First communion - it's that time of year again in Poland!

Yeah but where do you stand?

You started in this thread by stating that all morality comes from Christianity then changed course. You then claimed that Darwinism created or excuses racism without any argument to support that idea. It now turns out that you posted that to demonstrate how silly modern thought is and an "essence" of understanding was necessary to understand.

Do you believe in the cult, your third position above or do you believe in the second position. Do you consider them to be mutually exclusive?

It's hard to know what you believe cos you keep changing course. The essence stuff you posted do you believe that?

Huh?


I stand by my words.



You have not offered any worthwhile arguments to the contrary. Your: "not, you are wrong" I dismiss as a fit of temper.


I was never hiding my contempt for modernism.


Both. Admitting that relativism is impossible (on pain on not being able to exist as human beings) is part of proving that objective moral values do exist. Grieg doesn't go further then that, but its already something. Relativism actually carries its own contradiction within itself, being that to refer to something as "relative" already implies an objective point of view, which is a paradox.

That said, to solve the puzzle one has to transcend the limits of reason, but that can only be done from the point of view of "pure intelligence", which was the default stand point of traditional cultures. Religion cannot be understood outside a purely intellective atmosphere, that's why the best it can do is to point logical fallacies in the opposition.

Still, i find listening to an old school logician like Grieg refreshing, compared to the various relativist lunatics that predominate modern western "thought", though i agree that refuting the latter with logic is not in itself an argument for the existence of God. You cannot just demonstrate that relativism is a contradiction, and from there claim that God exists. He should just limit himself to demolish the inconsistencies of modern thought and leave God for another argument.


Yes. Intellective intuition is the real thing though, it is not a mere manifestation of an higher archetype, the way our human intellect is. It is the only supernatural quality mankind has access to in this world. I say has "access" to because intellective intuition is not human, so nobody can claim to possess it in an individual sense. This is why intellection is capable of perceiving the form directly, but the price one pays for this "privilege" is the complete and utter suppression of ones own individual and "human" ego. The process is akin to replacing your sense of being (individual being), which is perishable and relative, with its original, transcendental archetype (being as such), which is timeless and eternal. Most traditions speak of this process as a death leading to an higher state of immortality (you are born again, quite literally. Consider also that the Christian baptism was given to initiates who had achieved this state in the course of their spiritual development, and only later degenerated in the current form, where it is administered to infants. Chew on this, if you can). This process has to occur in this life before it can become a reality in the next world. When Socrates acquitted to his execution, he had already achieved this state, this is why he did not fear death. This is a central and recurrent theme in the Tao Te Ching, but the most extreme example can be found in the details of the execution of Mansur al-Hallaj:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mansur_Al-Hallaj

This Sufi master had achieved such a degree of transcendental development that the physical world had basically dematerialized for him, even as he was being rend to pieces.

Now, because true knowledge is that which intellective intuition can perceive, basically, knowledge of the forms (knowledge as such), and because those forms exist in an absolute and infinite archetypal state, everything that can be known is already within the reach of the intellect to know. The "kingdom of God is within you". This means that everything that can be known is already etched in our very being, and to bring it out is a sort of "remembrance" more then an actual "learning". This is the point Plato makes at the end of the Theaetetus.

It depends which words because you have changed stance read the thread

Even in this post you contradict yourself.

You stand by your words which include the phrase western morality yet claim that morality is objective in the same post. After several pages you still stand by your words, Western morality implying other morality so that is either relativism or pluralism either way there is no objective morality/

Grasping at straws, are you? There is divine, perfect morality, and there are human level approximations. We can only strive to get close to an absolute.

Grand hope it works out for you, cults come and go all the time the ones that survive tend to have a philosophy they can defend.

good point.


FYP


Yes, manslaughter can be ok depending on the situation.


No, sin doesn't exist.


Society as a whole.


You in a nutshell ;)

The idea of "Keeping up with the joneses" is widespread in Poland and was by far my no. 1 pet peeve while living there.

this is not just in Poland but I have noticed that people have a look of real envy when they see others who have more than them.

And that is different to other Western countries how exactly?

^^ late reply sorry but i don't come to this forum as often as you guys do

"Keeping up with the joneses" IMO is much more prominent in Poland than here in Canada. My first communion was a low cost event. All the kids wore the same thing and the post-church celebrations either took place at home with friends/family or at a hall. My co-wokers who have kids don't seem to be going overboard on these events nowadays either. Dresses/suits are not even a requirement for some of these religions events as churches provide students with white gowns to put on over their clothes. People here don't spend much on these kinds of things. Showing off is much more noticeable in Poland than in Canada. I could go on and on with the examples.

Yes. How long ago was that?


Perhaps because they finally have the ability to have it, so they're getting it?

While you were sat in your safe, wealthy Western country, Poles had very little. Can you blame them?

Long ago. But things haven't changed since then, re-read my post.


I'm glad they have the ability to "have it." However It's the way they show "it" and rub it in the faces of those that don't have it is appalling.


The Poles who left Poland for these "wealthy western countries" were just as poor as their family members back in Poland for many years. Migrating to a western country without help or knowledge of that country's language is extremely difficult. Many families had a really tough time and lived in poverty for years. Some people were able to live a decent lifestyle within a relatively short period of time, others were not so fortunate. Success depended on many factors: luck, education, experience, etc. But when these families finally secured good paying work they helped their families back in Poland with money and care packages throughout the 80s and even 90s.

I bet you always think how relatively easy it was for you to move to PL from the UK and somehow think it must have been just as simple for all these Poles (and others) to relocate to the west. There was a market for ESL instructors in PL when you migrated there, but no market for non-english speaking migrants in canada. How little you know.

Au contraire: I happen to know several Poles who moved to Canada years ago and still speak very bad English. Perhaps you can guess which language their children may well have been speaking at their first communions.

But that has nothing to do with whether a particular moral value is objective. We can agree that murder, depending on situation, is bad for society so we may discourage killing through laws and regulations, but that doesn't have anything to do with whether murder is actually right or wrong. In the Holocaust narrative, the Nazi actually thought they were helping their society by gassing millions of undesirables. It would be very convenient to state that they were "wrong" merely because gassing people would not have helped German society, because that's a forgone conclusion. What if it did help? How are you going to argue then whether genocide is inherently right or wrong?

You do talk an awful huge amount of bullsh!t
Have a great day

What has this got to do with the main topic? Funny how a topic spun in totally the wrong direction, because someone despises religion so much that he decided to attack a religious event, leading to 4 pages of an argument that we are witnessing now.


Any book designed to mock something, cannot be considered pure genius.

The cover is not mocking anything at all.

Tom Sharp's books mocked Apartheid South Africa and though not genius are quite funny despite what some fans of that judicial system think.

Then why did you call it a 'mock book cover'?

As in "a mock up".