Cristache Gheorghiu

WHERE IS MY WAY

?
ISBN
 INTRODUCTION

Between the extreme egoism and extreme altruism, the

real man finds himself his own way, depending on his
personality, environment, education and many others.
From those two, the egoism is natural. The Bergson’s
“Free Will”, the “Inner Will” as source of life at
Schopenhauer and many other similar ideas reflect what
nature makes in every moment, starting with the
smallest cell and finishing with the biggest and complex
biologic systems: want to develop himself to the
detriment of environment. The altruism, instead, even
if it exists naturally, it does not reach high values. Life
teaches man to keep account of the others, becoming in
this way altruist in a bigger or smaller measure. “The
enemy helps you, because he limits you, gives you form
and founds you” (Antoine de Saint-Exupéry, The
Citadel).

The struggle for existence is the main condition for any

being, human or animal equally. From the smallest cell
to the most complex organism, life is an endless
endeavour for an individual's betterment based on his
environment. It stops only when he exhausts his
resources, or meets with a similar individual with whom
he has to share the same resources ("My freedom stops
where others' freedom begins"). An individual's ideal is a
selfish one. It is so obvious that the previous phrase
seems a truism. Nature is interested in our existence,
not in our happiness. Even Jesus said “Love your
neighbour as yourself!” He confesses here that
egocentrism is foremost. Accepting the other is
subsequently; it comes from the contact with the
environment and man learns it, while egocentrism is
genetic. There is no use for us to pretend that it does
not exist. We can put it under the control of the reason,
which is something much different.

Realizing the limits of his aspirations, limits that bring

his unhappiness, man has built an ideal opposed to the
egoism, one that is altruistic until the abandonment of
oneself. In this way, religion appears. It wants to make
us better, impeccable people, but just here the fault
lies, because such a thing is impossible. Why does it still
do it? Because it wants to counterbalance our malefic
tendencies. However, being an ideal, this is not really
followed by anyone, and, remaining a theoretical idea,
the religion that preaches it becomes obsolete in time.
The real man adopts an intermediate attitude, between
the unscrupulous selfishness and the absolute altruism
(if it really exists), in accordance with his personality.
Contrary to expectations, the wit of choice does not
belong to the theory - in this case to religion - but to
the common person. The question we ask almost
naturally is “why does not the theory achieve it by
itself, suggesting a clever way, between the two
absolute ideals?”

“Beings without reason live in harmony… What about

the good understanding existing just between the
wildest animals? The cruelty of lions does not manifest
among lions… The snake does not swoop upon other
snake, and good understanding between wolves has
become even proverbial. Only on men the education
does not join.” I quoted a whole paragraph from
Erasmus, in order to show that this dilemma existed in
all epochs.

4
The same attitude is to be found in politics as well,
especially when we talk about democracy. An audacious
propaganda makes us to believe that the political
system in which we live is the closest to perfection, or
at least approaches it. Democracy is an ideal, and the
pretension of achieving it is similar to ignorance. Why
cannot we find a political system in which the leading
principle is a rational way, and not an ideal one? I said a
rational way, but mean reasonable, not the Rationalism,
because it last appeared as a philosophical current in
opposition to theology, destined to take Europe out of
the darkness of the Middle Age, dominated by religion,
but the consequences of which led to exaggerations too,
among which is communism. (I will develop this idea
later.)

Logically, through education, we should learn the

correct, reasonable way, avoiding the errors due to the
exaggerations of one or the other extremes.
Unfortunately, in most cases, we are misdirected
toward that extreme opposite of the natural one,
hoping that we will find the correct way. Christianity
speaks about the good man, the one who offers the
other cheek when someone slaps him. In politics, even
if ownership is the source of progress, we pretend to
have a democratic society, where people are equal to
each other. A greater hypocrisy does not exist, I think.
Naturally, any young man will conclude that this sort of
education is of no use for his life, especially because
this conclusion comes after he has just learned that it is
not the stork that brings the children in the world,
Santa Claus does not come with reindeers from far away
and so on. Consequently, he shall find his way by
himself, which he will do, but no-one says with what

5
results, because, meanwhile, he has lost his trust in
educators.

I retook here some ideas dispersed in other books,

articles, Internet, etc., for upholding the main idea of
this essay.

I am not Harper Lee or Charles Dickens

The only aim of the happenings related here is to

retrace the condition in which some questions appeared
to me and, consequently, how I tried to formulate some
answers, even provisional, partial or wrong. They do not
have autobiographical intentions.

Here is one: Toward the end of the Second World War,

my family was obliged to move temporarily to a small
village, far away from the town where I used to spend
my childhood. The cause was the profession of my
father. He was an officer and, for their peace of mind,
the authorities put officers’ families safe from the front
fury. It happened in Romania. Several years later, I fully
learned the disaster that happened under the Soviet
Army and the new regime imposed by it. Now, I wonder
how it is that the peasants from that small village knew
better our future than some educated persons from my
town, persons who took wrong decisions for themselves.

“Animal Farm” by George Orwell is a pertinent

description of what occurred in the former USSR and
was to follow us. He knew it in 1945, when his book was
published, but our intellectuals were hoping for
something different. A naivety!

6
Immediately following that period, I remember the
slogan “The Americans come!” Certainly, it might be a
hope for some people, but a new query for me. Why
would they do it, if they did not do it until now? Is a
new war ready to start, this time between the USA and
USSR? Is someone interested in it? The question was
beyond my understanding. Still, something was telling
me that the answer was negative. Today, we know the
hearsay was false. The Martians would come sooner.
Europe had been divided into zones of influence, we
were – unfortunately – under the Soviet one, and
nothing would change for a long time. Clearly, the
Americans and Occidental Europe abandoned us. The
only preoccupation was survivorship. It remains the
question: why did they launch that rumour, because of
which people died or destroyed their careers? I still do
not know. Surely not the communists! I remember,
because I knew some persons propagating the hearsay,
and they were intellectuals with pro-occidental
orientations. The single conclusion is they were not
realistic persons at all. Again, the same question: how is
it that educated people could fall in such errors?

Some years later, I knew a very interesting gentleman,

who was important to me. He taught me English
language in a time when this idea was at least odd, as
eccentric as dangerous. Before the war, he had been
cultural attaché of Romanian Embassy in Paris and
London. Someone said, “in major political events, man
oscillates between heroism and cowardice”. He chose
the first variant and, immediately after the war, came
to Bucharest, thinking that he must be here, not
abroad. In the following fifteen years, he experienced

7
was imprisoned and under house arrest in a very small
village, surviving thanks to people’s charity. I met him
just when they had set him free. As nobody wanted to
give him a job, I helped him and, as recompense, he
offered to teach me English. Again the same question,
“how is it that he did not know what the Russians are
able to do?” He used to be, not only an educated
person, but also an expert of politics. Very odd!

A particular happening remained in my mind for its

evocative power. I was about eight or nine years old,
when, one evening, I was to go toward one of my aunt’s
home, only a few blocks away. Another aunt of mine
was visiting us. Before leaving, she asked me, “You are
not afraid of walking alone in the dark?” I had never
thought of it before. It was not just dark, but some
trees with large crowns made the street even darker. In
the quiet of the evening, I could hear faint noises
caused by birds, falling leafs, twigs etc. That was when
I realized that fear is an induced sentiment. Of course,
my aunt’s question to a child was stupid. Yes, fear is a
sentiment subjective and inoculated. Even as reflex, it
is acquired and not innate. A child first burns his
fingers, and then learns to keep himself away. Why do
we need to be afraid? Who invented fear, and why?
Religion uses it at the highest level. The politics do it
too, obviously for manipulating people! Fear of evil
divinities, fear of the Inquisition, fear of political police
during the communist regime in Eastern Europe, or of
the House Committee on Un-American Activities in 50’s
years and so on.

From my childhood too, I remember a scene in the

middle of the street: a gipsy woman showed her back to

8
a gentlemen who had criticized her for I-do-not-know
what. I remarked then the helplessness of a civilized
person face to an uncivilized one. So then, what is the
use of the education?

These were some questions from a child’s mind. Are

they important? The questions no, but the answers yes,
because they will form him as citizen.

In the Beginning was the Word

It is the Bible from where we learn that, “In the

beginning was the word, and Word was with God, and
the Word was God”. There was not a language, yet,
because it would be absurd to think that God first
invented a language and, only afterward, he created
light, earth and water, plants, animals, all the others
and finally Adam and nobody to talk with. Here, the
meaning of “word” is “project”. We may suppose that
God had in mind a project. It is interesting that, in
other languages, instead of word, they use something
similar with the English for “verb”. They suggest the
idea of action. However, before any action, it must be
an intention, which I named here “project”. Any
project, we know, needs some amendments, as it could
not be perfect, not even God conceived it. The proof is
to be found in the Bible as well, where one describes
more situations when God himself observed that, either
his project might be improved, or something is not all
right with it and he must operate some modifications.
Thus, even since the beginning, we learn that “God saw
the light, that it was good: and God divided the light
from the darkness”. There are many phrases like this.

9
Even after he created Adam, thinking, “it is not good
that the man should be alone”, God gave him a woman,
albeit he must break his best work for extracting a rib
from it. The Deluge, sending his son on the earth, are
“manoeuvre for rectifying the trajectory”, as well.
After the Deluge, he rebuilt the whole humanity in a
new tree. Therefore, he went forward step by step with
his project, not having a complete imagine of the
finished product for the beginning.

A first conclusion ensuing here is the lack of any finality.

The initial project is to be improved ceaseless, probably
still today.

A second conclusion is that such revisions will occur in

the future and they will be even more radical.

This is why, the church is wrong every time it clings to

some anachronistic ideas or situations.

I started from the idea that, at the beginning, it was

the Word. Is it important? It is! Not the Word as it is and
not because it was at the beginning, but because the
Bible says it is so. The Bible is our fundamental book,
which has led us during the last years (several
thousands), no matter if we are or not believers. We
cannot neglect this book, because it means we would
neglect ourselves. We are the product of our history and
our history was dependent on religion, no matter
whether we like it or not. Could it be different?
Certainly, not! With another fundamental book, we
should become somebody different. Why? Let us see!

10
People act, in a great measure, based on habitudes
acquired early their childhood and it depends on their
education. By education, I do not mean the knowledge
about Shakespeare or the structure of the atoms, but
those activities with which they are accustom to,
because they were taught in this way, especially by
parents. A man does not think every time what would be
the sagest proceeding. He acts as he has gotten use to
it, and it come from the tradition. Therefore, he is a
product of tradition. In the past, religion was that what
had the most important role in setting up the tradition.
The great majority of people keep up the rules of
cohabitation, because religion taught them so, because
any believer proceeds in this way. Dead persons are
entombed, because it is Christianly to do that way, a
Christian will say, even if they are buried throughout
the world, no matter of religion, from sanitarian
reasons.

We must not expect that priests think in all religious

dogmas, but we expect that they be good educators in
the idea of keeping common persons with the most
useful traditions, according to that epoch. We could say
they are even good pedagogues, particularly if we have
in view that first schools came into existence beside the
churches and monasteries.

I mentioned the Deluge. It exists in all religions, no

matter if they recognize God or not. It is true, between
them, there are small differences of interpretation.
Well, just these “small” differences make the
distinction between different life philosophies staying at
the base of every social construction. And not only
between religions, but also inside of the same religion.

11
The difference may go from the assertion of one idea to
the assertion of the opposite one, which unfortunately
is valuable even inside Christianity. Which were initial
principles of Christianity and which were those
practised by Catholic Church during Middle Ages and
even after it? For analysing them, we should set up
what we understand Christianity is, obviously beyond
the level of stories. This is not my objective at this
moment and, supposing the reader understands to what
I refer, I will point out several main ideas, for getting
beyond this phase. The Deluge was an example.

The question is “how was it possible to have so many

differences?” A little history, even just a little, would be
necessary for understanding the evolution, but not
here. For the moment, we shall observe that, in order
to attain its aims, the church used a huge
propagandistic machinery. During the Middle Age, one
almost confuses it with what we name today as culture.
Painting, philosophy, architecture, everything has
religious subjects and aim the parishioners’
indoctrination toward obedient, sheepish high prelates’
servant.

Not keeping account by the evolution of the society, by

the development of knowledge, in time, any sheep
realizes more and more that aims are false. Strong
people took their fortune in their own mains. The
Faustic European culture arose in this way. Weak-willed
ones still need religion. For both of them, a turning
point is around the corner. Let us hope that it will not
be as radical as a deluge. Anyway, the amplitude of
change is in our hands, because a small correction made

12
in time is more efficient than a great forced one, after
a catastrophe.

In fact, at the beginning, the Chaos was, namely

something without form, therefore without limits,
something in which everything was possible and in
which – just because it – nothing important occurs. But,
God came! He first divided the light from the darkness.
Therefore, he traced a limit between them. Up till
here, he did not create, but delimitate. And so, he did
with earth, waters and so on. They do not say in the
Bible or anywhere else that someone would create the
Chaos. (It seems that we are going to create it.) In all
religions, Chaos existed before anything. The All-creator
is improperly named so, as he did not create, but
separated. Maybe more correct would be to say he
organized, if this word would not be almost
compromised by too many human activities wrongly
organized. Tracing a line of demarcation between earth
and heaven, the divinity created two restrictions: the
earth could not be heaven and heaven could not be
earth, any longer. And he did not stop here. Going on,
he imposed limits after limits, restrictions after
restrictions, organized materiel in entities odder and
odder, making small monsters, among which we are,
human beings, obliged to fight with everything around
us, even between us, because the limits imposed by the
creator became more and more stifling.

At this point, an interesting virus appeared; we do not

want to dissolve our limits. On the contrary, as the
limits give our identity, we love them and want to push
them as far as we can, over the neighbour’s ones, and in

13
his detriment. As this idea belongs to him too, our
facing is ready.

In primitive societies, the link man–divinity was one of a

mercantile sort, something like if you give to me, I will
give to you. “Make to rain and I make an oblation”.
Morality did not have a religious character. It belongs to
people, as a summation of behaviour rules, imposed by
cohabitation between people first and less by their
rapport with the divinity. The shamans appeared just for
acting as go-between between people and divinities.
They did not belong to divinities, but pretended to be
able to communicate with them.

In Christian religion, divinity has the initiative and send

messages to people, messages from which they learn
how to comport in order to please the divinity. The
relationship between man-divinity is no longer one of
small-agreement, you give to me – I give to you, but an
authoritarian one. The moral rule comes from God, who
pretend and does not haggle in bargain. The mediator is
no longer a shaman, but the priest.

In oriental religions, the individual comes from an

unchangeable Universe and, after a smaller or greater
number of reincarnations comes back to the Universe.
Humanity is only a summation of solitary individuals,
incidentally living together. In Judaism and Christianity,
humanity has a history, beginning with the conversation
between Eve and devil and finishing with the Last
Judgement. Here, the individual does not matter, but
the humanity, in finality will happen simultaneously for
all the people, because we inherited Eve’s sin.

14
As regards Christianity, we observed that it did not
appear as suddenly and unexpectedly as bigots like to
think. Most philosophers, even some theologians,
beginning with St. Augustine, recognize in Plato a
precursor of Christianity. M. Louis considers Plato as
“the first systematic theologians”. Still, he says:
“Plato’s theology is not the same with nowadays
theology. Plato makes only dialectical speculations with
phenomena and people’s way of life. If, from time to
time, his philosophical syllogisms know the divinity, it
is only a result of the thinking system and not a precise
aim. Plato analyzes the idea of God. Also, he deal with
the relations between an earth-born and God. But
Plato, when speaks about divinity, as peak of the idea,
he does not refer to God as being of creed, and often
confound it with all-embracing idea of Well. Plato’s
religion is not just a belief, but an invitation toward
the worship… For Plato, it was more an invitation to
dialog, a talk on a topic of high elevation between
educated Greeks, a searching of truth about the
unknown, when the mind has to choose between
metaphysics and materialism… From here, probably, for
some searchers one created the confusion that Plato
deals with divinity.”

Greek mythology, full of contradictory ideas, proving

Geeks’ pleasure of philosophizing, contains many
Christian ideas, including that of democracy. Yes,
democracy is a Christian idea as well: if all people are
God’s children, they are equal in his face, then they are
equal with each other. Whether the equality cannot be
implemented immediately on the earth, then we must
be content with the idea that, at least in Paradise, it
exists and, maybe, sometime it will come on the earth.

15
Anyway, the idea of democracy certainly belonged to
Greeks, first. They did not create a history, yet, in the
sense of something with beginning and necessary end.
To them, the Eternal Returning Myth was in the centre
of their philosophy. For them, the substance is finite,
while time is infinite. Consequently, the same forms will
be reproduced after a time, no matter how long it
takes. Natural cycles as if day-night, winter-summer
etc. emphasized this philosophy. Nietzsche realized this
idea too. Amusing enough is that he thought this
discovery belonged to him.

Because we entered a little mythology, I allow a small

comparison between those two variants of the Deluge:
mythological one and biblical one. In mythological
variant, the survivors of the Deluge were Deucalion and
his wife, Pyrrha. After water's withdrawal, the goddess
Themis advised him that, while they will go down from
the mountain, to throw back in their trace all the stones
they found in the way, as stones symbolize the bones of
their great grandmother, Gaea, who is the earth itself.
From every stone, immediately, a man or a woman rose.
Consequently, there are two categories of people: the
natural heirs of Deucalion and those born from the
stones. It was natural to think so in a slave society,
where democracy is only for the first category.
Deucalion’s first son was Hellen and he is considered
Greeks’ ancestor (Hellenes)

In the biblical version, the Deluge has not such

interpretations; instead, Noah’s descendants, organized
in familial clans, want to overrule the world. The idea
of ownership is fundamental, and hereditary monarchy

16
became the characteristic type of social organization
for European Middle Eve. Of course, not the Deluge
induced the theory, but inversely, the theory invoked
the Deluge as doctrinal justification. (By the way, as
anywhere a deluge appears as a solution for purification
of the society, what would today’s society look like after
a new deluge?)

