis for the freedom of the people.

So, what does the Bible suggest as a solution to this? The Bible says there needs to be a third way: a limited independent nation-state with a government limited by the rule of law and with a humble king who loves God. That became the vision for the Israelites, the people of Israel, later called the Jews. They wanted to establish a limited independent national state with a government limited by Mosaic law and other laws, with a humble king who loved God. They felt this was the way in which they could have peace, no longer being part of an imperial totalitarian state. It was also not anarchy, but it wasn't just an aspiration for their own country. The biblical vision is that there would be many nations, and every nation should function the same way: every nation should have a limited independent national state with a government limited by the rule of law and with a humble king who loves God. This kind of vision, honestly speaking, inspired quite a few of the...

Political philosophers of the Enlightenment, such as John Locke, were particularly inspired by the biblical vision of a third way—not part of an empire and also not anarchy, but a limited government. The idea was of a humble king or president who loves God. I would say this is God's providence: a creator world in which there are many independent nations, each with a government limited by the rule of law. God's providence aims to create a world like this. As I mentioned before, the Divine Principle talks about this in relation to the United Nations and the brotherhood of man, envisioning many nations meeting together but not a single world government. God's providence moves forward only to the extent that people listen to and follow their conscience. Some people express skepticism about the concept of God's providence, suggesting that it implies a predestined plan. They argue that many things go wrong simply because people fail to do the right thing. For instance, in the dreadful situation between Russia and Ukraine, some might say that God has a plan, but the reality is that this war is a disaster resulting from people not listening to their conscience. Everything has gone off the rails, and it is essential to find a way to bring things back on track, which depends on people listening to their conscience. This idea is poetically illustrated in the Bible, particularly in Isaiah, where God laments that when He called, there was no one to answer. God can only act and intervene when people are listening. The project of the Israelites, which I have discussed before, is incredibly political. The Bible is not merely religious scripture; it is a work of political philosophy. When we unpack Moses' vision, we see that it is deeply political in a unique way. He summons a people to humility and responsibility, declaring that they are the nation chosen by God for a great experiment: to create a society that is neither Egypt nor an empire, but one that remains faithful to the divine guidance that has shaped their destiny. If we truly believe in God, to whom we pledge allegiance, then we can achieve great things. This vision of a God-centered nation extends to many God-centered nations. The biblical vision in the Old Testament is critical of empires and supports the establishment of individual nation-states. However, Origen of Alexandria, an early Christian theologian, presented a very different conclusion two hundred years after the coming of Jesus. He suggested that the birth of Jesus marked the beginning of a new era of righteousness and peace, facilitated by the Roman Empire's dominance. Origen argued that the plurality of kingdoms would have hindered the apostles' mission to teach all nations. However, Jesus did not instruct them to create a single empire but to teach all nations. Origen's view seems to distort the biblical tradition, attempting to appease the Roman Empire, which ultimately became a totalitarian state. To explore how the Kingdom of Heaven should come about, I recently encountered an insightful interpretation of the Book of Esther by Joram Hassani, an Orthodox Jew. The Book of Esther, set around three hundred years before Christ, tells the story of King Xerxes, who divorced his wife Vashti and appointed Haman as his prime minister. Haman plotted to annihilate all the Jews because Mordecai, a Jew and courtier, refused to bow to him. When Mordecai learned of Haman's plan, he was distraught and informed Esther, his niece, who had become queen. Esther, initially hesitant to approach the king without permission, devised a strategy to save her people. Esther's courage and resourcefulness ultimately led to the exposure of Haman's plot and his execution, saving the Jews. Interestingly, God is not mentioned in this book, leading some to question its place in the Bible. This absence raises important questions about how to conduct oneself as a religious person in a world without direct divine intervention. Joram Hassani argues that the real miracle in this story is Esther herself. Her actions demonstrate that human initiative and freedom can bring about God's will in history. It is through her independent initiative that she influences events, showing that God's will is not merely a matter of divine intervention but also of human agency.

Waiting for a revelation, she doesn't wait around for a prophet, nor does Mordecai. Both Mordecai and Esther, out of their own initiative and sense of responsibility, take the initiative. That is how God's will is brought about. In that sense, God's providence entirely goes to the extent of the people following their conscience. We'll see that a bit later. God acts in turning aside from the road of complacency and cowardice. Esther said to Mordecai, "If I approach the king, I might be put to death." She's thinking, perhaps she can just sit this one out, but she faces down the fear that grips her, inventing and going forward with an audacious plan of her own devising, ultimately pulling it off. Mordecai doesn't tell her what to do; no prophet comes along and tells her what to do. She has to work it out using her own reason and understanding, evaluating things, coming up entirely with her own strategy and pulling it off. In pulling it off, Esther's own choices and actions, undertaken without any explicit command or instruction from God, make her the principal instrument of God's will.

In the story of Esther, we see God's miraculous action in history, an action that aims towards the redemption of His people and, through them, the redemption of the world. The entire concept of the covenant goes back to Moses and the Mosaic Covenant, when God and the people of Israel voluntarily entered into this agreement as a covenant with each other. The entire concept of a covenant or alliance between God and man is constructed around the metaphor of a king in need of the active assistance of His ministers, generals, and allies. The character of God's project with His people thus requires their participation from its inception. God needs our help; that's a really important idea here. The biblical idea is that without our help, God's providence doesn't go forward. Without our help, the Kingdom of Heaven will not be established. This is all the language of the Divine Principle, of course, but it is also the whole language of biblical political theology and philosophy.

If we see ourselves as the sole responsible agents in human history, it is all too easy to imagine that we have taken God's place. This is a mistake made by many utopians and terrorists who persuade themselves that if only human initiative could be pursued with sufficient energy, the entire fabric of the world can be reformed once and for all, here and now. That was the motivation of the Bolsheviks: to stage a coup d'état with a plan to create an ideal society, an ideal socialist communist society. They aimed to rewrite history and create a new history from year zero. Of course, the communists didn't actually say 1917 was year zero; that was something the French revolutionaries did. This kind of vision reflects a belief that we can do it all ourselves, but there are limits to what any human effort can achieve.

Mordecai tells Esther, "Who knows whether it was not for such a time as this that you came into royalty?" He doesn't say maybe God put you there; he simply asks who knows. Is it just chance? Is it God's plan? Who knows? You came into royalty, and it's not just the idea that you ended up becoming the queen, but somehow that you became part of God's royal family. This brings another aspect to it, including the meaning of her name. This uncertainty means that we do not know whether our best endeavours will ultimately succeed in awakening God from His silence and bringing redemption to Israel. I found that really interesting; I had never thought of it like that before. Moses prayed because of the suffering of the people in Egypt, and it was at that point that he met God with the burning bush. Similarly, Father prayed to understand why the Koreans were suffering so much, and Muhammad prayed to understand why there was so much corruption in Mecca. Jesus likely prayed to understand why they were living under harsh Roman oppression. This idea of awakening God from His silence is intriguing, as it reflects the uncertainty of whether political redemption will only come centuries from now, which brings recognition of God's presence in our political lives today.

Our contribution to the tapestry of history, as it will appear in a few years from now, may turn out to be important or insignificant. In any case, the making of the tapestry as a whole is not in our hands. We can do our own little bit, not knowing necessarily the place of our contribution in the big story. The idea that we can create an entirely new fabric of the world is hubris, sheer arrogance. The belief that we can completely rewrite history and recreate society in our own image and likeness is just another form of idolatry, attempting to make society conform to our own ideals and plans. All we can do is our little bits, and in time, people will recognise whether what we did was significant or insignificant. Who knows?