Prometheus, the one who is so much eulogised today,

did not have the same resonance in the old Greek
world, and was not seen merely as a positive hero, but
only as a subject for discussions, his indiscipline face to
Zeus being his characteristic feature. Here is what Zeus
says to Prometheus: “You gave to the people only the
ecstasy of victory. Do they know what to do with fire
until you teach them? Some will, but those are few. And
they will become despots for those who do not know
and will become unaware slaves. You have given the fire
to several for enlightening the others. I would want to
give it to all the people. Of course, you wanted it too,
but your impetuous and unabated temper did not let
you to do the work with moderation and embroiled
me.” Zeus is a deity of progress, not one of the
revolutions. “People did not receive progress from you,
but protest instead. They have not the disquietude of
tomorrow. Their mind was filled only with hatred for the
boss”. (How well would have been if the hanger-on of
communism had read a little mythology!) Along with
Prometheus a kernel of revolt appears against too stern
rules and despotic lord. The wish for change is obvious,
and the merciful and righteous God is the expected
solution. And he has come! We realize now that the
later apocalyptic God was the reaction of some priests
for which the old doctrine of a punitive divinity, maybe

17
just idols, was better. They wanted only the power.
What would be the use of a wise one?

Christianity began as a religion of poor people. It is

clear that it was embezzled later by politicians
associated with priests. Now, people want the religion
returned, but it must be cleaned up of the impurities. I
do not plead for returning to biblical precepts and not
at least for a certain religion, but for a reasonable one;
and I do not pled, but only think that it will come
naturally.

Christianity brings an innovation. Unlike oriental faiths,

where the Universe is stable and life is conceived in an
endless cycle, in Christianity, mankind has a beginning
and, of course, an end. The idea of singleness has great
moral implications. All people will go in front of the God
in the Day of Judgement. In this way, people’s lives
have a sense of togetherness. They are no longer
expected to have a miserable life forever. From some
passive, apathetic persons, they have become active
people. It could explain the progress of Europe in the
good sense but their bad deeds too (wars, colonial
conquest, etc.). Is the Christian morale a good one? We
can discuss it.

In oriental faith, the salvation is individual.

Consequently, a good believer insulates himself from
the society; he lives in seclusion. The religion tells him
not to make bad acts, but not to make good ones.
Christianity did it. From this reason, Christian believers
live together, as one could not be good to himself. He
needs a receiver for his kindness.

18
Judaism and Christianity introduced the history: there
was a beginning, and will be an end. Everything we do
happens within this period, and we do it together. We
are not some individuals living temporary in an infinite
Universe, like in Hinduism. We live together in a limited
period. Maybe we should think more about it. Man
becomes man but by the community's virtues (Socrates).

Pray or meditation? The word 'meditation' does not have

sense in Christian doctrine. It is peculiar for oriental
faiths where people meditate to purifying himself for a
future life. A Christian does not meditate but prays.
During his prayer, he implores God to help him. People
without much will, lazybones, or dishearten implore
more often God's help. Trustworthy people, instead,
usually forget God, thinking that they succeed by
themselves. They remember him only before an
important but uncertain trial. Then, they ask God’s help
to overcome the moment, or to conquer an enemy, even
if this battle is contrary to the Christian doctrine. It
makes me to think that our emotional mood needs the
faith. But is it just what God asks us to do? Of course,
not! This is only priests’ desire.

A large part of the Old Testament is history: the history

of Jewish people. The modern historians and
archaeological diggings have come to light that many
facts reported in the book were true. As a matter of
fact, most part of the Old Testament, particularly its
beginning, was written during the exile of Jewish in
Babylon, when - feeling that they are lost - thought that
it would be a pity if nobody learns about their history
and life. Many times, authors exaggerated facts,
embellished or described them in the form of fiction, as

19
they, the authors, were writers and mostly priests. The
Bible is a book of wisdom as well. Wisdom, what a great
word! The all of us want to be wise persons, but nobody
knows whether he really is. Whatever their opinion
about themselves would have been, the authors of the
Bible were some scholars of those times, and involved
themselves as spiritual leaders. Some paragraphs were
entirely written in a metaphoric style, just for sending a
message. These made the freest interpretations
possible.

The Bible itself is not homogenous. Some ideas are in

contradiction with other ideas, if you read different
chapters. We may have understanding for its authors.
They had to change some old ideas with other new
ones. As it usually happens, they could not do it quickly
and with accuracy. Even we can not do it. Some
reminiscences from older mentality remain. Besides,
the Bible was written by more than one author, in
different periods. We can recognize the way in which
some ideas progressed in the authors' conception.

This idea is true even if you want to believe that the

Bible was written under the divine inspiration. You may
accept that God changed his ideas, or he has a plan
and, from time to time, gives us lessons accordingly to
our evolution or, even better, both of them.

As all religions have a cosmogony, the priests tried to

persuade us that Bible has one as well. I suppose that it
was not conceived as a cosmogony, but a metaphor full
of teachings, of moral consequences, in this way being a
useful educational guide. Metaphor of what? Of an early
period from their history! From it, the priests made a

20
cosmogony, which - due to its naivety - has
compromised the Christian religion entirely. Of course,
God could not be like us. He should help us more if he is
almighty. Then who was he for the Jewish people? Let
us read the Bible!

In Genesis 2.7, it is said that "And the Lord God formed

man of the dust of the ground...". Not from mud, clay,
or simple earth? It is not mentioned that he would use
water. I think it had to be difficult to mould in dust. Is
this a mistake, or an accidental expression? Not at all!
From the next paragraph we learn that "And the Lord
God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he
put the man whom he had formed." Therefore, Eden has
points of the compass. Interesting! From the paragraphs
10 to 14, we learn that "a river went out of Eden to
water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and
became into four heads". Their names are Pison, Gihon,
Hiddekel (Tigris) and Euphrates. We cannot help
thinking that Eden is the old Sumer and what the
Sumerian civilisation means for old times. Yes, Summer
used to be a pleasing and charming place in comparison
with the surrounding areas, namely exact what this
word means in their language. God probably was a
Sumerian king, who accepted a Jewish tribe on his
territory for different works. This one seems to have
been the best period from the Jews history. It was that
king was God for them, their father, because he made
them men. They were like dust and became like the
Sumerians. This is the correct meaning when one says
that God made man like him, and not that a divinity
could look like us. As the Jews did not keep the
arrangement and aimed higher than it had been allowed
to them (testing from the tree of knowledge), the king

21
expulsed them. More than that, God observing the sin
committed by Adam and Eve, declared "… the man is
become as one of us . . ." (Genesis 322). Consequently,
God was not alone. He did not speak that man would be
“like me”, but “like us”. He spoke in the name of the
leadership of Sumer and accuses the Jews that
exceeded their rights as employees, infiltrating
themselves among the employers. We see now why in
the whole history recorded in Bible, with all its details,
Sumer does not appear at all. That's so because it was
the beginning. It was the heaven. In the whole of their
history, the Jews do nothing else but beg God's pardon,
hoping to be accepted again in Eden's garden.

The idea of an ancestral sin is an ancestral one itself.

Most old religions contain it. The abandonment of this
idea is just one of the most important idea that
Christianity brought. Jesus died for it, consequently the
problem is solved, and the topic is closed. To insist on
this point means not to understand what Christianity
really is. We are not forced to make sacrifice for
imaginary reasons. Instead, we are responsible for our
mistakes. Peter says: "... your sins may be forgiven"
(Acts 2:38). Yours and not some ancestral ones!
Following Christ's way, we tell ourselves not to make
other mistakes. Jesus Christ gave us the dignity to stand
right, be responsible.

Yes, God is forgiving; he always gives us a second

chance, but, for it, we must repent and promise (to
ourselves firstly) not to fall again in the mistakes, but to
follow God's way. How well we did it is another
question.

22
One day, an American friend asked me whether I believe
that Jesus is alive. I avoided the answer then, because
the question must be analysed before answering. We
first need to know if he imagines a Jesus like a man who
lives somewhere and looks at us, or Jesus as a symbol
for the entire Christian theology. In the first hypothesis,
I am not the man to chat over this subject, but, in the
second one, the subject is quite inciting. For those who
look at religion as a myth - true or false - the question is
an essential one, maybe the most. It is not my case. I
remember some years ago, it was in fashion to question
whether Shakespeare was a man, or an enterprise,
dealing with books, a publishing house in our terms. As I
am not a historian, the question is not interesting from
my point of view. I am interested in Shakespeare's works
and not in his life. It was Schumann who wrote that only
stupid musical critics speak about the composer, instead
of his works. Another example, maybe just clearer, is
Marxism. It is not important at all if Marx was a great
scholar, a tiny one. Just that he existed at all. Instead,
Marxism marked the social and political life almost the
entire XX century. It is the same with writers and,
generally, with the creators from any other field,
including Christianity. Yes, I am interested in
Christianity, but not whether Jesus is alive or not.

Maybe he is alive, or maybe not. Anyway, what is

important is what he said to us. His message matters!
Speaking about his life, it counts as a message too,
because he used it as an example, as a way to convey
his message to us.

Consequently, the question of the most importance is:

what is Christianity? Or, more exactly, what is the

23
Christian theology? It is difficult to answer at this
question seriously, and probably people will never write
enough books on this topic. Instead, they wrote lots of
books with propagandistic purposes, to provide the
common people a convenient behaviour, accordingly to
priests' interests. The Bible was used intensely and
misinterpreted, which makes things more complicated,
because any different idea is immediately rejected, just
because it is different. Any religion is conservative.

Many times, maybe most times, the priests themselves

did not understand the Christian message, or more
probably did not want to understand. Why? Because
their interest was not to guide people, to teach them,
but to keep them at their disposal! That's why their
recommendations sometimes were just in opposition to
those of the Christian teaching. Often they embraced
the older ideas, the pre-Christian ones, because such
ideas are more useful and according to priest's
interests. Fear and humility are among their spurs. They
changed the word 'idols' with 'God' but kept the same
attitude.

Christianity gave us the humanism and the dignity, not

the lack of them. As for the Apocalypse, this is a
monument of non-Christianity.

Also, you must view that people from throughout the

world are God's children, and - if they are of different
religions - this is so because God wants it so.
Consequently, there are not bad or right religions, but
different God's projects.

If we are as we are, there are two variants:

24
 • This is God's will. (Consequently, we do not
worry; if he wants us nitwits, we are on the right
way.)
• We are out of God's control. (It would be
dangerous. No matter what or who God would be,
if we perceive our world as a part of a whole
organism, any part does not exist independently;
it rapidly decays.

Anyway, if God has put a curtain between he and us, we

should respect his will, and not try to imagine all kind
of things occurring beyond the curtain. God shows
himself to every one of us according to our imagination
and understanding.

Coming back to the Bible, for me, it is an important

book, maybe the most important, but I always read it
wondering myself what was the genuine message of the
authors, either under the divine inspiration or not.

But, what is Christianity? To understand it, we have to

look around, especially in the past. Thinking to the
past, we must begin with the Old Testament, whence
we learn about God in opposition with idols. It was a
good step, but it was not the first at all. Before it,
Jewish people conceived a God only for their nation,
and made from Judaism a national religion. This was
good for them, but not for the others. Why they did this
way it is accountable. We can talk about it, but this is
their problem, and maybe their mistake. Christianity
extended the concept of a God for all the nations and
turned their beliefs to divinity from fear to love. The
idols used to be pitiless and pretending immolation in

25
order to gain their goodwill, while God is benevolent, a
benefactor and does not want immolation. He wants for
us only to have decent behaviour, because we are his
children, and he is the Father.

But changing the God of Israel people into a universal

divinity, the Christians turned the God into a new idol.
The only difference is that God is not materialised into
an object or a being. As for God's kindliness, even if it is
frequently asserted, the Bible contains many more
paragraphs destined to terrify man, to implant in his
soul the fear of a merciless final judgement of God. The
priests are guilty for all these. It is understandable too,
because they preferred the old and verified method of
fear in order to keep the people under their control.
That's why we must discern between the genuine good
intentions and the result, marked by some people's
subsequent interest.

But the priests are not guilty only for these. Their
mistakes provoked all kind of schisms, ending with all
the sects that appeared in our time like the mushrooms
after the rain. Almost all the people I talked with -
belonging to no matter which sect - used to be ignorant
enough not only concerning the religion, but also in
history and all-round education, generally.

Is Jesus alive or not? The question comes again in my

mind, even if I said that it is not so important. Some
people ask if Jesus really existed as a human being.
Roman documents do not mention him at all, or we
know that in Roman Empire they used to record in
official reports every remarkable event. Even this
question is not so important, because what followed

26
was what really matters - namely Christianity – and with
its priests as well. Jesus was not the Messiah expected
by Jesus people (although Christos means messiah in
Greek language) but surely he was the prophet of
Christianity, which begins with him and found in his life
its philosophy and morale. What really matters is just
this philosophy and morale.

The idea of a good divinity was not just new. The Greeks
advanced it a long time ago, and it would have been
impossible for the Jewish to not knowing about it. The
Apostle Paul himself was a Jew from Greece at that
time (Tars in nowadays Turkey), and it was he who first
made great efforts in his epistles to the Romans in
showing that God is for all the people, not only for
Jews. As for a good-hearted divinity, the Greek
philosophers prepared people for it. If we study
attentively the Mythology, beyond the stories, we shall
find a humanist doctrine. Gods used to be like people,
with human qualities and defects. They were only more
powerful. In the meantime, some Greek philosophers
had risen against the gods' exaggerate power, wanting a
more kind-hearted divinity. So was Aeschylus in his
"Prometheus (Bound, Unbound and Fire-Bringer" and
"Oresteia", and many others, long before Jesus Christ.
The idea of a loving-people divinity used to be already
present. "For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks
seek after wisdom". It is not me who say this. It is
written in 1 Corinthians 1:22.

Jesus was a prophet because he conveyed ideas from

the philosophers to the common people. For this
purpose he gave his life. This is generally a prophet:
someone able to understand philosophy, and able as

27
well to communicate with people, which common
philosophers cannot. Socrates had already made the
supreme sacrifice for his ideas. He was aware that only
through his death, his ideas would survive; and he
accepted to drink the cup with hemlock.

It is true, Jesus Christ was a Jew from Palestine, but he

was only the spark that lit the fire. Christianity appears
as a religion of poor people giving them a hope. Not far
from the Palestine, Greece used to be under the Romans
occupation too. It is not accidental that the apostle Paul
was from Greece. Later on, the Jews kept the Judaic
faith, while the Greeks adopted Christ's religion
immediately. After Jesus, Christianity developed world
wide, firstly in Roman Empire.

Maybe a part of the Bible was written under the divine

inspirations, but surely not entirely. It is full of priests'
wishes and ideas - some of them belonging to the Jews'.
There were also many other writings. What was
accepted to be "The Bible" is a selection of what some
priests considered being opportune. As any human deed,
it could be non-perfect. This is one more reason to read
the Bible in an intelligent way.

Children know a lot about the Bible. But, in time, as

they grow up, their faith diminishes. First, a child learns
that Father Christmas, he who - after a thrilling waiting
- gives him presents, and fills his soul with joy, he,
Father Christmas himself was not a fabulous personage,
but a well-known individual, and everything was only a
little theatre, specially staged for children. After such a
deception, it is almost a logical consequence to come to
the conclusion that the whole religion is a story for

28
children, in which he stops to believe when he no longer
consider to be a child. Later on, when he learns at
school that, in the name of Christianity, people made
the greatest atrocities (Inquisition, crusades, etc.), and
when he find by himself that some priests are not the
most educated persons to be his masters, his faith is
completely wiped out. The endeavour to preach the
Bible to a grown-up, only with some biblical stories and
some threats, has no more chances.

For all that, religion is still necessary. Where is the

mistake? I think it is in the weak quality of the priests.
They do only their duty of keeping the religious service.
They ceased to be people's confessors, and most times
have not the necessary intellectual level. They are not
able to respond to the matters of the real life. The
parishioners frequently are more educated.

Coming back to the children, the priests do not know

how to preserve the contact with children when they
learn that Father Christmas is not real, and explain that
any story has morale, and the morale is that which
matters. "God has established a moral code, which he
wishes his children to adopt." It is Aeschylus who wrote
this, five centuries before Jesus.

If Judaism is a national religion, it was the apostle Paul,

who removed this limit and who found a universal
religion. This is why he may be considered the ideologist
of Christianity. A belief in a good-hearted, people-loving
God has appeared, a belief of poor people for which life
after death is the single solace. It took about 400 years
for the politicians to realize that the tolerance
preached by Christian doctrine could be used for

29
manipulating people. It was not hard at all, as the Bible
is full of contradictions, which is understandable
keeping in mind that it was written in different periods
by many authors. Beside a forgiving God, we find
reminiscences of a vindictive one, and the Apocalypse
destroys everything that they had built till then. It is
clear that such capitols are no longer of a divine
inspiration, but of one very secular, not religious,
namely priestly. It is no wonder that, 1000 years later,
Inquisition, Crusades, etc. appeared in Occidental
Europe. They inverted the sense of the Christian
doctrine. God has become a tyrant, and the king is his
representative on the earth, to whom people had to
raise hymns and prayers.

Nowadays European civilisation is considered to be a

result of the Christian doctrine. Is this assertion just so
true? Yes, and no! In the Roman Empire, Christianity had
spread slowly, particularly among the poor people
(because it is a religion of poor people), starting from
the east toward west. Few people were Christians in its
western part before the collapse. Besides, there was
not a specified leader of Christian churches at that
time. Like the pope became later; every bishop used to
be independent. Instead, thanks to Wulfila, who
invented an alphabet and translated Christian writings,
the Goths have spread Christianity in western occupied
territories; it is true by sword more than by conviction.

After the collapse of the Western Roman Empire, the

barbarian tribes, generally of German origin, invaded its
former territory. In that vacuum of power, the military
chiefs built small fortresses, from where they
dominated the area. In time, the fortresses became

30
citadels and castles, and the successors of former
military chiefs considered themselves owners of the
surrounding lands. They were in full feudal epoch. For
several centuries, there were not great dangers for
them, because, toward the west, the ocean was a
natural border and, as far as the eastern barbarians,
there was a large distance. There were a lot of other
people to fight against the barbarians. Of course, small
fights existed everywhere, but they looked more like
disputes inside of families than real wars.