Looking to the Divine Principle, we are created to attain perfection by fulfilling our given responsibility of our own free will. Without God's direct assistance, we then attain oneness with God and acquire true autonomy. Therefore, it is a calling of our original nature to pursue freedom and autonomy. A person of perfect character understands the will of God and puts it into practice with their own insight and reason, without the need to rely on revelations from God. Hence, it is only natural that we pursue reason and understanding. Based on this paragraph of the Principle, we could say that Esther was a perfect woman. Isn't that interesting? That's how she lived her life, in the realm of what we would call the Completed Testament Age or the direct dominion of God. When I read the story of the Book of Esther, I thought it was fascinating; there is certainly resonance with the Principle.

When we look at the political philosophy at the basis of European culture, we see that European history is not just about Europe, but about most parts of the world. It is a history of one great inverted commerce empire after another: the Roman Empire, the Roman Catholic Church, which in many ways is modelled upon the Roman Empire in terms of its hierarchy, the Carolingian Empire of Charlemagne, the Holy Roman Empire, the Austro-Hungarian Empire, the Napoleonic Empire, and the Spanish Empire, all trying to establish a united empire throughout Europe. There were a couple of German attempts at creating a European empire, and all of this led to endless wars. To be honest, Oregon wasn't a very good historian; he thought empires lead to the end of wars, but the attempt to establish empires leads to wars, and the breakup of empires leads to more wars. Empires do not bring peace. Finally, we have the most recent attempt, which I call the European Union, which we will come onto later.

Why has European history been directed towards creating a united continent? Why has the whole history of Europe been this pursuit of empire, this pursuit of unity, this pursuit of uniformity? This is not the biblical vision at all. To understand this, we need to go back and look at European political philosophy, which means going back to the Greeks. The Greek approach involves asking the usual questions of ontology and epistemology: what is the nature of things, the essence of things? Different Greek philosophers came up with different ideas. The fundamental question was whether there is one or many substances. If there are many substances, how are they related? Those of you who have studied early church history will recall the discussions surrounding the Nicene Creed, where there were big debates about whether Jesus was of the same substance as God, a similar substance, or a different substance. Many people lost their lives over that argument, which was framed within the categories of Greek philosophy. So, who was Jesus? Was He God? Was He the same substance, a similar substance, or a different substance from God? If He was a different substance, how was He related to God? This is a very complicated issue.

Other philosophers argued that there is just one substance, such as water or number. Pythagoras, for instance, believed that everything is always changing, stating that you cannot step into the same river twice. In contrast, there were those who believed that everything is unchanging. There is a whole variety of different views in Greek philosophy, which is why it is so interesting. As Seneca said, God is the ordering principle. Various philosophers talked about the elements: fire, earth, water, and air. Shakespeare and Nelson also discussed these elements. Zeno presented many paradoxes, while Democritus proposed that everything is made up of atoms, which is a concept most people have heard of, as it forms the philosophical basis of modern physics. The Greeks were trying to make sense of reality, and to do so, they needed a vocabulary to communicate about it. If you want to refer to a table, chair, cat, or dog, you need words that refer to those particular objects and describe the relationships between them. This is evident from the very beginning, as the Lord formed from the earth every beast of the field and every fowl of the heavens and brought them to man to see what he would call them. Whatever the man called each living thing, that was its name. This is how we make sense of reality and have dominion over it: by being able to name and describe something, we can get a handle on it. As Ludwig Wittgenstein said, "The limits of my language mean the limits of my world." Different languages have different limits to their worlds; in some languages, you can describe things that are indescribable in others. In England, you might play a game where you think of something and then try to narrow it down, starting with animal, vegetable, or mineral, and trying to identify it within a certain number of guesses. Pythagoras was probably the most influential of the pre-Socratic philosophers. We know him for his geometry, but he also sought to make sense of the nature of reality. To do that, you need categories, and one way to do that is to say something is this but not that. He framed things in terms of limit or unlimited, which relates to his geometry. We might talk about order or chaos, odd numbers or even numbers, right-handed or left-handed, male or female, resting or changing, straight or curved, light or dark, good or bad. He was a pioneer of mathematics, which is what we mostly know him for, and he asserted that mathematical formulas, which are essentially concepts or ideas, describe the true or essential nature of all things. He believed these truths are eternal, making him the first person to be considered a mathematician of nature. The main person in the modern world who did that was Galileo, whose major contribution to European science was his work in mathematics.