The feudal lords did not feel the need of wearing the
title of king. It was Pepin the Short, who had the idea of
crowning himself as King of the Franks. Why? Because
the first real danger appeared, in the form of Arabian
expansion. Hhis father, Charles Martel, succeeded in
persuading his neighbouring lords to fight together
against a common threat, which brought about the
battles of Poitiers and Tours (732). Thanks to his father's
merits, the son thought he deserves to wear the title of
king. Nobody paid attention to him then. Some years
later, the Martel's nephew, no one else but
Charlemagne, wanted to be emperor.

Shaking hands with the bishop of Rome, Charlemagne

reached two goals: he was recognised as emperor by the
church, and the bishop, as Pope and chief of occidental
church. Charlemagne was illiterate, but this is another
story. Anyway, the empire disintegrated after his death.
What remained was the idea. The church went even
farther by making Charlemagne a saint, a great
emperor, etc. Soon, the occidental church separated
itself with the name of Catholic Church, and the Pope
became in this way the single chief of the occidental

31
church, and the one who anointed kings. As for the
kings, they were considered to be of divine origin. As a
matter of fact, under the name of Christianity, they
brought again the ancient faith, which was more
profitable for leaders, even if Jesus' doctrine was quite
opposite, proclaiming the equality of every person in
face of God. But the real Christian doctrine could not be
pleasant for kings and a hierarchical church. Their wish
for power was greater and greater. At the other end of
Europe, the Eastern Roman Empire used to be alive
under the name of Byzantine Empire, but weaker and
weaker, while the occidental Europe became more and
more powerful.

Where the mistake lies? From the beginning, we must

discern between the two ways of the propagation of
Christianity:
• Step by step, by conviction, among the poor
people, starting with the apostles and the
following missionaries. This was the
characteristic way in the first four centuries,
inside the Roman Empire. The biblical message
used to be optimistic: there is a future life,
therefore a hope. It depends by our will to make
it happy. God is kind and forgiving. (In Byzantine
churches Jesus Christ is featured during the
Ascension, giving an optimist message, as he
promised to come again in a happy kingdom.)
This was the genuine message of Christianity.
• With sword, by imposing and constraints, starting
with Goths' invasions and, afterwards, by Catholic
Church. Besides sword, their arguments were by
frightening and intimidation. God ceased to be
kind hearted. On the contrary, people were

32
 threatened by the Apocalypse and all kinds of
punishments. Because kings were considered to
be God's representatives on the earth, people
had to glorify God, but also the kings too, who
obliged them to raise hymns. (In Catholic
churches, Jesus is shown mostly during his
passions. The only message is that, if he suffered,
we have to suffer too. The penitence would be
the only way.) The priests lost the main Christian
ideas, lost Jesus' message of love, and the
religion became a means for the politician's
hands. Priests no longer served the religion, but
instead use religion for their own interests.

It is easy to imagine how convincing the missionaries

could be with the sword in their right hand. The effects
of such endeavours can be seen today in South America,
where all indigenous are considered to be Catholics due
to Spanish conquistadores, but they still keep their old
beliefs. That’s why they need Inquisition. The great
inquisitors were not even priests, but jurists in the
structure of the Department of Justice.

Still, the clergy had some moments of hesitation.

Unfortunately, they did not try to re-appraise the
doctrine, but only to better justify the existing one. The
Occident particularly, wanting to detach himself from
the Byzantine Empire, sought for own doctrinaires. One
of them was Saint Augustine of Hippo (354-430) Do not
confuse him with Saint Augustine of Canterbury. I have
all the consideration for him, but he was first of all a
philosopher, Plato’s adept and great admirer of Cicero.
At 19 years old he was attracted to Manichaeism, with
its oriental odour. Both platonic philosophy and

33
Manichaeism will mark him for the rest of his life, even
after his conversion to the Christianity in 386, after his
son’s death, which had a profound effect to him, from
the psychological point of view. As expected, he
approached Christianity from the angle of a philosopher,
being adept of Stoicism with its many different
influences, sooner than a dogmatic theologian. The
various currents coming together in his intellectual
formation allowed later theologians to quote him in the
most different situation, according to their pursuits. He
was contemporary with great theologians of the first
millennium like Basil the Great (330-379), Gregory of
Nysa (335-395), John Chrysostom (349-407) and many
others, kept by Orthodox Church and almost forgot by
the Catholic one, more interested in building its own
patristic than searching a wiser way. In fact, both of
them blundered: the Orthodox for excess of
traditionalism and the Catholic for the wish of
separation with any price. Saint Augustine lived much
before the Great Schism in 1054. Still, he is less invoked
by Orthodox Church just because of that part of his
philosophy that is not just Christian, but is frequently
invocated by Catholic ones, which consider him to be an
inspirer for Thomas Aquinas, and finding later some
apologists among the Jansenism’s adepts from Port-
Royal-des-Champs. Among the precepts preached by
Saint Augustine, accepted by Catholic Church and
declined by the Orthodox one, is that of the
predestination and – as a consequence of it – that of the
grace. Here is a quote from “Epistula ad Sixtum”: Cum
Deus coronat merita nostra, nihil aliud coronat quam
numera sua. Omne bonum meritum nostrum in nobis
faciat nisi gratia.(As God guerdons our merits, he does
not guerdons nothing else but his merits. It is not our

34
merit that achieves in us our well, but only the merit.)
Even if all people are God’s children, Saint Augustine
sustains that some are predestinated at everlasting
happiness, while most of us (massa damnationis) are
fated to condemnation. Besides. God is not obliged to
justify to anybody. Obviously, this idea has nothing in
common with Christianity, with a people-loving God,
where everyone is equal. I cannot remark that this
theory is profound non-Christian. Jesus impels us to
seek God, which would not make sense, if everything
had been predestined, as Saint Augustine thought.

If the diversity of Saint Augustine’s preoccupations

explains his conceptions (pagan philosopher, adept of
Manichaeism and finally converted toward Christianity),
for the Catholic Church, the explanation lies in its
political interests. It was the priests who wanted the
stability of a society already hierarchical organized, in
which the leaders’ position must not be threatened,
because it had been obtained thanks to the “merits
received from God”, isn’t it? This tendency is visible in
ecclesiastic art: the Catholic one is centred on Jesus’
Calvary, while the Orthodox – more optimistic - point
out the Resurrection and Ascension, which gives a logic
Jesus’ work on the earth and a sense people’s lives.
While the Catholic Church wants man indebted to suffer
and implore the mercy, the Orthodox sees in Christianity
a hope emphasised just by Jesus’ Resurrection and
Ascension.

From the moral point of view, the idea of predestination

is disastrous, because man is deprived of any hope, his
efforts are vain, as God – like the idols – is capricious
and malevolent with the majority of people. (What

35
seems to me an anachronism is that the idea of
predestination was assimilated by J. Calvin and
restarted in the circuit of European religious ideas by
neo-protestant churches.)

What Catholic Church fructified – maybe speculated is

better said – from Saint Augustine’s work was his dispute
with Pelagius. It comes from the wish of the church of
reconciling belief with reasoning, just after it
abandoned the reasoning. But, only after he kneeled his
adversary, Saint Augustine realized that he used to have
his justness, and the topic remains as open as before.

Another principle for which Christian churches

contradict each other is that of Holy Spirit: Does it
come only from the Father or from the Son as well?
Much time I did not understand why priests warm up
around this topic. I figured out only when I realized the
political implications of this principle. In Orthodox
religion, under the influence of Greek philosophy, there
is the conception that the Holy Spirit can come down on
community of persons, not only on a single individual.
At the beginning, the Christian Church did not have a
rigorous hierarchy, as the Catholic Church becomes
later, with a single leader on top, the Pope. Since the
year 800, after the handshake between Charlemagne
and Pope, there was a single earthborn able to
communicate directly with God: the Pope. The threat
from God as far as the smallest being must be as precise
as possible, in order for the church to keep
autocratically his hand on the whole society. God sends
the Holy Spirit only toward the Pope, and the Pope
sends his will when and to whom he wants, exactly like
God. The King is the Pope’s favourite, the monarchy

36
supports the church and church supports the monarchy.
The smallest failure would weaken the whole setup.
That’s why the rigidity of the hierarchy of the church
became not only organizational, but doctrinal too. The
explanation is not religious, but political and
economical.

The next on the list of Catholic doctrinarians is Thomas

Aquinas (1225-1274). Unlike Saint Augustine, this one
was an authentic theologian. Aware that religion
became more and more out of touch with philosophic
thought, he tried joining with Aristotle’s philosophy,
namely a connection between reasoning and religion, in
other words, to mix water with fire (acquam igni
miscere). Canonized, raised to the rank of founder in
philosophy, he did not succeeded to build the
impossible, but wrote enormous. Later, he was retook in
the form of neo-Thomism, To be a little malicious, I can
say that Thomas Aquinas, named and “Doctor
angelicus”, became from doct (learnt) in angels a
doctor of angels, as they need to be treated, He is
sanctified in 1323, under the pope John XXII. He laid out
his doctrine in several works, from which the most
representative is Summa Theologica. The pope Leon
XIII, in the encyclical Aeterni Patris (to the endless
Father) from 4 August 1789, adopts him as official
philosopher of Catholic Church.

A later and desperate attempt to answer at more and

more pronounced development of Rationalism was
Pascal’s cooptation. Still, Pascal, mathematician and
physicist, realized that one could not use reason for
fighting against reason. What would be his fundamental
book, Apologie de la religion Chrétienne (Apology of

37
the Christian Religion), he never wrote. “Pensées” was
published posthumously and it is gathering selected and
truncated by those from Port Royal, according with their
interests. Why he accepted to work for them? Pascal’s
inner unrest, the complexity of his concerns are equal
with the whole Christian problems. A book would be
necessary only for this topic. Pascal, a scientist,
devoted himself to the church. It does not mean that
the capacity of his mind diminished – as materialist
philosophers want to think – or, on the contrary, that he
only then became a clever man – as the priests like to
think. His works prove that he was cleverer enough as
before as after. Besides, he was never alien of religion.
He grew up in a religious environment and religion was
one of his preoccupation during the whole of his life. It
was not any conversion, but only a change of the “job”,
based on the consideration that, together with those
from Port Royal, he could be more efficient, at least as
concern the communication with people. We have not
forgotten his statement: “I spent many days studying
abstract sciences, but the rather small number of
people with which I can communicate in scientific field
disgusted me”. So, his problem was one of
communication. Finally, Pascal left us in full dilemma: if
you do not submit yourself to the reason, you are a fool;
instead, if you do not submit yourself to God, you are
unhappy. Happy and fool, or clever and unhappy; here
are the offered alternatives, the first toward the
religion, the second one toward the reason. Does not
another variant exist?

Even Luther did not stay away from the distorted

interpretations of the Catholic Church, as its priests,
headed by the Pope, he become a sort of more

38
advanced shamans, and forgot Jesus’ message entirely.
Luther’s question shook the Christian world: “Could you
think he is kind-hearted the one who save so few souls
and who condemn so many? Could you think he is
righteous the one that through his will make us
necessary condemnably, as he seems to enjoy by
wretch’s anguishes….. He sooner is worthy by hatred
then love. Oh, if I could understand how could be kind-
hearted and righteous this God proving so much rage
and injustice!” Theoretically, Pelagius had been
annihilated more than a thousand years ago, while Saint
Augustine used to be considered one the parents of
Catholic Church. Still, people could not put up with this
thought. Why? Because Pelagius was right! “What
reason proves could be vindicated by divinity (faith)”.
And still, man needs salvation, and salvation could not
come but from God. Which God? The kind-hearted one
or the malicious one? He who promises Heaven or who
threaten with the Apocalypse? The first one, who
rightfully judges the facts, or the capricious one, who
forgives the malefactors and afflicts the believers? And
if he is so capricious, what should our behaviour be like
to humour him? This last question – evident rhetorical –
is it enough to find out the church adopted a wrong
way, and not be able to point out a moral way. At the
moment, there is not a clear direction offering to
people a minimum of ethic. It ceases its role, it lost its
credit The simple exhortation of glorifying hymns and
imploring God’s help is only a recrudescence of the faith
in idols, where priests are similar with shamans.

There is still a lack of respect for historical truth

according to occidentals today. Now, they begin to
recognize a more evident: the role of Greeks in the

39
nascence of Renaissance, role amplified by their
massive emigration from Constantinople, threatened by
Turkish expansion. In occidental expression, it sounds
like this: “Italy benefited by the books brought by Greek
immigrants, books from which they rediscovered the
values of antiquity”, as if Greeks were some imbeciles
carrying books not having any idea of what is written in
them. The jealousy of the barbarians for the civilized
part of Europe during the first millennium – the
Byzantine Empire – still lingers.

That reason finally proves the fall into disgrace of the

Catholic Church together with the monarchy. Today only
some politicians speak about religion, demagogically of
course, and writing “In God we trust” on every
banknote is a trivial blasphemy.

Maybe I sometime am a little hard, but about such

believers, Sartre was even worse: “They kill in working
days and confess with modesty in Sundays”.

Every society has its scholars, and if they are not just
clever, at least they philosophise (philo + sophos),
namely they appreciate wisdom. Maybe all people
philosophise (I have some doubts about the politicians),
with the exception of the bigots. Some of them do it
better, other less well, some accidental, other more
perseverant, but they do it. A philosophic current grows
up in this way usually in the opposition with the official
one. Yes, authentic philosophers appear all the time.
Some of them have great knowledge understand, power
and a large scholarly knowledge,. They build a new
paradigm. Unfortunately, such persons don’t have
abilities in communication. For ignorant people, they

40
seem to be odd people. Then, the prophets appear.
They are persons that, on the contrary, are particularly
gifted regarding communication and, at the same time,
are clever enough to understand what philosophers say.
In my opinion, the majority of the creators of great
religions were from this category. Interesting to observe
is that, in their life, almost always there was a period of
meditation, in which it is to suppose that the prophet
established the strategy by which he hoped to persuade
the populace with the philosophic ideas that he has just
assimilated. One must speak to the people according to
their understanding. They need miracle, parables and
especially stories.

In this way, a new religion appears, in order to

implement among the population philosophical
paradigm. Through some metaphors, counsels etc., the
traditions are set down. The simple man keeps the
tradition. He does not act from rational reasons, but
because he was taught in this way. Even the sagest ones
do not think every step, but go habitually, from routine.
Only the important steps we should think, if possible.

So far, everything is perfect. Both philosophers and

prophets have the best intentions. But, along with
religion, the priest appears. They are common people,
who see a job in the church. Not without reason,
someone observed, “The Jesuits made from the belief a
business”. They dilute the original idea, pollute it with
personal interests, and finally they arrive at the
opposed idea. That is so, because „Les aveugles nous
apprennent à voir” as Jules Renard said.

41
Not long after, the politicians found ways through which
they could use the new religion in their interest. It
becomes the base for political propaganda. From this
moment on, there is nothing to do, but to invent a new
religion. This does not mean the new one will be better
that the previous one. History proves it has not
occurred. On the contrary, the most generous idea,
through deformation, gives birth to disastrous politics.

Let us follow the evolution of main religion:

• The old oriental faiths are merely peaceful. Too
quiet! As placid as their effect is people’s
inhibition.
• In Greek Mythology, war appears aleatory,
because of small quarrels, and is limited to tiny
fights. Nobody searches for it by any means.
• The Jews promote the idea of nation. Hence, the
war became an indispensable instrument to
achieve the divine mission: chosen nation have to
dominate the others. As a domination could not
be imposed by force, the war is as divine as
imminent. And, because the war is carried by
men and they must be educated adequately. Old
Testament says:
o “And if any mischief follow, then thou
shalt give life for life, eye for eye, tooth
for tooth, had for hand, foot for foot,
burning for burning, would for wound,
stripe for stripe.” (Exodus 21;23-25)
o “And if a man cause a blemish in his
neighbour; as he hath done, so shall it be
done to him; brach for breach, eye for
eye, tooth for tooth; as he hath caused a

42
 blemish in a man, so shall it be done to
him again.” (Leviticus 24;19-20)
o “And thine eye shall not pity; but life
shall go for life, eye for eye, tooth for
tooth, had for hand, foot for foot.”
(Deuteronomy 19;21)
• Christianity comes from a more noble idea. From
the New Testament, we learn:
o “Ye have heard that it hath been said, An
eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil:
but whosoever shall smite thee on thy
right cheek, turn to him the other also.
And if any man will sue thee at the saw,
and take away thy coat, let him have thy
cloak also. And whosoever shall compel
thee to go a mile, go with him twain. Give
to him that asketh thee, and from him
that would borrow o thee turn not thou
away.” (St. Matthew 5;38-42)
o And also “Ye have heard that it hath been
said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and
hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love
your enemies, bless them that curse you
do good to them that hate you, and pray
for them which despitefully use you, and
persecute you.” (St Matthew 5;43-44)

The Christians eliminated the obsession of “chosen

nation”, but maintained those of nation and war, as a
means for imposing political will of a nation against the
others. The idea with cheek offered for another slap,
instead, was obsolete, anyway. The good-hearted God
goes in crusades, which were as a matter of fact
43
robbery expeditions, and so on. In the XVI-th century,
Erasmus Desiderius (from Rotterdam) wrote,
“Misfortunes join even the evil men, says a proverb.
Neither well nor evil join the Christians. And what a
shame! The Christians fight more mercilessly than the
Jews, than pagans and than beasts. The Jews had
disputes only with strangers, while the Christians, in
alliance with Turkish, struggle each other.” Or, also,
“What infamous priests’ tongue is, which impel to war,
incite to even facts, hasten to disasters! In England,
they incite against the Frenchmen, In France against
the Englishmen”. And all this in the name of the same
God. One could think that Erasmus was faithlessness. On
the contrary! Just because of his faith, he revolts
himself against the priests, traitors of the faith.
Unfortunately, his solution is a naïve one, proving once
again that he remains without change in the same
dogma. “To you I make an appeal, foremost people and
high officials, as your good will to come in help of
kings’ wise and popes’ piety.”

I took the Greeks out of the equation; they were too

clever, even for us, without talking about the epoch in
which they produced basic values still actual. Through
their myth of Endless Re-entry, we see the link with
oriental religion. (“Man is nothing more than the
shadow of a smoke” – Aeschylus in “Man is only a
happening”, “World never die, as the beginning joins
with the end, like a snake biting its tail”, “Man is a
God lapsed, who bethinking by the heaven” etc. But
“Man is a joy made by gods” bring us in full biblical
genesis. Through Plato, we catch a glimpse of
Christianity. As for Democritus and Leucippus, we find
them to be some creators of atomist theory of Universe.