He said that everything in this column is good, and everything by association is also good. Conversely, everything in this column here is bad, and everything by association is also in this column. This was his way of looking at things, distinguishing between good and bad. Jordan Peterson has an interesting take on the concepts of order and chaos, which I believe are important categories that have not been widely discussed within the Divine Principle. I think they should be integrated into our understanding. Peterson, as a philosopher influenced by Taoist philosophy, describes reality as being composed of two opposing principles. Pythagoras also spoke of opposing categories in his table of opposites. In the Divine Principle, we discuss dual characteristics, which are complementary rather than opposites; they are mutually attractive and devoid of moral overlays like masculine-feminine or positive-negative.

Peterson suggests that chaos and order are fundamental elements of existence. Every life situation comprises both. We inhabit order surrounded by chaos; we know what is happening inside our homes, but once we step outside, we are confronted with the unknown. There are countless factors at play in the outside world, some of which may be orderly in their own way, while others are chaotic. To navigate this duality is to achieve balance. Some individuals desire only order, leading to a planned society, while others embrace chaos, advocating for a lack of laws and rules. The challenge lies in finding a balance between these two extremes. In economic terms, a free market exemplifies this balance, where order exists through the rule of law, yet chaos is present as individuals make diverse decisions. This balance allows for flexibility and adaptability within the confines of established rules.

Peterson associates order, the known, with masculinity, as the primary hierarchical structure of society is masculine. Men are often the builders of cities and engineers. However, pushing this too far can lead to authoritarianism, where those who do not conform may face dire consequences. On the other hand, chaos, the unknown, is symbolically linked to femininity. The Greek term 'mata' refers not only to physical matter but also to the concept of mother, representing the substance from which all things are made. Chaos embodies possibility, the source of ideas, gestation, and birth. It is the darkness of the cave or womb from which new life emerges. This balance between chaos and order is essential; both principles are necessary and must exist in harmony. This understanding should be integrated into our conception of dual characteristics.

Plato, as a Platonist, sought to make sense of nature and reality. He lived in a world filled with order and beauty, and his project in the dialogue 'Timaeus' is to explain that order and the origin of beauty in the universe. Plato posits that the universe is a product of rational, purposive, and beneficent agency, crafted by a divine craftsman who imposes mathematical order on pre-existing chaos. This aligns with Pythagorean thought, where order must be imposed upon chaos to create an ordered society. The chief explanatory principle is that the universe is arranged to produce a vast array of good effects, which Plato argues is not by chance but by deliberate intent. This idea resonates with contemporary discussions on evolution and intelligent design, echoing arguments that have persisted for over two millennia.

Before delving deeper, it is essential to reiterate a point made by Derrida, a French postmodernist. He noted that Western thought has always been structured in terms of dichotomies or polarities, tracing back to Pythagoras. These include good versus evil, being versus nothingness, presence versus absence, and many others. In philosophical discussions, individuals often take one side or the other, leading to a perception that character is either entirely genetic or socially constructed. However, modern thought acknowledges that both genetics and upbringing play a role. This shift away from strict dualism is significant. Some philosophers have commented on Pythagoras' analysis of nature and reality, suggesting that the reductionist approach in Western philosophy attempts to conquer the 'B' column, which represents chaos and femininity, by elevating the 'A' column, associated with good and masculinity.

Language plays a crucial role in shaping our understanding of the world. Friedrich Hayek, an Austrian economist and political philosopher, argued that the structure of language itself implies certain views about reality. By learning a particular language, we acquire a framework for thinking that influences our perceptions. Pythagoras, as a foundational figure in European philosophy, has significantly influenced the structure of our language and our worldview. For instance, the concepts of good and evil are embedded in the table of opposites. Pythagoras was a dualist, believing that good and evil have always existed. This perspective suggests that good and evil are woven into the fabric of the universe; one cannot exist without the other. The question of whether God created evil assumes that evil is a tangible entity, a notion rooted in Greek ontology.