44
Almost for every discovery, even the most modern, we
learn that at least an embryo existed in Greek thought.
The Greek enthusiasm was for the joy of living and not
for vanquishing an imaginary enemy (enthusiasm = en-
theon-siasmos = the state in which God dwells inside
you). But with measure! Even the Stoicism has its roots
in Greek moral too, which is, pointedly, an ascetic and
pacificator moral, which does not create the well in us,
but cleans the well that, naturally, there is in us (so
they thought) by the evil laid over him from outside.
(We can see that even the Greeks were wrong
sometimes.) And, Greeks’ gods were used to lose the
divine sense when their eyes fell on a pretty woman,
because the Greeks are so: love life, and the religions
are written by people according with their aspirations.

The absence of a sacerdotal hierarchical class salved

both the Orientals and the Greeks and made them wiser.
We must conclude that, meanwhile, the world became
less and less rational, in spite of the Rationalism by
which we make such a great fuss about, today.

Religion takes part from the history of civilizations, with

its good and evil. Religion is what sets up traditions and
rituals. The whole philosophy of an epoch is to be found
concretized in people’s behaviour and this is
materialized in people’s tradition and – important – in
legends and story-tales for children. It is normal,
because people want to educate their children as they
think to be the best, to convey to them what they feel
is wise. For this reason, an intelligent analysis of story
tales could be richer in senses than it seems.
Philosophers’ writings from one epoch will enter
people’s conscience slowly, over a period of time, while

45
the mentality of a epoch is given by previous
philosophic thought, which need time to form
mentalities at people’s level.

Speaking about story tales, according to the oriental

ones, a young man becomes a hero as a result of a brave
act. After a short pastime in the imperial court, he finds
a wife and retires in an isolate site, where he lives
quietly for the rest of his life. The essential idea of the
isolation is to be away from the high society with its
fights and intrigues. This sort of behaviour is according
with oriental conception; congenial with man is a part
of a unique Universe, in which he will come back
sometime. He is only an individual. Mankind is only an
incidental crowd of individuals and is not interested in
its whole. Instead, according to French legends, we find
the hero giving his life for his country, like Roland,
because the Frenchmen was just preparing to become a
nationalist nation. Arthurian Legends, on the other
hand, form a knight’s character to fight his whole his
life for an ideal. As for Greek mythology, it maybe is the
amplest reflection of a people. Gods used to be like
men, with qualities and especially flaws, because, if
something is allowed by gods, why would it not be
allowed to people as well? And, of course, the powerful
ones afford more than the poor ones.

But, all of these depend on the quality of those who

convey the mentalities from one generation to the next.
And if we refer to the past, they depended mostly on
the priests, as they had the greatest influence, with its
goods and evils. Let us not forget that even schools
existed thanks to the church. It is difficult for us to
learn how faithful a priest is. Most of them chose

46
priesthood as a job as anything else from practical
reasons and not from a special grace or gift. At the
best, the priest is a pedagogue, a confessor offering to
people moral support and necessary teachings for a
decent life. In most cases, he is only a functionary who
performs rituals.

Anyway, we should see religion in a larger context and

judge it through its historical prospective, like human
civilisation, with which it is tightly connected.

Almost all pre-Christianity religions and the present

oriental ones, have in view a static, unchanging
Universe. According with such doctrines, individuals are
some accidental configurations from the same eternal
matrix, into which they are to return after a while. The
fate plays the essential role in their life. People have
nothing to do except their own individual preparation
for returning as soon as possible into that universal
matrix. There is nothing between individuals and the
Universe. Instead, in the Christian doctrine, there is a
beginning - God has created the world - and an end is to
come, because any beginning must have an end. The
destiny of every person is in his own hands. He is no
longer dependent on fate. The world, at least our
world, is changeable. Besides, we are not alone. All
people are God's creatures. He equally loves them, and
asks us to love each other as well. People are no longer
indifferent to others. Fate plays a smaller role. That's
why Christianity moulded another sort of people.
Atheists or Christians, we all are the result of this
doctrine as part of our culture and civilization, both
concerning our good deeds and our evil ones as well.

47
Christianity has made us active and enterprising people,
sometimes too enterprising.

And still, the word 'meditation' does not have sense in

Christian doctrine. It is peculiar only for oriental faiths
where people meditate to purify themselves for a future
life. A Christian does not meditate but prays. During his
prayer, he implores God to help him. People without
much will, lazybones or the dishearten ones implore
more often God's help. Trustworthy people instead
usually forget the God, thinking that they succeed by
themselves. They remember him only before an
important but uncertain trial. Then, they ask for God's
help to overcome the moment or to conquer an enemy,
even if this battle is contrary to the Christian doctrine.
It makes me to think that our emotional mood needs the
faith.

From Christianity toward Communism and

backwards

A traveller in the U.S.A. may ask for a ticket for Santa

Fe, the capital of the state of New Mexico. Nothing
extraordinary, if they do not translate “Santa Fe”, as in
the Spanish language it means “the Saint Faith”. “A
ticket return - eventually, half-price – toward the Saint
Faith” sounds just amusing. But, as “In God we trust” is
written on all American banknote, we must remain
patient, because we have not found the God, as he will
come to us, if necessary. Really??

It seems that, in philosophy, as in religion (which is

nothing else but an applied philosophy under metaphor
form), all ways are “round-trip”, as the same ideas re-
48
appear periodically under different forms. As for the
price, no one estimates it before; we will see how much
its cost was post factum.

The Bible teaches us that all people are equal in God’s

eye. Well, this means they are equal with each other.
From here until the idea of democracy is no more than a
step, just a very small one. Greeks’ democracy,
forgotten in the meantime, comes again, timid at the
beginning, but stronger and stronger as time passes. It
was natural for the leaders not to receive it with
pleasure; but - aware that they could not hinder it –
they concluded it would be wiser to use it, with some
adjustments, instead of interfering with it. The solution
was so good that it allowed the coalition church-politics
to dominate for more than a thousand years. As any
exaggeration leads to self-destruction, what inevitably
occurred and culminated with the social explosion, best
symbolized by French Revolution in 1789. From then on,
democracy had a free way. But, such a transformation
like this could not be accomplished quickly. As for the
perfection, this remains an ideal. Occidental Europe did
as much as it could. Of course, the complainers
appeared soon, which is only natural. Un-naturally was
the following exaggeration: “Your democracy is not
good. We will do a perfect one” – said Marx and his
flunkeys. This is how the communism appeared. What
followed is known. The occidentals, with some
experience, observed the mistake and remained in a
compromise, where the idea of democracy circulates
yet, but, in fact, the whole society is organized as an
oligarchic model, with the estate warranted. The model
is not so important as it. The capacity of the society to
keep the equilibrium between opposite tendencies is

49
what matters, which is possible as time as the
exaggerations are tempered in time. In fact, nothing
new happened, as Aristotle taught us a long time ago.
He identified in the chapter V, book III, of his “Politics”
three theoretical types of governing:
• royalty, when a single man rules the country;
• aristocracy, when a minority of people, supposed
to be the best, governs;
• republic, when the majority of people governs.

We recognize democracy in the third type. Any type has

its deviant forms:
• tyranny for royalty;
• oligarchy for aristocracy;
• demagoguery for republic.

All types have their qualities and flaws, so, inevitably, it

turns into other types when the discontentment of
people exceeds an acceptable threshold. Aristotle had
in view all kind of countries, including those very small
ones, sometimes limited at a single citadel, and the
slave-owning system, where only the ‘citizens’ might go
to the polls. In the first chapter of the same book,
Aristotle specifies who has the right to be a citizen. In
such small towns-state, like Sparta, or Athena, a
government of the majority of citizens would be
theoretically possible, even if Aristotle himself is
doubtful (a state could not be governed by the majority,
because the majority is formed by poor people, he
says). In today’s world, with large states, a leadership
made by the majority is impossible. What remains is
demagoguery, not as a type of government, but as
adjective for the two others.

50
Democracy needed a period of oppression for this
nowadays-triumphant explosion to occur. This period
was Middle Age, which put an end to antique
democracies and started the blackest epoch,
comparable with that of soviet communism, in which
Christianity was replaced with the Marxism. It seems
that the church was afraid of Christian-leveling
principles and then took possession of its name, but
only after turning its principles into some false ones,
according with the interests of the monarchy.

After Renaissance, monarchy and church tottered

together, due to the exaggerations they had done
together. (The monarchy formally survived in several
countries like England, as the dissociation produced
there earlier, avoiding mistakes as serious as the
Inquisition was.)

As the monarchy needed to be replaced with something,

they wanted it to be democracy. But, as I have already
shown, a real democracy, namely a governing by the
majority, would not be possible in modern states, too
large and with problems much too complex for being
understandable by all the people. They maintain
democracy only at the propagandistic level. We have
democracy through our representatives (stupid mob
elect its clever men). And, because a religion is
necessary (religion, not church), democracy played this
role of social ideal, particularly because the rabble
liked it, and the main political chances in Europe were
revolutionary, therefore the participation of the mob.
That’s why, no matter what form of government, any
country can call itself a democrat one. “Give to people

51
bread and circus”, the Romans used to say. The circus is
to be found today in electioneering.

In reality, the majority of modern states are elitist,

aristocratic or oligarchic, according to the way in which
the elite are recruited and their education.

How the enlistment is made, we may emit all kind of

theories, but it is clear that any parent will try to
promote his child and any politician will try to surround
himself with men loyal to himself. This is just the main
mistake made by the communist leaders, a mistake that
led to the collapse of the system. For doing the
recruitment by promoting the real values, some other
criterions must exist, other interests. Property is one of
them. In this regard, the capitalist system proved to be
better, because – in spite of some monstrous mistakes –
it recovered itself every time. The communist one,
instead, failed after its first generation. The
explanation is that, while the capitalist system is a
natural one, in which the feedback works – even if with
some delay – the communist system was artificial and
collapsed when the combustible (enthusiasm) was
exhausted, the energy of the initiators finished.

Also, there are no real royalties in our days, so that we

may speak only about aristocracies or oligarchies. All
modern countries are governed by a group of people,
sometimes better, sometimes worse. Demagoguery is
their adjective and the first deceit.

As liberation of intellect under monarchic-religious

doctrinal stress of the Middle Ages unbridled to
democracy, it seems unusual the first book about

52
communism as social ideal, “Utopia”, was written by
Thomas More in the other part of Europe, in England.
The mother of Renaissance was Italy, and its father the
Byzantine intellectuals banished by the Turkish from
Constantinople, but nowadays neither Italians nor the
Greeks have a particular appetite for great social
problems. From democracy to tyranny, they knew glory
and collapse not one time, but many times and, now,
sole satisfaction attracts them more than political
ambitions. They are tired nations. Why did democratic
ideals revived as far away as the North? The question
may be interesting, because it was not only Thomas
More. The majority of later communist doctrinaires
were from the North. Also, the first implementation was
in Russia. Would the cerebral vessel-constriction
provoked by cold be guilty? Leaving the joke aside, we
can find an explanation in their inexperience of
democratic practice that allowed them to give free
scope to their imagination. The Greeks would not do
such things, not only because they had the practice of
democracy – either slave-owning or not – but they also
knew the relation creator-man is not a reciprocal one.
And also they have had several philosophers who taught
them the rationalism much before Descartes, among the
others that any idea must be verified experimentally
before advancing another one, which results from the
first. Communism is the product of imagination out of
control. Thomas More had at least the common sense to
entitle his book Utopia, promoting thus the idea that
what he recommended exists nowhere (u-topos =
without place). Only Marx believed that it would be
possible, and Lenin found even a place for it.

53
Utopian literature appeared from a compensator
necessity, followed after the disparagement of the
religion. The hope in life after life must be replaced
with something. And so, the Utopia appeared as another
hope, this time as a social solution. At a more attentive
look, Christianity itself is a social utopia as well,
because it appeared as a religion for poor and or fallen
people.

As for Marx, he was a shifter Jew wishing to be a

prophet. Living during the period of industrial boom
(and of democracy too), he thought that proletariat will
be the most numerous and will form the most powerful
political party. He prophesied what seems to be
inevitable. Lenin, more impulsive and ambitious,
wanted to be the one that realizes what anyway had to
occur. Both of them were wrong, as the proletariat is
not so numerous even today. On the contrary, the
number of manual workers is smaller and smaller.
Besides, they did not understand the essence of the
democracy, its limits and possibilities. What they had in
mind was a dictatorial society too: “dictatorship of the
proletariat”.

I found some time ago a talking-group the topic of

which was “Why Marxism did not die?”. As it was
expected, a few messages were interesting, some
amusing and some annoying. Of course, the hardest
“arguments” come from those who do not know much
what they are talking about. I will not say that I should
know, but I can add one more opinion, namely the
opinion of someone that knew the effects of one of the
Marxism’s implementation. We, the Romanians,
experienced a sort of Marxism imposed by Soviet Army,

54
so that – except few traitors and stupid people –
Marxism, communism, socialism, etc., are something
coming from the East, with a smack of Urals-Altaic
invasion. Things were different in the former USSR.
While we were like a colony, the USSR was the colonist.
Even inside of the USSSR, things were different in Russia
in comparison with the other soviet republics, generally
occupied countries. China and Cuba are other examples
of Marxism installed by themselves, but I will not enter
the details. Surprising for me is why the fans of the
Marxism do not speak about Cambodia? This was the
purist implementation of Marxism, because its leaders
had been high educated in France and imposed their
doctrine by force, which was exactly as Marx
recommended. Everywhere, the results were disastrous.
And still, Marxism did not die. Why? Because it is an
idea, and ideas do not die. People – some people – made
from it an ideal, a Utopia of course, and the politicians
take advantages using it in their propaganda. It is
nothing more than a propagandistic doctrine for
manipulating stupid (but many) people, important
thanks to their votes. Of course, its upholders will say
that all the experiments of the Marxism were not
perfect, and so the idea resists, as the perfection is not
possible. The politicians always were sly enough for
persuading credulous people, and they will try to gain
their votes, no matter how stupid is their stubbornness
in maintaining the same idea after so many failures.

Now, if you want to talk seriously about Marxism as a

theoretical idea, you have to adopt a scientific method.
First, one must define what Marxism is. In this order, we
should read Marx’s writings, to learn what he said in
addition to his predecessors. One of his predecessors

55
was Hegel, as Marx himself referred to him.
Consequently, we should read Hegel too, and so on. I do
not want to dishearten you, but Aristotle did an analysis
of political systems and how they turn from one form
into another in a perpetual circular motion, A few
modern writers added something really important. Marx
was not among them.

I cannot consider Marx as a philosopher and a theologian

he was not at all. He did not complicate his existence
but entered directly into propaganda, giving it a
philosophic make-up for naïve people. From three
gases, nitrogen, hydrogen and chlorine, therefore
apparently from nothing, one makes ammonia, which
can be liquid, solid or gas, but particular malodorous.
Lenin did something similar: from people’s
dissatisfactions in face of injustice, his personal hatred
of Christianity and the wish of Ural-Altaic people to
kneel down Europe, he imagined a utopia that became
an ideal for some, a nightmare for others that smells
ugly, yet.

Those who know even a little abut Marxism realize that

it is a theory of violence. From the beginning, it
instigated one part of the society against the other.
Violence, crime, terror are not accidental in the history
of former or actual communist countries. They are part
of its arsenal. “Class struggle” means for communist
leaders extermination. And it was not only Marx. He
provided only the ideologue base for political
propagandists. To Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Voltaire
wrote: “I received, sir, your new book directed against
the human race….. Reading your work, I feel like

56
walking on all fours”. A Romanian thinker, Petre Tutea,
said: “The one who until 28-30 years old is not of the
left (in politics) has not heart. But if over 30 years old,
after reaching the maturity, remain with the same
conceptions, it means that he is cretin”. And he again:
“Democracy is like distemper of dogs; gets out of it
only the strong ones”. He was right; the strong ones
know how to manipulate the weak ones, because
democracy only bamboozles them. As a matter of fact,
Aristotle said: “A state in which everything is in
common cannot prosper”.

Here is a simple scheme: parents say to the children all

kinds of tale stories in order to teach them useful
things. If the method proved to be efficient in children,
why not try it with some credulous grown up? They tried
and it works. And so, the religion appeared and together
with it the politics, because the ones that succeeded
became leaders. Religion and politics appeared together
and develop themselves together. They are inseparable
and immanent of the society. Who says he is not
interested in politics or religion is either ignorant or
demagogue. Max Weber says approximately the same,
but with incomparable more words in “Sociology of
Religion”. For the same reason, the religions cannot be
analyzed only through their doctrine, but together with
people that adopted them and historic context in which
they developed. It would be equally wrong to speak
about religion in absolute terms, as something isolated,
independent, as it would be to ignore religion in
historical researches, because every religion is born in
order to answer at some necessities. Of course, later, it
will influence people’s mentality and the course of
events, and so on.

57
Mircea Eliade, in “The Myth of the Eternal Return”,
relates the finding of a researcher while he was
recording a popular ballad. The text was a very nice
fairytale with goddesses and love. Soon, he learned the
story was real and relative recent (40 years ago), found
the heroine, she confirmed the facts, but the peasants
refused to accept them, preferring the ballad. The myth
had become more true than reality.

Nothing is more adequate to lead the mob than

superstition. Without superstitions, it is violent, cruel,
changeable. Once seduced by the vanities of a religion,
the mob listens better to the wizard as the leaders. Man
must keep the tradition, namely the religion.

From history textbooks we learn about the most

important personalities and events, and particularly
when they occurred. Two thoughts are to be observed
here:
• A historical event marks the end of a period and,
of course, the beginning of the next one. A
person can represent a historical period in our
minds, but not being representative for it,
because he did not generate it, is not
characteristic for it, maybe he only finished it.
• The works of many personalities were
misinterpreted in the following centuries, and
used for different purposes, usually
propagandistic.

The relativism of our appreciations might be illustrated

with numerous names and events.