In the Divine Principle, good and evil are not seen as things but rather as judgments. When God created the world, He declared it good; He did not create goodness itself. Thus, asking where evil comes from presupposes that evil is a thing, which leads to many false philosophical questions. The imposition of order on chaos is essential for balance. Some argue that freedom leads to chaos, necessitating a strong ruler, which can easily lead to authoritarianism. This perspective fosters the idea of a planned society, where individuals are regulated to prevent anarchy. The dichotomy of good and evil influences European political philosophy, where unity and uniformity are often regarded as good, while diversity and difference are seen as undesirable. This emphasis on the collective over the individual can lead to totalitarianism, as the value of the individual is suppressed in favour of the whole.

Language also carries a moral overlay; for example, being called a 'positive' person is associated with goodness, while being labelled 'negative' is viewed as bad. In reality, positive and negative charges are neutral concepts. The moral implications of language stem from Pythagorean thought. The word 'right' in English implies doing the good thing, while in Russian, 'pravda' means truth. Conversely, the Latin word for 'left' is 'sinister,' synonymous with evil. This historical suspicion of left-handedness reflects a broader moral overlay in language, where straightness is associated with goodness and crookedness with evil. In the context of the Divine Principle, there is no moral overlay on dual characteristics; internal and external are not inherently good or bad. The language of the Principle does not assign moral value to these concepts, and many Unificationists remain trapped in the mythology of Pythagoras, failing to transition to the biblical understanding of the Principle. As for left-handed individuals, my father-in-law was forced to write with his right hand in school, which often leads to various disturbances and challenges for those who are left-handed.

The project of schools and the moral overlay you don't find in the principle of pure characteristics of masculine and feminine is not about good and evil. There is an inner and outer aspect, with no more overlay. This is very significant in terms of how European culture has developed. Most Europeans, because of the language, are stuck within this paradigm. Coming back to a philosopher named Wittgenstein, he was Austrian and spoke several languages. He spent most of his adult life at Cambridge University and was a philosopher of language. He stated that philosophy is a battle against the witchman of our intelligence by means of language. Our language traps us within a certain mythology, making assumptions about the nature of reality that we are often unaware of.

Wittgenstein argued that many philosophical problems are simply the product of poor language skills or the misuse of language. He believed that philosophy aims at the logical clarification of thoughts and is not merely a body of doctrine but an activity. When you engage in philosophy, you learn how to think clearly and analyse the nature of reality and assumptions. It is not about following a particular philosophy or philosopher; it is about developing a clear mind. Wittgenstein's aim in philosophy was to show the fly the way out of the fly bottle. A fly trapped in a bottle goes round and round in circles, unaware that there is a way out. Many arguments are similar; they go round in circles due to language and assumptions about reality.

The most influential philosopher in the European tradition was Plato, who was a follower of Pythagoras. His understanding of the nature of reality was politically adopted and he made significant contributions to political philosophy. Plato is regarded as a pivotal figure in the history of ancient Greek and Western philosophy, as well as one of the founders of Western religion and spirituality. He greatly influenced Saint Augustine, a key figure in the Western Christian tradition. Many people do not realise that they are disciples of Plato, as Hayek noted, we swim in this water without being aware of it. Alfred North Whitehead, a contemporary of Bertrand Russell and Wittgenstein, characterised the European philosophical tradition as a series of footnotes to Plato.

Plato outlined the whole of philosophy, and people have been commenting on his approach ever since. His greatest disciple and critic was Aristotle, who also commented on Plato's ideas while developing his own understanding. Aristotle is often regarded as the father of totalitarianism in Europe. Plato's theory, known as Platonic realism, posits that while we live in the physical world, there is also a Platonic world where universals or abstract objects exist objectively outside human minds. For example, while triangles exist in our minds or on paper, Plato argued that these abstract objects truly exist in the Platonic realm, known as Platonic forms.