58
The emperor Constantine the Great, for example, is
named also Saint Constantine, because through the
Edict of Milan (313) he mandated toleration of
Christians in the Roman Empire, putting an end to their
persecutions. All right, but he was not Christian. His
initiative was a political act, a military decision. The
empire was divided, every part was fighting with the
others and he, as leader of one of the parts, was
interested to have quiet inside his territory and attract
as many people as possible. Only his mother, Helena,
was Christian. One says that Constantine adhered to
Christianity just before his death, but there is no proof
demonstrating this. Instead, there are many evidences
that in the whole of his life, he was a solar henotheist,
believing in the Sun god. Among them, there are lots of
coin effigies figuring him together with Sun god. The
question is: “How may they declare someone a saint
who never was Christian? Besides, from the historical
point of view, documents did not attest any edict from
Milan with Constantine’s signature. There is only an
ordinance toward the governor of Bithynia, which
mandated toleration of Christians in the Roman Empire,
but it is signed by Licinius, a Constantine’s ally in their
common dispute against Maxentius. Still, we suppose
that he was not outside of the subject. On the other
hand, “Constantine intervened in ecclesiastical affairs
to achieve unity; he presided over the first ecumenical
council of the Church at Nicaea in 325. He also began
the building of Constantinople in 326 on the site of
ancient Greek Byzantium. The city was completed in
330 (later expanded), given Roman institutions, and
beautified by ancient Greek works of art. In addition,
Constantine built churches in the Holy Land, where his
mother (also a Christian) supposedly found the True

59
Cross on which Jesus was crucified. The emperor was
baptized shortly before his death, on May 22, 337.”
(Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia)

Another example is King Henry VIII of England, the

founder of Church of England. The problem is that he
did not do it from religious convictions, but from
excessively proud and paltry personal interests: he
wanted to marry against the will of the pope Clement
VII. Still, Henry VIII was never declared a saint. Instead
Thomas More was, because he was decapitated, but not
from religious convictions, but because he confronted
the king and Henry was not the man to accept it.
Thomas More is more known to the world as the author
of “Utopia”, the first book about communism. What is
surprising is that his canonization was in 1935, 400 years
after his death, when the effects of the communism
were already known in the U.S.S.R. The gesture of the
Pope Pius XI was not at least a political one. It was used
for nothing, being only a proof of political ignorance. To
canonize the one who wrote the first book about
communism in full development of the horribleness of
communism is something inconceivable.

One may continue with Charlemagne’s example.

Together with Pope Leo III, he assembled the base for
the most monstrous coalition, which lasted over
centuries, the effects of which were the moral
degradation both of the church and of monarchy.

In religion, the relativism is at its home. Here, it is not

the divinity what matters, but the rapport between man
and divinity. Divinity itself is conceived on the base of
this rapport.

60
No matter how faithful or unfaithful we would be, no
matter our religion, the divinity remain un-cognoscible.
It is not conceived according with our philosophy of life,
and reciprocally.

Why did the founders of communism want to wipe out

religion? Time proved that it was one of the greatest
errors. Not only they did not succeed, but they
estranged people instead of attracting them. It would
be understandable to eliminate the priests, as they
pushed away the intellectuals, because they showed the
propagandists’ lies and the errors of the communist
doctrine. But why the religion? The explanation consists
in the fact that they wanted to replace religion with
Marxist doctrine. They saw in Marxism a new religion.
Maybe Lenin even thought it. But why mix a social-
politic doctrine with religion? It is true, there were
some antecedents and they did some associations of
ideas, some correct, but others erroneous. Religion,
hand in hand with politics, used both to manipulate
people easier. The most eloquent period was that of the
Middle Ages, during which the Catholic Church was
something like the unique political party in totalitarian
systems and religion like the political doctrine. The
Inquisition is the best proof. The communists wished to
replace Christianity with Marxism. The idea was
tempting. Unfortunately, in the meantime, the Occident
abandoned the church as far back as the French
Revolution, in 1789, so that the model became
obsolete. Maybe this is why they thought not to set up
the communism in occident, but in Russia, a country
less developed, frozen in a past time, with people still
religious, almost bigots. Here they make another

61
mistake, one more grave: the occidental Christianity is
a radically different face to the east European one, so
different that I do not know if they deserve to bear the
same name! But, for this we need to do some history. Of
course, not now!

Firstly, the attempt of removing the religion! I think

that only hate for Christianity dazzled Lenin, making
him to think that a thing like this is possible. A faith is
necessary. Some people need it. Besides, through
religion they set up habits, traditions, creating a
unwritten but respected ethic. As a social being, any
person keeps local customs, and any European is, by
definition, Christian, even when he declares himself to
be atheist. (Sometime, it is amusing to observe these
people as they invoke God when they are in a
deadlock.) Besides, the religion was so deeply
implicated in history, in our becoming, that ignoring it is
inconceivable. To do it would mean to deny ourselves.
Of course, we could modify it, but not remove it. As for
the Bible, it is the first reference book. We could not
understand the evolution of European civilisation
without it.

A cardinal mistake of the founders of the communism

regarding Christianity was that they did not keep
account of the difference between Catholic and
Orthodox churches. If, at its beginning, Christianity
gradually developed, step by step, as a poor people’s
faith, later on, the situation changed itself. The turning
point was the fall of the Western Roman Empire, in the
year 476. At that time, a part of the East European
population was already Christian, while the quasi-
totality of the Occidental one was pagan. Later, people

62
from Eastern Europe had to fight with barbarians, all of
them pagans. In this way, defending their goods, they
defended their faith as well. The faith was an additional
reason to fight the invaders. For them, the barbarian,
invader, etc. meant unfaith people, non-Christian. For
Christian Orthodox people of that time, faith meant
civilisation. The removing of faith was equivalent with
falling in barbarism. Occidental Europe had no such
problems. For them, Christianity was imposed from top
to bottom and changing it would not be so difficult. This
difference still exists, but Marx and Lenin did not
apprehend it.

The similarity between Inquisition, Russian NKVD and

Romanian Secret Policy is almost perfect. It gives us an
idea why Lenin wanted to remove religion: to replace it
with Marxism. He wanted a society like that of
Occidental Middle Age with Marx’s “Capital” instead of
the Bible.

And something more: the communists addressed the

masses. But masses are composed of individuals. For
attracting them, one must keep account by the
particularities of their personality. Not every person
thinks about religion in the same way. On the contrary,
it is the field in which our opinions are, maybe, the
most different, even when we utter the same words.

Communist propagandists made a mistake even in their

methodology of teaching Marxist doctrine: there were
no references to the past. Any philosopher builds his
discourse starting from a predecessor, face to whom he
adds something, or corrects him. Evidently, in this
approach, one supposes the reader knows the

63
predecessor’s theses, who has, at his turn, another
predecessor and so on. Consequently, philosophy must
begin with the beginning. There is a history of
philosophy more than a science of philosophy like
chemistry, physics, etc. From modern philosophers, only
Kant, “with his talent to deceive himself”, as
Schopenhauer characterized him, had the naivety of
thinking that he could build a complete philosophic
system starting from zero. Against the eulogies that
made from Kant a monument of Philosophy, his system
has more holes than Swiss cheese and almost lacking of
content. Only the propaganda of a Germany in full
expansion, which needed to make famous his glory,
could make him a top of philosophy. Coming back to
communist propagandists, they used to mention only
Hegel, saying about him that he was wrong – no one
knows why – but we are lucky with Marx, the man who
discovered everything. The effect was inversely: the
lack of reference points to the past provoked us to read
secretly just these philosophers. Otherwise, it would be
dangerous for our security. As a matter of fact, the
propagandist themselves did not read any philosopher,
not even Marx. They were only reciting ready-prepared
texts. From this reason, they were not admitting any
deviation from these texts, afraid not to change its
meaning, a meaning that used to remain obscure for
themselves, anyway.

64
 The poor philosophy…

It seems that philosophy remains the only way to solve

our dilemmas. Unfortunately, it went down a long time
ago. After Voltaire, some philosophers that “invent
systems about the esoteric embodiment of Universe”
are “like those travellers that go in Constantinople and
speak about seraglio; they seen it only from outside
and say that know what sultan does with his
favourites”.

From modern philosophers, it is almost unanimously

recognised that the top was Kant, thanks to the
monumentality of his work. Germany used to have a
greater need of him than philosophy. In its impetuous
evolution, German people wanted to have what every
great nation has and they did not have yet: a great
philosopher. How is that that the tribe of philosophers
accepted him? We find the answer in the incapability of
understanding real philosophical problems by some
alleged philosophers, but who prefer to declare
themselves as Kant’s disciples, supposing that nobody is
patient enough to read all his works. People will think
that at least you would read and understand him.
Nobody could contradict you. Besides, maybe German
government will give you a prize.

As someone observed, “for Kant, the obsession of the

hierarchization makes him to put the music on last
place, below the gardening, giving as reason the fact
that music disturbs the neighbours”. What interests me

65
is not to establish a hierarchy, a prizing dais, but the
influence of philosophy in real life. Kant did not enter
the life of anyone, and, on the threat of the evolution
of German philosophy, it went hand in hand with
German mentality. I find Nietzsche being on the top, not
because he discovered something, but because he
indicated a way on which German nation followed,
being on its taste. German philosophy, Germans’
mentality and German politics went together toward
German apogee, marked by Hitler – the superman
invocated with so much pathos by Nietzsche. About
Nietzsche, Giovanni Papini says that he was “the most
Anglo-Frenchman German philosopher. Even if he had
learnt from Frenchmen how to love fine and subtle
things and from Englishmen the practical and clear
ones, he did not succeeded to make free his mind by
the Teutonic nebulosity”. Giovanni Papini bantered
almost all philosophers and “Teutonic nebulosity” is an
expression created in his enthusiasm as pamphleteer.
We must recognize Nietzsche was only a doctrinal
support for Nazism, as Marx was for communism.
“Hitler has the endorsement, even the active support
of Martin Heidegger, Richard Strauss, Gottfried Benn,
Carl Schmitt, Konrad Lorenz, Heisenberg and other
German Nobel prizemen. … A cultivate barbarity that
knew to recuperate German cultural tradition in own
aims. The deification of German culture makes the
“intelligentia” to underestimate Hitler’s importance.
One cannot conceive that a man who did not finished
primary school to close by Stein, Bismarck…. Nothing
but the vainglory of their culture made them not to see
in Hitler a threatening” – Pascal Bruckner, “The
Melancholy of Democracy”.

66
Criticizing Nietzsche, now I feel needing to rehabilitate
him at least a little. Au fond, he was well intentioned.
Even his superman was only an attempt to encourage
people to get beyond the actual stage and rise a step
more. People generally, not a certain person! He
underwent like Jesus, who tried to amend the behaviour
of Jewish people and not to provoke the birth of a new
religion, but, because German people are contented
with themselves, entrusted Hitler with the mission to be
their superman. The essence of Nietzsche’s philosophy
could be found in this paragraph from “Thus Spoke
Zarathustra”: “God is a representation (fiction); I want
your vision not to go farther than your creative will. …
you would shape the Superman”. Which were the
consequences of his philosophy? A first effect was the
immediate and known one, even if Nietzsche himself
adverts to the danger in following paragraph: “This one
maybe will not among you, my brothers! But you could
be some Superman’s ancestors. Let it to be the best
faith of yours”. As it was expect the Germans thought
they could bring the future to the present, becoming in
this way their own ancestors. What should be a faith
became the will of immediately carrying it out.
Nietzsche himself suggested this idea by that “maybe”,
inadmissible for a philosopher but which denote an
inner hidden aspiration. We find out here the same
wrong idea: man wants to become his own God. It is a
dement answer to another misplaced question: “Who
made the world?” with all its derivates: “Who made
man?”, “How did man came on the Earth?” and many
other similar ones. Could we really live without such
stupid questions? Stupid, because we will never learn
the answers to them and, inventing answers each and
all more fantasist, one created equally much life

67
philosophies, along with their religions, as far as that of
the Superman in Hitler’s version, communist ones and …
I would go on, but it is not the case.

And, because I mentioned Kant, here is a quote

rehabilitating him in a certain measure for his sincerity:
“Its partisans (of philosophy) lessen, since those gifted
enough to make themselves respected in other sciences
do not seem to agree to compromise their reputation in
a discipline in which anyone, even if he is unknowing in
all the other fields, ventures to utter a definitive
judgement”. Yes, here he is right! In old times,
philosophy was all-embracing; now we might ask
ourselves: what remained of it? As for people
“unknowing in the other fields”, let us remind
Schopenhauer saying, “A philosopher should study a
serious science firstly”, of course for proving his
intellectual abilities, or Plato, who put on the
frontispiece of his Academy the slogan “Who is not a
geometrician does not enter here”.

I remember myself that, when I started to read more

seriously philosophy (I avoid the word “study”, as it
seems to me to be rather “precious”) for my simple
curiosity of seeing what the “scholars” deal with, I
approached it as any science: I procured myself some
basic books and sat down with a pencil in hand. With
the pencil, I did not want to do so much. Instead, piles
of dictionaries and encyclopaedias agglomerated my
desk soon, because I was reading like from a foreign
language. I said to myself that, maybe my intellect is
not so good. This thought ambitioned me more and I
insisted. In time, I did get even a little fervour.
Fortunately, my fancy was gone and I realized that the

68
most part of such text are only a parade of words
produced by people who have nothing to say. Still, there
was a captivating phase as well, when, almost
systematically, after the ravishment achieves by an
author’s genial glitter, the following one brings off a
disillusion, showing the flaws from the predecessor’s
theory, followed by a new theory, more attractive, but
which will be proved latter to have its weaknesses too,
and so on, maybe for adverting us that in the world
there is dialectics, not only binary logic, there is
penumbra, not only light and dark. Close to our years,
things seem to rush themselves like a race in a bobsled,
where, because of the speed, the bobsled goes from a
wall to the other faster and faster. Then, all small
problems disappear and only two chief questions
remain: “could we keep the bobsled on the toboggan?”
and “how long until we reach the end is?”. These
questions are in sport. In life we should know the axis
face to which we need to keep the equilibrium. As for
the end, it is without sense here. Still, there is only a
moral: let us not haste toward a catastrophic one and,
if possible, to make life as agreeable we can in existing
conditions.

The purpose of any philosophy is to find out the means

through which man can get the happiness or at least a
modus vivendi in which he feels well. For this, a first
task is to know the world inside of which he lives and to
identify the sources of unhappiness, in order to
eliminate them. Along the centuries, he did it in many
different ways.

As an integral knowledge of the universe is impossible,

man imagined every time a cosmogony according with

69
the ethic of the society of that time, cosmogony that
served as base for respective religion, through which
people apply in their life the principle of that ethic.
From this reason, it is without sense to search for
logical explanations beyond the level for which a
certain cosmogony was created. So, in Christianity,
everything begins with the idea that god created the
world, our universe. Nobody asks what occurs at the
God’s level. Has he brothers, sisters, parents? Such
questions would be considered real blasphemies by
every Christian believer. In Christianity, our world, the
single interesting us, had a beginning and, consequently,
will have an end, which will be a collective one.
Thereafter, the individual’s happiness cannot be found
but in the middle of the collectivity inside of which he
lives. Extreme-Oriental religions start from a more
general concept: Universe is immutable and infinite in
time and space. Every individual has fallen off from
there by an accident and he will come back after
several reincarnations. His unhappiness and the getting
of his happiness are personal affairs without any link
with the others. Both for oriental and occidental
believers, absolute happiness is intangible in real life,
but it is promise in after-life. Till then, man must keep
the moral principles of the society where he lives,
principles established by the religion for which that
cosmogony was imagined. Only keeping the general-
accepted ethic, the extreme-oriental man might come
back in the original universe and the Christian one to
reach in Heaven and not in Hell.

The Greeks imagined a mythology specific for a society

composed of slaves and free men, where the position of
everyone is predetermined, anterior established, but

70
the interval between deities and men is populated with
semi-deities, heroes, etc, so that there is a chance for
anyone to build his own future.

From these three categories above-mentioned, result

three very different types of human behaviours.

Today, most people admit neither a cosmogony or

religion and want to feel free of any constraint, ready
to do everything cross their mind. From homosexuality
to toxico-mania, everything – if is not admissible yet – it
must become free as soon as possible. Although there is
not yet an adequate cosmogony, the absence of any
ethic criterions tends to become a new religion. If it
will be so, surely it will be the last one.

Fortunately, nothing from these will happen and the

humanity will go on in his oscillations between the two
extremes – dictatorship and democracy – as he always
did when he did not succeeded in keeping a rational
equilibrium between them. It is expected that
nowadays-oratorical excesses for democracy, destined
to disguise the trend toward the dictatorship, to
disappear in one way or another. „History repeats itself
in the large scheme of things because human nature
changes with geological leisureliness” say us an English
maxim.

But, the Catholics did not give up to coquette with

philosophy and probably still strive for inscribing famous
names on their frontispiece. One of the latest found was
Henry Bergson. He is an appreciated philosopher, and
the Catholics’ joy was wondrous when converted him
from Judaism to Christianity. Unfortunately for them,

71
Bergson, along with his convert, entered politics and
produced nothing new on philosophic or religious field,
and what he had written before is not useful for
Catholic doctrine. “The Two Sources of Morality and
Religion” (1932) really is a quintessence of his thought,
but it synthesizes his older ideas, even if it was written
later. He insists a lot on the élan vital, or vital force,
but the idea is neither very new (Schopenhauer did it
much better) nor convincing. What he strives to explain
very well is the complementarity of religion and reason,
looked as natural, human, tendencies. He does not
speak explicitly about a certain religion, but about
religion generally, the role of which is to establish some
traditions with final effect in ethics. Bergson is not at
all a theologian. Excepting some declarations of
complaisance, he remains a philosopher, a very good
analyst, which gives me the possibility to agree with
him, at least partially. I like especially his comparison
with the pendulum, which, after every deviation, comes
back to the normal position, even if only for an instant,
in his way toward the opposite position. It happens the
same in nature, for the closed societies, as he named
them. Still, humanity is an open society, because it
evolves thanks to men’s innovative character.
Unfortunately, so far, his evolution was unidirectional,
with a catastrophic end, because the pendulum does
not give signs to come back.

Bergson also relates with stupor about two “foreign

nobles, came from far, but dressed like us (French),
walking among us, amiable and affable, but which,
after a little time, turned in their country and
affiliated at two different parties, one of them sent
the other to the hanging, only for getting rid of an

72
uncomfortable adversary”. Bergson did not have time to
know Pol Pot and his team massacring the Cambodians. I
do not know how accidentally they had been
“educated” in Paris, learning from Sartre his theory of
“necessary violence” (“Genuine freedom can only be
gained by collective revolutionary action”).

I am not a philosopher but in etymological sense of the

word: love (philo) for wisdom (sophia), especially when
wisdom belongs to others. This position offers to me the
advantage that I may express my opinions more freely
than a professional one. Even Ortega y Gasset
encourages me, saying that "philosophy keeps its
virginity in spite of its repeated violations". So, if it
resisted to Nietzsche or Kant, how much of what
someone like me says could count. Surely, philosophy so
philosophy is not in danger.

It is clear: we need salvation. If it comes only from God,

the question is “which God? The benevolent or the
punishing one?” I would dare a puerile answer: if God is
our father, then maybe he treats us like a parent. As a
sage one, who prepares his children for life, or as a
stupid one, who only coddle them?

As a parent, God teaches us lessons according to our

age. If sometimes his indications seem to be
contradictory, it does not mean that he is inconsequent,
but that we are in another stage of our evolution.
Consequently, the Bible could not be a unique
document. In the meantime, we grew up a little, don’t
we? Maybe we overpass the age of abecedary. A thing is
sure: God did not give the Bible to Adam when he
banished him from the Garden of Eden to have it as an

73
orientation guide. He gave it later to humanity. And,
even later, he sent Jesus for conveying a message to us,
completing the Bible in this way with several chapters.
Do we have reasons to think that he did not go on
sending to us other messages? If he went on giving us
messages - and it would be normal to do so - then our
problem is to pick up these messages, to interpret and
apply them. As long as we confine ourselves to interpret
– mostly wrong – the same book, written several
thousands of years ago surely we are no longer under
God’s leading.

In the other part of the world, independent of the

Christianity, there live people of an older faith, whom
we prefer to ignore. Still, political games of the 20th
century were made by Mao. If for each Chinese, one
would require 100 grams more of rice – like the German
model – then world’s economy would be messed up. Mao
was the one who governed them. As a communist
country, if he would cooperate with the USSR, the world
supremacy would belong to them. Stalinist or Nazi
decisions in China would be catastrophic for wide world.
Still, Mao discerned the weaknesses of Soviet system
and repudiated the offer. In this way, the balance of
power remained equal.

And Mao had another quality as well: he did not prohibit

any religion. As a matter of fact, he would not have the
possibility to do it, as oriental religion are not
hierarchic organized, like the European ones, so he did
not have what to dissolve. In the Orient, religion and
wisdom, sometime, are confounded each other and I do
not see how could someone to forbid the wisdom. With
all his mistakes, and there were a lot, we must

74
recognize that few occidental political leaders were at
his level. From classic German philosophy to Hitler, from
French revolution, with it equalizer excitations, to the
Soviet communism, the road of our stupidity always was
paved with good intentions, but with what effects? One
thing is certain: we must rethink our philosophy or,
more exactly, to think it, as what we love to call
rational, logical, proved to be only the product of our
desires. Logics can bring forth paradoxes.

We may speak about two currents in philosophy: one

that regards it as any science that has its field and the
other, which consider that only a history of philosophy is
interesting, that a philosophy as it does not exist, but
only people philosophising. Kant is a supporter of the
first current. He thinks that philosophy must be
approached frontal, as any science, and not through the
prism of the evolution of our knowledge about it, as the
real world does not change it laws according with our
knowledge. He is obstinate in thinking that a field of
philosophy even exists and build something that seemed
to be the most solid system philosophic. It was not long
and his “formidable” system, in spite of its rigour –
which really is remarkable – proved to have even more
flaws than other older systems. It seems that the sore
point of Philosophy is just the inconsistence of its field.
If in the past philosophy included all thinking fields, in
time, every science delimited and extract its particular
field. Finally, we ask ourselves: what remains for
philosophy? It remains just the history of them, but not
exposed pedant, with affectation, for showing author’s
glitter, but a part of the history of civilisation, because,
it shows us – together with the other sciences – the way
in which our civilisation developed itself. In fact, history

75
itself would be a history of human thought and not of
some events or personalities. Louis XIV, for example,
known as the Son King, is shown as the most
representative exponent of the monarchy, was in reality
the one who – by his exaggerations and the futility of his
intellect – contributed to the destruction of the
monarchy.

Sometimes, we speak about happiness, even if we could

not imagine it. Dante reaches only as far as the doorway
of Paradise, without entering inside, just because Virgil
cannot imagine happiness. As for the biblical Heaven,
probably we will bore ourselves after a short time.
Instead, we cannot only imagine very well Hell, but we
are able to improve it with our imagination. If we
endeavour with the same diligence to improve the
conditions from our earthy purgatory, surely we feel
much better.

There are persons thinking that happiness consists in

doing nothing. It is obvious that it is not true, as persons
that succeed in doing nothing are not happy.
Theoretically, there are more three possibilities besides
the one that I have just discussed:
• to want to do nothing and, still, to do something;
• to want to do something, but not to do;
• to want to do something and to do it.
The first one seems to be absurd: how not to want, and
still to do and be happy for it. The second is a sure way
toward the discontent because you did not attain to do
what you have proposed, so the opposite of the
happiness. The third one, even if it seems odd, is
identical with the initial hypothesis. To do nothing, to
do almost nothing, to do something, to do very much
76
etc., are stairs both for wish and for act. What counts
for happiness is not the level on which they are, but the
rapport between their postures. In other words, our
mood depends on their posture on two different stairs.

It remains the second variant, initial considered absurd

and over which it seems we pass too fast. Is it possible
this one to be the true one? To do something that I had
not proposed really seems absurd. It is true that I can
enjoy for a thing already done and for it I must no
longer take great pains, not even to think about it. But
how to do something without thinking to do it?

An example is crossing my mind. Many men think the

shaving as plague and – if they allow – do it as rare as
they can. I thought so until I learnt that it is easier to
do it daily than aleatory. Since then I shave myself in
every morning, immediately after getting up from the
bed and before waking completely. I do not have think
about it, because it already is a reflex action. The fact
that during the day I always am fresh gives me a
sentiment – if not of happiness – at least of normality.
Otherwise, I should feel more then unhappy. (I do not
insist!)

My example is a very small one. The question is if this

logic works in other serious cases too. If yes, then how
could we do unconsciously something that could bring us
some satisfactions?

Here is another example. While I was reading a book, an

idea crossed my mind. It came alone. I did not know
that it would come, so I could not want it. Of course, I
enjoyed. Still, the idea did not come just by itself. The

77
lecture of the book suggested it to me. So, I was doing
something, but not a hard work. I was revelling in it.
Here, maybe I am a little wrong. Someone, sometime,
made me not only to read, but to learn the alphabet as
well. Later, like the shave, it became a reflex action
and now I can enjoy of its advantage, because I forgot
its disadvantages, although a child learns many things
by playing and does them with pleasure. More
unpleasant was when, during the play, I was hurting at
my knees. I remember it because they were aching.

But, what I was speaking about? Ah, yes, about

happiness. No, it does not come from the knees. The
tradition might have a role.

I read now, after I wrote so much about religion, what I

should have read first: Kant’s “Religion Within the
Boundaries of Reason Alone“.It begins well! I remark
that his starting position confirms my intuition. Kant
first asks himself if man is naturally good or evil. He
ascertains that man is evil, but has a tendency to
become good. In other words, he would want to do
well, but did not succeed. Hereinafter, I observe that
Kant’s approach is based on a relative reference point:
morale. Besides, for Kant, the morale means the law.
But law is a consequence, a synthesis of a way of life, of
a society, of our society, of our philosophy. To search the
fundamental truth starting from its last consequences in
a society that evaluated itself at random, means to put
the cart before the horses, with the observation that a
team like this could go, even more difficult, unlike
Kant’s logic, which does not work at all. A great scholar
said: “Give me a fulcrum and I overturn the earth”. He
refers the principle of levers. Well, just the fulcrum is

78
not stable at Kant’s theory, as a mater of fact, it does
not exist, because the moral law is a consequence and
not a cause. And then, the whole philosophic building is
aerial, artificial. After some divagations, Kant finally
affirms firmly: “Man is evil naturally” (chapter II).
Besides, he tries to identify “the origin of Evil in human
nature” (chapter IV). Then, like in any well-written
novel, the hope appears: there is in man “a genuine
predisposition toward the Well”. Namely, man is
naturally evil, but inclined toward the Well. Reading
these pages, I imagined man on a pedestal of Evil,
looking down, where the Well used to be and toward
which he was inclined, and I was afraid for him not to
become dizzy, knowing about a sure predisposition of
him, the vertigo, which is natural. Less fearful, Kant
still identified a danger of man’s inclination toward the
Well: if we leave it at the will of hazard and develops
itself irresponsible. Of course, Kant does not note it
without purpose. Immediately he offers us his solution:
the religion. Finally, he adverts us to the “bad
ministration” of religion by the priests, so that after we
whirled like a cat around his tail, we ask ourselves:
what is the use of this talk about Well and Evil? Now,
Kant seems to be a sincere believer, which explains in a
certain measure his logic (or its lack). I recognize that,
after this remark, the man Kant seems to me almost
tolerable, more human, if I may express this way. But,
he become again a philosopher, needs to get us out from
the circle within we endlessly circumrotate and gives us
the final solution: Pure Reason. Theoretically, it is
perfect, at least in his imagination, but practically he
offers nothing. Kant stops here, and I think the he does
very well. His whole building seems a simple philosophic
exercise, unfortunately with the same obsession: Pure

79
Reason. The idea of a pure reason could be agreeable,
but – as religion was “badly ministered” by the priests
(when their reason disappeared), the reason as well
could lead toward negative consequences. We already
knew some. In conclusion, any exaggeration is looser.

Now, the true philosophers make more and more

literature. In other words, they express the ideas in a
way accessible for all educated readers. Sometimes it is
difficult what to call them: philosophers or writers? On
the other hand, scholars from other fields need at old
age to convey their personal meditations. In this way,
the philosophy comes again in the area of love (philo) of
wise (sophia), not through the contribution of its
„professionals” but through that of the real thinkers, if
this term is not rather pretentious.

About Communication

The man’s efficiency in the face of nature, his

detachment face to the other animals, lies in
organization. As individual, man is weak; organized is
the most powerful

Human society, like those of bees, ants, monkeys etc.

has a natural structure of organization, with leaders and
subordinates, handlers and handled mass. The
complexity of the hierarchy of human societies must not
make us to lose sight of the fact its natural character.
There are natural laws that we ought to know and keep.
Consequently, any attempt to modify its natural
structure is doomed to failure or a source of errors.

80
It results that one of first problems is that of the
selection of the leaders. I do not know how is in bees or
ants. In primates, and generally in big animals, the
dominant male imposes himself by force. In men, the
leaders need arguments to persuade their fellows to
follow then and not the others.

From the political point of view, we catalogue the

societies just based on the way in which the leaders are
selected: how they reach at power and how they keep
the power. The classics of the antiquity identified three
basic types of organisations, through which the societies
cross cyclically, because no one of them is perfect, and
people’s dissatisfactions make them think that the other
one would be better. They are monarchy, democracy
and oligarchy. Aristotle named them royalty, a republic
and aristocracy, with their derived forms: tyranny,
oligarchy and demagogy (“Politika”, book III, chapter
V). In my opinion, oligarchy is the fitted word for the
natural organization, toward which one comes back
repeatedly, and monarchy and democracy are the two
opposite each other, toward any society oscillates like a
pendulum. At any passing from a form to the other, only
a change of personages occurs, with some smaller or
greater disorders, after which the society comes back to
its natural organization, unfortunately only transiently
toward the opposite position. Why they behave this way
is people’s bustle and the wish of some to leaders
instead of the others. (If bustle is a word less imposing,
replace it with Bergson’s “élan vital”, Schopenhauer’s
“will” or other consecrated terms. I would introduce
the term “vital instinct” or better “expansionist
instinct”, something like a personal “Big Bang”.

81
Every change must be prepared, justified, make
arguable. Ample scenarios are built in this order, in
which besides social-political arguments, engrafted on
permanent people’s dissatisfactions, religious
arguments appear, sometime even a new religion,
necessary for giving people a hope. In the last analyze,
monarchy, democracy and anything else, are only
scenarios, or – to be more modern - screen plays.

But the organization supposes communication and here

there is the key of humanity’s success: man invented
the language especially for communicating.
Organization and language developed themselves
together in order to coordinate people’s actions,
beginning with the hunting of primitive man until the
most complex activities of our days.

Along with the society, language developed itself as

well. So it always happened and so it does now. If
someone deludes himself with the fancy that the
evolution of language is due to somebody saying
monologues in face of an admiring audience, it means
that he suffered a professional disease, out of touch
with the reality. In the communication process, if the
source did not receive a proper answer from the
receiver, it means either this one did not understand
the message or there was a dysfunction on the channels
of communication, so that the communication did not
occur. Some “precious” artists ought to think such
questions, arts being a process of communication as
well, of course with specific means. The means could
not modify the essence of the process, which suppose a
purpose, as without purpose we drift away from the
reality.

82
I made a small parenthesize, hoping not without profit.
I am coming back to organisation. Its highest form in
modern epoch is the state. Due to its complexity, the
society structures itself from the reasons of
functionality. In this way, leaders and subordinates
appear and – along with them – politics and political
fights. Those who want to be leaders have to identify,
point out and infer an aim, a purpose toward which the
society should direct its steps and to persuade their
fellow that they are the fitted men to be their guides.
And so, the propaganda comes into being. The
identification of the aim is a psychological art. The
leaders must speculate the deepest people’s sentiments
and wishes, which is not just easy, because these
change themselves in the course of time. Today the
democracy is in fashion, generated by people’s wish to
be equal each other. It is the self-pride at the highest
level. Man wants to be his own God. In the past, instead
of this insatiate self-pride, its opposite was: the fear.
The fear of thunderbolts, of more powerful animals, of
drought or flooding, the fear of anything, but also and
the hope that nothing bad would occur to him, or,
maybe, on the contrary, they will be lucky, deities will
be benevolent and – why not? – they will reach in
Heaven. And so, the religion was born. Is there any
difference between political propaganda recognised as
it and the religion used in the same purpose? Evidently,
not! Both speculate people’s sentiments. I said that it is
not just easy, because between the two ones, and
especially inside of them – there is an infinity of
nuances and the politician just identify and fructify in
his interest. Even if it is an art, we do not deal with it
now.

83
The most advanced form of languages is in literature,
namely in books. Along with the generalization of
literacy, more and more people want to turn their
statute of readers in that of the writer, if he
appreciates that he has something to say toward the
world. On the other hand, in a less or greater measure,
any person is tented to philosophise or at least to
meditate. We have all reasons to suppose that man
always did it. And if he philosophise, he want to
communicate his thoughts to his fellows. The expression
„his fellow” must be interpreted ad literam, as people
can communicate only inside of the same culture and at
their level of understanding.

The dream of communication has become possible in a

greater and greater measure thanks to the evolution of
technology. This is why, from the past, there was kept
only savant thought recorded in all kind of writings on
stone, skin, papyrus, paper etc., today more and more
people want to see their thinking recorded and
distributed on areas as large as possible, which is very
good even if it raises new questions, creates new
institutions and mentalities. About books under the form
of leafs bound on a size (codex) we may speak only
since the Romans had this idea and offered us the
possibility of skipping over uninteresting pages. Till
then, the ceramic platens, papyrus scroll and the others
were unhandy enough. Today, the Internet is the
champion of communication. This is why the
idiosyncrasy of some people to the Internet is similar
with an affirmation like: <I like literature less the
letters between ‘f’ and ‘m’>. And still, the book
continue to remain the mark of perennial writings,

84
reason for which very many people want to publish
books, and some of them make it even with their
money. It seems that the wish and proud to leave a
trace of his thoughts toward his followers is a fruit of
democracy. No one signs the Bible. Socrates did not
endeavour to write anything. Information used to be
conveyed by word of mouth, not only horizontally, but
vertically as well from a generation to the other. Today,
there are millions of authors with too few messages.
Here is a difference!

As I said, the development of technology allowed the

access to books of a greater and greater number of
readers and potential writers. Literature exceeded the
borders of savant though, diversified and adapted itself
to requirements and tastes all social categories, which
does not mean that anyone may address to everyone. In
a certain measure, this idea seems possible in leisure
literature, though even here people’s different level of
culture impose different levels of literature.

Barnaby Rich wrote in 1613: “One the maladies of this

century is the quantity of books; people are as much
overload with them they are not able to digest the
abundance of useless stuff daily produced and word-
wide-spread”. What else happened since then? As it was
expected, more and more books appeared. The
“malady” has become pandemic dimensions. As a
matter of fact, the author himself wrote other books, to
show us that not their number disturbed him but the
concurrency of the others authors. Today, after the
appearance of the Internet, like then, after the
appearance of the printing press, some authors have the
same fear: “what the humanity will do with such an

85
abundance of information?”. The answer is simple”
what they did so far. The real question is another. Not
because we would need a new one, but because the old
one was wrong. How to get through the multitude of all
kinds of information – written or non-written – how to
filter the useful and protect ourselves from the useless
one, were our problem forever.

For the beginning, as printing presses were only a few,

they needed a filter of works admitted for publishing, a
skilful staff. They were intellectuals of authentic value.
In the meantime, it has become a profession as
whichever else, opened to anybody and the criterions of
selection changed according with the desires of the
“sleeping partner”, let he be a politician, great priest,
etc.

From the reader’s point of view, there are some

different criterions of selection, according with his
requirements. In order to help him, a new profession,
that of literary criticism, appeared. Even if,
theoretically, its role is to orientate the readers, the
relativism of the evaluations allows the critics to serve
some particular interests. Today, literary criticism has
become futile. As this assertion seems too severe, I am
giving an example from a different domain: sports.
Here, there are three different categories of
professionals: sportsmen, journalists and admirers.
Those three categories do not interfere with each other
but accidentally and in a little measure. The most
important is the journalists are not sportsmen. In
literature, instead, the journalists and literary critics
want to be writers as well, and sometimes they even
are. Of course, they cannot be non-partisan, their

86
objectivity is low. In spite of their ambitions, the reader
feel their intentions pro domo and renounce to read
such publications.