These Platonic forms can be illustrated by contrasting a material triangle with an ideal triangle. The Platonic form is the ideal triangle, with perfectly drawn lines and angles that add up to 180 degrees. Any triangle we experience will be an imperfect representation of this ideal triangle. This notion leads to the understanding that perfection is unobtainable; there is no such thing as a perfect picture or essay. Even if something is drawn to the point where our senses cannot perceive a defect, it will still be imperfect. This concept has significantly influenced European tradition, Christian theology, and more.

Plato's forms include geometrical figures, such as triangles and circles, but also encompass the forms of good, beauty, and truth. This is why I believe that good, beauty, and truth really exist. People often ask what truth is, as if it exists in the Platonic world. Language complicates this understanding; we can show a beautiful flower or painting, but we cannot show beauty itself. Truth should also be viewed as an adjective rather than a noun. We become bewitched by language, leading to arguments about the existence of absolute truth. Good does not exist as an object in the Platonic world; it is a judgment based on what leads to the establishment of the three great blessings or destruction.

Plato's conception of forms leads to the idea that all physical objects, such as coffee tables and dining room tables, are imperfect representations of the perfect form of a table. He also proposed that concepts like justice and beauty are imperfect expressions of their perfect forms. This view suggests that there is a perfect form of a cat, and all the different cats we encounter are merely expressions of this perfect idea. Plato believed that these forms exist in a transcendent realm, which is eternal and intelligible. The form of the good is the highest form, and understanding it is challenging, but it is the source of all that is correct and beautiful in the visible realm.

Plato's vision of an ideal society involved philosopher-kings who could grasp the nature of these forms and communicate them to others. They would impose order upon the chaos of human existence through legislation. This hierarchical society, reminiscent of feudal Europe, is based on the idea that everyone should conform to a single right way of living. This leads to absolutism and totalitarianism, where the state is seen as the ultimate authority. Plato's theory of forms can be applied to the state, suggesting that just as all tables share a common form, so too must cities reflect an ideal city. This ideal city is a real existence, not merely nominal, and its existence is incorporeal, perhaps in a heavenly form where no political problems exist.

In Plato's ideal society, there would be no politics, as everything would be unchanging and eternal. The philosopher-kings would establish order, and soldiers would defend the state. This hierarchical structure reflects the idea that no one, whether male or female, should act independently. Such principles can lead to disastrous outcomes, as seen in the world today. Plato's views have profoundly influenced European political tradition, and we still see their impact in contemporary society. Karl Popper, another Austrian philosopher, critiqued these ideas, highlighting the dangers of totalitarianism and the importance of free thought and criticism in political institutions.

Plato influenced various National Socialist intellectuals, including Hans Gunther, Werner Jaeger, Fritz Lentz, Adolf Rush, and Richard Dary, who cited him extensively. Some even wrote entire books on the subject, such as Jorkin Band's 'Hitler's Camp and Plato's State' and Kurt Hildebrand's 'Plato and the Camp'. Hitler's press officer, Otto Dietrich, would later express in his post-war memoirs that he had witnessed in National Socialism the miracle of a classless, leaderless state, akin to what Plato celebrated in his 'Laws'. Communists also competed with fascists in claiming the Platonic heritage, particularly Plato's noble lie, which we will discuss further.

This perspective significantly influenced Christianity. Origin, a prominent theologian, derived his ideas from this Platonic view. Von Harnack, a Lutheran theologian and historian, spoke about the time of Jesus, echoing sentiments similar to those of Origin, who had articulated these ideas two millennia earlier. In the 19th and early 20th centuries, Von Harnack wrote about a single empire, a single world language, a single culture, and a common trend towards monotheism, along with a shared longing for a saviour. This encapsulates his view of why the Roman Empire was beneficial and how Christianity aligned well with the Roman conception of order and purpose.

There was a particular slide that is currently missing, which I will address later. For now, I will return to this topic tomorrow, particularly regarding where Hegel fits into this discussion.