Besides, literary critics do not delimitate their domain.

It is not possible today for anyone to cover all fields,
even more in culture. Such pretensions denote only
ignorance and not an authentic culture.

A proof of critics’ inefficiency is the fact that most

bought books are those with great publicity and not
those recommended by the literary critics. In
marketing, the most convincing publicity is that based
on the recommendation of some professionals in that
field. They will better sell a pair of skis, for example, if
a famous skier recommends that brand. It is not the
same in literature. The buyers ignore critics’ opinions.
Why? Why people reckon skier’s authority and do not
that of the literary critics? Simple! Because the skier
proved his competence!

Besides critics, some specialists appeared too,

“connoisseurs” of the recipes of how to write. They
teach us how to make literature, as if would be a kind
of food. They judge others’ works according to their
recipe book, not thinking if they understood author’s
message, the authors usually being with many
intellectual levels above the judgers.

Although some dictionaries consider literature as the

totality of writings, there is also the acceptation of
artistic creation. Where it begins and where it finishes
is difficult to specify. In the past, even scientific works
were written in verses. Today, our pragmatism would

87
make ridicule such pretensions. The style of a business
letter is much different from that of an artistic
creation, even if nobody forbids us from composing nice
letters.

The arts destined to satisfy our aesthetic pleasures have

as objective not only the audio-video or gastronomic
pleasures, but mostly the intellectual ones, particularly
those that reach our conscience. Some distinctions are
necessary and I will do it through some examples:

• Level 1: “A wolf ate a sheep”. In an official

report, they will relate the happening in such
terms: “The special commission came on the
scene and found that ….” Finally, he will
conclude the accountants will record in registers
the necessary records and so on. Nothing
remarkable! Nothing to impress us! A writer,
instead, will begin with some phrases like this:
“Over the bed of golden dry leafs, the first snow
flakes laid themselves, brought by the cold wind
from the peaks of the mountains already whiten.
The old shepherd, anguished by transcendental
insomnia, was thinking to ….” Finally, the reader,
with his eyes wet by tears, is ready to take a gun
for kill all the wolf from the world. I was ironical,
but it is not what matters now.
• Level 2: “Wolfs eat sheep”. It is an equally banal
finding as well, but a small quotient of
generalization. Together with some statistical
data, this can be the subject of a report toward
an international forum, destined to advert public
opinion and politicians upon the danger that wolf
eat sheep. The poet, instead, by the means of

88
 several verses, realizes what tens of international
forums do not succeed, especially if he turns the
sheep in deer.
• Level 3 would be an idea more abstract, at 4
maybe just a philosophic one and so on.

Common for all levels is the necessity of the content, a

chiefly idea. As for the clarity of the narration, it is not
only a condition, but also an ideal of every authentic
intellectual. As much the idea is more complex,
profound or abstract, the more the clarity of exposition
is necessary. A confuse narration denotes either the
confusion in author’s mind or an attempt of masking the
lack of any idea. Do not be let deceive yourself by
difficult texts. Probably they belong to some deceivers.
If the narration has artistic valences, touches our
conscience, only then we pertain to a literary creation.
The measure of artistic fulfilment consists in the
persistence of the idea induced in reader’s mind, the
way in which it stimulates the meditation of the topic.
An unclear exposition does not make the message more
artistic.

As the social pyramid has its base at bottom and the top
up, it is natural that most writers operate at inferior
levels, those of simple ideas. This situation should not
bother us. It is the reality and we must accept it if we
accept the democracy. Hiding it would be useless. The
readers will choose books according to their level and
he could not be deceived. Writing some confusing
phrases, they do not become more academic, do not
change the level and make the author more scholar, on
the contrary. Any reader will reject an abstruse text and
every clever man will identify in the writer an impostor.

89
I said that the society looks like a pyramid. This is not
quite exact. In statistics, its shape looks more like a
pear. As we do not pay much attention to its lower part,
the pyramid may remain as a symbol of the idea that
most people are at the bottom and only a few at the
top.

Coming back to books, I know a person absolute

remarkable by her ignorance. Because of the lack of
elementary information and the ridicule of the
association of ideas crossing her mind, any talk with her
is impossible, especially if you have not enough sense of
humour or you are in a mood less ludic. And still, this
person has read almost as many books as any authentic
scholar, maybe even more. Unfortunately for her, only
romance. Evidently, not a learned person could want to
consider her his fellowship. A question is inevitable:
where begins and where finishes the lectures of a
learned person? Judging about some “men of letters” –
the lectures of which stop where their understanding is
more difficult – it results that the slice is very thin,
mostly limited at “what I know is culture; what I do not
know are farthings.

90
 Post-Christian Epoch

Do not be afraid, I have not the intention to relate or to

imagine what will happen after us. I want to speak just
about our epoch, the one in which we live. I nicknamed
it “Post-Christian” from two reasons.

First, besides the Christians, on Terra there are people

belonging to other religions, as well many unfaithful
ones. This is so, without speaking about the fact that
Christian churches, particularly the Catholic one,
formally enlist the ones forced Christianized in different
historical moments, like the Native Americans, but
which still keep their faiths up to now. At a census of
those who really are Christians, we would number much
less, so that, from this point of view, the actual period
may be called Buddhist, Islamist or even atheist,
although I think the fittest name should be one of
religious disputes.

Secondly, we call ourselves Christians, although we

forgot long time ago the values of the Christianity, as
they were thought initially. Today, the Christians are
faithful people in the same measure as communist were
the communists from the former USSR. As regarding the
doctrine, the Islamic one has the same base with the
Christian one, as proof the interpretation is more
important. The stupidity of nowadays-American politic
sowing dissension between Europeans and Americans on
the one hand and Muslims on the other hand, may lead
to the allegation of a fight for religious convictions. It is
a new lay destined to manipulate masses. In reality,

91
there always were economic and politic interests,
masked under different forms.

In fact, the main condition of any religious doctrine is to

be unverifiable. In other words, only the unverifiable
ideas could be religious paradigms.

We could call this epoch “democratic”, but it is as

democratic as Christian was the previous one. Maybe it
will be called post-democratic when the humanity will
abandon democracy as propagandistic slogan and will
invent anything else. We are not able to understand
how that forthcoming “anything else” will be, but this
does not mean that it will not come. It will come
undoubtedly. For the moment, let us stop a little on the
present and analyse is “pathophysiology”.

Every society is developing ceaselessly; the traditions as

well, adapt themselves to the technology of time. The
church, although it should adapt its message, did not.
Today, the priests’ message is no longer credible and
religion felt in desuetude. People’s cultural level has
grown up, so that many priests are less informed than
most of their parishioners. The paradigms of democracy
exacerbate the libertinism in the detriment of good
traditions. In the absence of a general recognized
institution, able to discern between good and evil,
actively participating to the building of those traditions
that are useful for the society, common people choose
what seems for them to be favourable for the moment,
establishing in this way fallacious traditions, because
what is facile and/or pleasant usually is not equally
wise. If in the past the church assumed this role, today
the democracy put nothing instead, there is not a

92
similar institution. People’s elected are, if not ignorant,
interested only in businesses, political struggles or
anything else except education. If common people
cease to act according with tradition and base only on
his own judgement, then we ought to see which are his
criterions of judgement. At least these could be
influenced, if not through religion, maybe through
literature or arts, even if their power is smaller. Inward,
people want someone to guide them, so there is a hope
that they will stimulate the development of the
education. Of course, then we will deal with a different
kind of literature from the present day one.

In the Second World War Stalin and Hitler confronted

each other. Today, for us the both are negative
personages; still, for their time, each of them used to
have, besides adversaries, lots of loyal follower. The
question which of them was worse or better is useless.
For whichever from nowadays politicians the same
question will be useless after one generation? Are we
now able to discern their real characteristics in a useful
time? Niggardly interests make us, common people and
politicians as well, to choose the compromise that
seems favourable for the moment, without care for the
future. Let us not forget that Hitler reached power by
free elections.

I do not to enter politics now, but following that of the

United States after they remained without adversary,
and especially under Bush’s team, we find in it a
monument of catastrophic mistakes. For what? Because
apparently small arguments link with one another,
amplify tiny disputes up till world conflagrations. The
aggravation of the conflict between Muslims and

93
Christians will have grave consequences for long time,
and the terrorism will not disappear. On the contrary, it
will take more and more dangerous forms. After a long
period of prosperity, naturally, the economy of the USA
was to have a small decline. The development of any
economy could be linear ad infinitum. It is oscillatory.
What counts is the general trend and not some
momentary variations. But, the favourable period
belonged to a democrat administration, and the
republican that followed seemed to be disadvantaged,
because common people judge on very short terms and
they would conclude the democrats are better. The
simplest solution always was the war. By war the
equipments produced in excess are consumed, orders
for new equipments appear, people have jobs and so on.
The country is in an excitation mood and people no
longer see the real problems, but only those artificially
created. The administration is saved. This was Bush’s
schema. Terrorism was only a pretext, unfortunately
uninspired, just catastrophic, not as much for Bush’s
team as for the humanity.

I used rather many words for a politic topic only for

showing that man behaves according with some schemas
acquired by tradition. Maybe it was not necessary, as
Bergson already made the demonstration much better
than I could do. He wrote an entire book about this
topic so I might be forgiven for a poor paragraph. “The
intelligence will advise first the egoism. Endowed with
intelligence, wakened up to reflection, man will come
back to himself and no longer think but to make his days
pleasant. Primitive religion was a precaution against the
danger skulking us from the moment in which man
begins to think: the danger of thinking only to himself,

94
for himself. It is a defensive reaction of the nature
against the intelligence.” It could be true for very small
societies of the primitive man. The nowadays-great
societies got out man from his natural condition. He
operates at a level of which effects he can neither
control nor understand, sometime. Also, we have to
note that our society is conducted by politicians, the
single profession for which does not exist a previous
school house. Consequently, as big is a society, as much
his leaders wander from the true social liabilities.

The cause of many mistakes is the lack of some correct

guiding marks. From a utopia to another, we only drift.
The preoccupation of our so-called social leaders is
their profit and not the management of the society.
They are like a farmer who only wants to milk the cow
without herding it to graze or feed it. We speak a lot
about the progress of our civilisation, but it is not sure
at all that it was in a positive direction. Many arguments
prove the contrary.

If by civilisation we understand the technique, including

the technique of fight, then we must recognize that we
civilized too much. Odd enough is that even some
encyclopaedic dictionaries associate civilisation with
technologic level. I prefer to see in civilisation people’s
behaviour inside of their community, their intercourse
etc. This is why there are more adjectives for
civilisation, like Egyptian, rural, mountain, Malagasy,
European and so on, and there is no one for civilisation
pure and simple. As for the adjective “civilized”, it may
be assigned to anyone that keeps the rules existing in
his community. The Greek equivalent (politicos) is more
correct. The one who disturbs the quiet of his

95
neighbours with his music exaggerate amplified is not
more civilised because he use a more advanced
technology; on the contrary. When a country uses more
sophisticated weapons against an under-developed
country, it is not more civilized, but only more
developed from military point of view. Again politics! It
seems that we cannot get rid of it. But it is natural to
not escape of politics, as man is a social animal, and the
society, as any organism is structured, has leaders, so
politicians. They seem to be an unavoidable evil.

Democracy? Let’s be serious! The politicians are not

angels. On the contrary, they are the worst among the
awful. Their single goal is the personal interest. As
teamwork is more efficient than a single individual,
political party appears, which are nothing else but a
clique of people supporting each other. The prosperity
of society does not base on politicians’ honesty, but in
open dispute between the parties. This is the key of the
democracy: the public and open dispute between
political parties and politicians.

Does it happen now? Partially, yes, but …. Here is a

contrary example: George W. Bush represented a party
of right orientation, while Tony Blair one of the left.
And still, they allied on a common interest, even if their
parties have different doctrines. Instead, in the conflict
Clinton vs. Monica Lewinsky, the members of the
parliament supported one or the other according with
their political affiliation and not by token of their
personal opinion about the truth.

Speaking about “right” and “left” as political doctrine,

we observe that they are relative. In the politics of any

96
country there are right and left. Still, the countries are
different. What is right for a country may be left for
another. Let us imagine a scale on which the values are
five for one and eight for another. For the first, six
means right, while for the second it means a strong left.
That’s why in conversations, we must keep account of
such relative values.

As for the conflict Clinton vs. Monica Lewinsky, the

benefit of the republicans that accused him was
extremely tiny. Instead, for the democracy the loss was
enormous. The American elector found out that his
elected leaders are not just ok, and the mechanism of
elections produced errors. Consequently, their
democratic system is wrong. Of course, they will
support it thenceforth as well, not from conviction, but
from a nasty mercantilism: the American prosperity is
that which attract people from anywhere and not
political faiths.

In 2005’s spring, France rejected by referendum the

project of European Constitution, even if the majority
of countries accepted it with the simple approbation of
their parliaments. What is important here is not the
poltroonery of Jacques Chirac administration, which is a
problem of French people, but the flaw of democracy.
This is what this failure relieved. Immediately after the
Second World War, the idea of a union of French and
German people would be labelled as a stupid joke.
Evidently, nobody thought then to organize a
referendum on this topic. And still, the idea was
fulfilled. Not by consulting the masses, but by the
sapience of a few politicians (there are exceptions).
One speaks today about some economic goals, the

97
European Coal and Steel Community being an economic
one. The mistake consists in the confusion between goal
and means, and the proof is the fact that its initiators
were politicians and not businessmen. The first on the
list is Robert Schuman, France’s foreign minister at that
moment, who never remarked himself as a businessman,
but as a fighter in French résistance. He realized that a
future war between those two states could be avoided
by replacing the old divergences with common interests
centred on the same resources. A little sapience – as
rare it is among the politicians – leads to the nowadays
European Union and, especially, to avoiding other
military conflicts, at least in Occidental Europe.

*
* *

I showed in the previous chapter the importance of the

language and literature of any people. Of course, there
are many clever authors and good books. Unfortunately,
there are also many more bad ones. In addition, from
the educative point of view, television has even a more
important role than books. If in the past, scholars do
not write books for money, printing houses and
television have turned their creation into a business. Of
course, a pseudo-creations! The danger consists in the
losing of the direction. People are no longer able to
discern between good and bad. There are books for all
tastes, which is very well, because only in this way
people might be attracted to the literature. Besides,
anyone can write books now. The evil comes from the
publicity, which is not oriented on the quality. In this
way, the demo-cracy, namely the leadership by the
people risks to become true. It is not clear who wants

98
the people to conduct and a pyramid will never stay
with its top at bottom. The ones that should guide the
readers are the literary critics. This is the second critic
point. I already spoke about it.

And there is not only democracy. Yes, it is only a politic

slogan. Unfortunately, there are many others: religion,
moral, education, and what not.

Whereto?

It seems that our fate is to be permanently in turmoil,

seeking answers between two extreme ideals, trying
every time the limits of each one of them, without
being able to find the reasonable way. Why? Because,
the more the seas are 'troubled', the more fish can be
caught. And these lucky fishermen are the ones who
lead the world. But can we find a different way
forward? Maybe yes, maybe not! I do not know, and do
not expect me to give an answer, but this is what I like
to discuss about.

For the moment, let me notice a short remark: we often

observe that many old people are dissatisfied with a lot
of things. The cause is evidently: they did not reach
their long-term ideals. It is not difficult to find out why:
the ideals were not appropriate for their possibilities. If
these discontent persons had been only a few, we could
have said that it was their fault. But too many old
persons are in this position. It means a general cause
must be the reason. Certainly it is nothing else but our
education. Our wrong education! Not only that from
schools. The education of all our days: from cradle,

99
from the street, from everywhere. Besides, it
continuously changes itself, imperceptibly. It means
that we should analyze its way and see if it is what we
want or not. If men have to search for an equilibrium
between two intangible ideals, they will find a realist
way, according with their desires, desires that are a
result of their education. Not only that from schools!
The education of all days: from cradle, streets,
everywhere. And it is changing already. Imperceptibly,
slowly, without informing the “scholarly men”. And, if
they must find a balanced position between two
intangible ideals, people search for a more realistic
aim. So, speaking about democracy, an idea that the
Greeks invented and they repudiate as well, then the
demos will find the solution too. Not as a form of
government, which proved to be a vision, an illusion,
but as a new philosophic concept, with a new ethic.

It result – I hope – from all I said so far that the

arguments in favour of a type of society or another are
deceitful and this seems to me to be our fundamental
error: THE LIE. Instead to focus our attention on
searching for some natural solutions, we build faithless
scenarios. I wrote at the beginning that we oscillate
between opposite ideals. I would have nothing against
the oscillations, as they give life to the system and
assured its progress, but the amplitudes of the last
oscillations have become so great, that the whole
mechanism is in danger to destroy itself. The leaders
have become more and more sly and their capacity to
manipulate scenarios greater and greater, so that the
only real progress was the growing of the organizational
capacity. I first wrote “to imagine scenarios” instead of
“to manipulate scenarios”. Meanwhile I realized that

100
not their imagination is so productive but their capacity
of manipulation. Look at Christianity, for example: from
a religion of poor people, it became during the
Inquisition an instrument of tyranny, namely the
opposite of the original idea. In the same way it
happens with every political paradigm. The modern
paradigm, appeared as an alternative of monarchy, the
most perfidious propaganda was developed, in order to
persuade people that their country is not simple
democratic, but just a symbol of it, or at least a model
for the others. And if it is still not a perfect one, people
must be quiet, because, anyway, a better one does not
exist, betting in this way their indulgence.

Surely is that, if we emit less fantasist theories and

philosophical systems (sometime not understandable for
their author himself), and if we renounce to think that
man is the final aim, but watch more attentively the
nature, then we will find more useful principles of life
and will help people to make less mistakes. The fact
that man is today the most powerful of all beings is not
a greater advantage than that of the dinosaurs of old
times. It is not at all useful if our theory is an
anthropomorphist one, in style of vital energies or of
the souls haunting the space in searching of an unhappy
body

I will not approach essential topics like the universal

suffrage – by which the stupid people elect his
“scholars” – as I do not want to provoke polemics. I will
exemplify the idea only by several reasons in order to
underline the weakness of some current customs, on the
one hand, and the possibility of their correction, on the
other hand, under the condition we want. Many times,

101
small problems helps us to understand clearer the great
ones. As for me, I sometimes use an indirect way: for
avoiding the subjectivism and preconceived ideas,
change the domain with a different one in which I am
not skilled at all or at the very least. I try to identify
there some principles, after which come back in the
first domain and verify their veracity. In most cases I
noticed that, mutatis mudandis, they are valid. It is not
a piece of news the fact that, sometimes, some experts
in a field „do not see the wood for the trees” and,
either do not catch sight of new solutions or their
solutions act against their own system. The classical
example is that of the militaries, who should be the
latst called when two countries want to maintain
peaceful relations. I mention these because the
following examples are picked up from relative tiny
problems. Their role here is only to bring into relief the
wrong way in which we resolve them, with the mention
that great problems are exactly in the same situation.

Here is a very concrete example: the tax for the profit.

The one who works pays; the one who avoids work and
shirks responsibilities receives. This principle is not only
revolting, but it denotes a society inversely settled. The
cause is to be found in the past. There was a time when
it had a logic, but it occurred long time ago, into a
society radically different from that of nowadays. I am
remembering a book – Citadel, I think - by an English
woman, the name of which I forgot. Her surname as
„romantic” that period. At that time, those entering
politics did not do it in order to enrich themselves, as
they already were so, and neither to thieve from the
propriety of state, as the state was just their group,
usually fighting against a common enemy. They were

102
entering the parliament or something similar in order to
defend their common interests and were doing it with
responsibilities. It was natural they would see about
state’s affaires and not the mob; and it was naturally as
well they had to subsidize general outgoings of the
state. They were to ones who product, collect and
expend. The idea that rich men pay the taxes has its
origin from those times. But it happened then. It is not
only an anachronistic one, but it is in contradiction with
the principles of democracy. People are equal to each
other in rights, they are equal in obligations as well. As
for the politicians, do you see today any of them
responsible for anything?

Now, I think of William the Conqueror. Not being a

native-born chief, immediately after the conquest of
the island, he organized a census, in order to know what
he could obtain in case of war or peace, calamities etc.
He imposed in this way a taxing according with
everyone’s estate. He was not the single one doing it. In
the Roman Empire, they used to do a census at every 14
years, and something similar organized every true
civilizations. In this way, the first institutions appeared,
and together with them, the modern state. As a matter
of fact, the first characteristic feature of modern states
is just the fact that they have institutions for every
important activity. It is no longer a person – king, shah,
emperor etc. – the arbiter in all questions, because the
state has specialized institutions for it. It is true the
institutions generate bureaucracy, corruption, etc., but
that it is.

Coming back to the idea of taxes on profit, even if it is

anachronistic, we still use it today, in spite of its

103
prejudices, among of which the moral ones being not at
all for neglecting. It gives a reason for avoidance from
payment, lie, appropriation etc.

One says that theft is as old as the world exists. Which

world? The world of religious man, namely after the
appearing of the lie? Here is a proof proving that the
spirit of equitableness was not only older, but natural.
There is a species of very communicative monkeys,
greatly fond of cucumbers and, especially bananas. A
group of such monkeys was obliged to do some works,
after which they received as recompense either
cucumbers or bananas, all equally. At a given moment,
for the same work, some of monkeys received
cucumbers and the others bananas. The first ones
refused to eat, even if cucumbers were good enough for
them in normal conditions. Not only their spirit of
equitation is obvious, but their power of sacrifice, for
demonstrating their desire for keeping up a principle.
Here that equitation is not our product. On the
contrary, civilization brought in the inequity.

As for the taxes that every person ought to pay toward

the state, we certainly are able to find solutions that
are more reasonable. This is one, for the first example:
• One base tax for every mature person for state’s
expenses due to the fact that he simply exists;
• One tax upon the estate of a land surface,
differentiated according with its position: field of
different qualities, village, town in downtown or
peripheral, etc.

In this way, every person should pay according with

what the society consumes for him, and people should

104
not lie any longer. The tax on the land surface, and not
on the building, obliges the owner to render it
profitable, according with its position. It will be in his
interest to build high and/or pretentious buildings on
the grounds with high taxes. As for the payment, the
state need not an army of bureaucrats, but should offer
jobs to those unable to find one by themselves.
Therefore, it will be in people’s interest to work in
order to produce profit and not to enter that category
of people working at the state for a minimal income.
Unfortunately, it is evident that our society is not able
to do this simple thing now, so we may ask: what it will
first happen? The society will be able to change the
taxing system or the wrong taxing system will be one of
the arguments motivating the change of the society?

I write about the tax for profit not because it could

solve all the problems of the society, but only as an
example. The our whole way of thinking social-political
problems is troubled by ideas more or less fixed and
worn-out. We are in the situation of the producers of
manual adding machines, striving for improving their
products, while the computers appeared.

In politics – where we are all experts, aren’t it? – they

adopt as principle that a country could not be governed
but a parliamentarian majority formed by a party or an
alliance of parties. I think the contrary: a party that
obtains more than 50% would be automatically
dissolved, because it is no longer a part and could
assume the whole and is able to impose its will. This is
totalitarianism. A law, if it is really good, will be
approved by all parties, because the one, which does
not do it, will lose its credibility. Instead, a bad law

105
should not pass through parliament only because it put
in advantage the members of the party at power. In this
way, the parliament would be truly democratic, a forum
of debates, and the laws really useful.

In moral, they exaggerate with the example of good

man, hoping in this way to counterbalance the acts of
evil, unpolished man. However, the real man
apprehends the exaggerations and abandons the moral
entirely. Besides, in the struggle for life, the polished
man is offhanded and loses in every case. One arrives at
the paradoxical conclusion that education would be
detrimental. Of course, education is good, but a
realistic one.

All people speak about ecology and the dangers in case

we do not keep account of it. But the USA is the
greatest polluter and – to reach a climax – it is the first
opponent for all important solutions. A greater proof of
hypocrisy would be difficult to find.

It is clear that, among the fundamental errors of the

society, one of the most important is education. I think
it is the most important. The educators, whosoever they
would be, think they inoculate morality inside of
children, but when later the experience gives to
children a lesson completely different, these find out
the teachers deceived them. Such a discovery could
bring more prejudices.

The desire to be an important person is inborn in

everybody. And if he has not even one aptitude, what he
does? And if at school he realizes there is not a single
chance for him that teachers will praise him, what does

106
he? Among the first alternatives at hand, he may chose
to become a brawler, thief something similar. But even
for that some qualities are necessary: a brawler must be
strong; a thief must be bold and so on. And if he has
none of them, what does he do? Probably he becomes a
politician.

The whippersnappers have a quality, yet: they know to

join in doing evil. And thus appears clans, cliques,
coteries, groups of interests, political parties appears.

We have just found out a first consequence of the wrong

way in which the education is organized. It would be of
no use to identify all of them, as they are too many.

The school, long time ago, was an attribute of the

church. If the church proposed to itself to be the
representative of good extreme - even if there is not an
official institution representing the bad extreme, maybe
except the political ones, but they do not recognize to
play this role - then, laic education would be
preoccupied in seeking for the reasoning way.

Here is a solution, even if it seems to be a utopia, which

show us that we could think the system much better. It
starts from the assertion that grandparents are
excellent pedagogues for children. Some of them! As for
adults, at the courses for specialization, refresher
courses etc. the lecturers are some elder work fellows
with more experience and/or more qualified, because
at the adult age the professional training is what counts
and not the pedagogic talent. Only the schoolchildren
are left to the hand of some supposed professional in
pedagogy. Error! Pedagogy is a talent that you have or

107
not. One could not learn it. Some ability might be
acquired in time, but only if the person loves children.
This is why some grandparents succeed in it. We may
develop this idea and look the right of grandparents in
the education of their grandchildren as a prize,
recompense, as they really won it on merit. Those close
to the retiring age could be reward with the right of
teaching children. The elder ones could deal with small
pupils and relative younger ones – but not under 50
years - with the elder schoolchildren. Of course, not
everyone might become a teacher, but only those that
prove that they have the necessary pedagogic calm and
culture according. Only in this way, the education would
fall into the good hands and would have a positive role.
Otherwise, with small retributions, education will be
populated with teachers who have chosen this
profession not being able to do something more
profitable.

In many respects, the human society, at least the

European or American one, is laid inversely. This is
probably why every innovative idea seems to be better
than the existed ones. Unfortunately, as we cannot
modify the position of a working machine modifying, by
turns, all pieces one by one, we cannot modify a social
system with small changes. The only effect would be to
affect the functionality of the system. Unlike the social
system, a machine could be stopped. This is why the
revolutions seem to solve the problem, but the history
proved this is the worst solution. All revolutions brought
much more disasters than improvements. And still,
something must be done. What? We have to change the
important principles, by putting them in according with
what we really want, honestly and not demagogically.

108
Universal suffrage, for example, does not belong to a
democratic society, but to an oligarchic one, which use
it for manipulating the mob. A truly democratic society
would find some more intelligent modalities to elect its
leaders.

That religion is necessary I already showed. I am

rewording. The religion is indispensable. The priests
cannot say to their parishioners to be faithful only half-
dose. They claim the whole, hoping that people will
keep at least a half. Wrong! When people realised the
error, they abandon it entirely. The target of the
religion is to give to people a hope. For this, the
religion must show a way, not a lie. All of them invented
some cosmogonies. Do we really need them? If yes, I
imagined not even one, but at least a starting point.

When thinking of micro-cosmos, we have in view tiny

lifeless particles having certain characteristic physical
features. In macro-cosmos, the only difference is that
the tiny particles become very large cosmic bodies. We
wonder ourselves if life exists on other planets but any
planet strictly speaking is conceived as something
without life. Into this inanimate and simple medium,
between micro and macro cosmos, life does exist at
least on our planet on which we live with all of our
faiths and fights. Odd, isn't it? The culprit is our
imagination, or more specifically, our lack of
imagination. We understand what occurs around us but
our knowledge decreases substantially as our thinking
moves farther away. In both micro-cosmos as well as
macro-cosmos, our mind imagines simple particles
whirling unceasingly around each other. Really? Is the
world senseless? Unlikely! What would be the sense of a

109
world without sense? We will never be able to provide
answers to these questions but this does not prevent us
from imagining other cosmogonies. But why? The reason
for any cosmogony ever conceived was to make sense of
our life and to serve as support of morality. Any religion
does offer some moral norms based upon a particular
cosmogony. The science, on the other hand, destroys
any cosmogony, and implicitly the moral norms that had
used that cosmogony as support, offering nothing as a
replacement. If you are not a religious person at all,
consider the following proposition. As science accepts
the infinite as mathematical notion, then we may
accept that Earth is a particle in the micro-cosmos of
another superior system which, in turn, is a particle in
other systems and so on. Perhaps we are somewhere in
an infinite flight of stairs. Can Earth be a particle of the
liver of an upper being? It seems we must accept that
life could exist both in small and large infinite. There is
a god for us and we are gods for our some smaller ones.
But, how could I tell to those smaller beings (part of my
body) what I want them to do? How could I address to
them? They do not know Romanian language, not even
English. It must be another way, not to make them to
understand me, but to oblige them to work properly.
Unless, the inflicting punishment will be drastic and
then... what, for example, a section of the liver
becomes out of the body? A decaying material! Of
course, it would be naive to think that God looks like us
and he watches our individual existence. Is there a
moral? From an individual point of view the answer is
NO, but - from a collective one - it is YES. For example
to keep Earth alive; otherwise the vital functions of the
upper being will surely remove us as a decayed
corpuscle! In which way? This would be the topic of the

110
religion. This is not just a cosmogony but it deserves to
think on it.

As God could not address us in a direct way, it is

supposed that he do it indirectly. Consequently, we only
have to be receptive for his signs and interpret them
correctly.

Those several ideas that I yarned up to here, some of

them maybe eccentric, will not change the system.
Probably not even other ones like them would. Still,
that does not mean that it is nothing to do. On the
contrary, the system changes itself permanently and it
will be better or worst, depending on us, if we succeed
in seeing where we are wrong and have the courage to
put the finger on the sore place – even a sterilized
dressing. Before any solution, we need to know
ourselves better.

I do not know what the future society will be like. What

I know is it will be different from the current one,
because nothing stands unstirred. We could imagine
something, because social changes depend on people’s
wish of banishing what they found to be evil. We only
have to identify the existing evils. At first sight, we may
say that the lie is that. But lie will exist for ever,
because the society must directed, the leaders need
arguments, the truth is often disliked and a lie nicely
spoken is preferable. So, what will be? A new lie!

Still, let us see what people identify as wrong in the

society and should be removed. The first is the lie about
democracy, but the politicians know best about this and
try to cover it up, saying that, anyway, a better one

111
does not exist. Here, they are right. The mistake
consists in placing the discussion at a rather general
level. There need some more concrete arguments.

“Man begun as a worm”, Geoffroy said, in an optimist-

evolutionist vision. The reciprocally would be to arrive
there, having in view that we started from Creator’s
hands. Personally, prefer a static variant: to remain if
possible men!

Oswald Spengler - after he demonstrates nice and

convincing where we start from and where we arrived -
feels the need of a final for the humanity. I thought this
was his aim. Unfortunately, the future in his opinion is
as romantic as demoralizing. It is true the artistry is
present. Instead of characterizing his conception, it is
easier for me to cite the last paragraph from “Man and
Life Philosophy”: “We are born in this time and have to
cross courageously the road destined to us up till its
end. There is not the other one. Let us resist on the
lost redoubt without hope, without rescue, here is our
duty. Let us resist like that Roman soldier the bones of
which were found in face of a gate from Pompeii, and
which died because during the eruption of Vesuvius
they forgot to revoke the command. This is the
greatness, this means to have first-rate. This honest
end is the single thing, which can be taken from the
man.”

All right, it is grandiose, nothing to say, but it is non-

lucrative and in contradiction with his demonstration so
far that – I repeat – is very reasoning. Maybe just this
uninspired final attracted the critics of his adversaries.
It is of no use for us to do the same. Spengler is a

112
philosopher. From his wish to finish nicely the book, he
did not realize that he went down at the level of
common literature, and lost. His analysis is perfect. The
prolongation of the trend has not justification. Any
mathematic simulation based only on the broadening of
the trend is negative. In life, instead, new elements
always appear, elements we cannot prefigure. This is
why, a correct simulation must have in view the
apparition of some surprises, even if we cannot
determine them a priori. Besides, as life has priority,
we may suppose the apparition of news where, in their
lake, an irremediable catastrophe should occur, which
Spengler did not do. It is true, he was only an analyst,
even if a very good one. His main idea starts from the
assertion that man tries not only to defeat the nature,
but want to make it to work in man’s service.
“Civilization itself became a machine”. Now, “its
creation rises up against the creator”, “the team (of
animals and the vehicle harnessed to them) out of
control drags the fell conqueror.

There were catastrophes in the past and some will be in

the future as well. Surely, one will come: the nuclear
one. But men are not dinosaurs. They will not disappear
in the same way, as humanity built a culture, and this
one does not perish so easily.

If we look in the past, we may notice that, in the

history of humanity, cultural catastrophes had negative
effects just more powerful than some nuclear bombs
would produce. If we think of the morality of some
antique civilisations, we may come to the conclusion
that our so called modern civilisation represented a
greater catastrophe due to downfall of morality. (It

113
seems I begin to step in Spengler’s traces!) Surely, new
solution will appear. A first proof is the fact that more
and more people search for naïve solution in all kind of
fields, including some occult ones, only, and only, for
getting away from the actual “philosophy”, which
reflect the conviction that it is wrong. Do you want to
be assured of it? Enter a good bookstore, where the
owner knows to sell his goods, and you will find how
large the stands with occult books are. Besides, there
are even specialized bookstores. What exactly the
readers searching for I do not know, probably neither
they, but surely they will find something, even if not
there. For the moment, I only noticed that an intense
preoccupation already exists, sign that people want a
change.

An eventual nuclear catastrophe will not be as big to

make Terra blow to pieces. A smaller one will be
sufficient to wake the people. What we know is that the
whole propagandistic arsenal used today, starting with
Christianity and ending with democracy, will fall
lamentably, but not before putting something else
instead.

I discuss a little about goodness. Some people are good-

hearted, others are not, according with their nature.
Still, all of them change their point of view toward the
end of life. Here is an argument. Apparently, most
young people want to have money. Either they do not
have any, or have not enough, spend almost whole their
life trying to earn money. More and more money! In
order to earn/gain money people often fight against
each other with all the means more or less admissible.
The goodness is forgotten. Becoming old-aged persons,

114
they come to the conclusion that money is not so
important. Why? At the beginning of this paragraph, I
said that people 'apparently' want money. Actually, they
have in view other objectives and need money in order
to buy them (objects, services, etc). The objectives are
not the same; as a young man he maybe wants a
motorbike, later on a car, another car, a house, a larger
house, and so on. As an old man, he has other criterions
for evaluation and other things are in his area of
interest. He wonders: what was the use of his efforts to
obtain all those objects or services? They are useless
now! In that moment he comes to the conclusion that
the goodness deserves a greater appreciation.
Sometimes it is too late. The education helps us to
understand this truth sooner.

We saw how educated people made wrong decisions or

were incapable of reacting correctly in face of less
educated ones. It is clear that education did not help
them. On the contrary, it hampered them, because of
an inefficient scheme. One could give an examples in
almost every field, not only some small ones from the
personal life. It is clear that we have to change some
principles and not some cosmetic measures.

I discussed mainly two fields, apparently opposite:

religion and politics. I would choose some others as
well, but these seemed to me to be the most actual.
Solutions? It is exactly what I do not do. I am anything
else except a utopian. Maybe people are full up of the
utopias. A profound analysis of what we really are,
where we arrived, in what way we arrived here, etc. is
all we have to do. With one condition: SINCERITY. Let us
no longer cheat our time with illusions!

115
 TABLE OF CONTAINS
Introduction 3

I am not Harper Lee or Charles Dickens 6

In the Beginning was the Word 9

From Christianity toward Communism and backwards 48

The poor philosophy… 65

About Communication 80

Post-Christian Epoch 91

Whereto? 99

116