News / Is this the first clear and open signal that Poland makes preparations for war with Russia? [163]

The biggest knife in Putin's gut would be fast-tracking Ukraine and Georgian NATO membership, and Ukraine's EU application process.

They won't do it though. At least not anytime soon.

News / Is this the first clear and open signal that Poland makes preparations for war with Russia? [163]


"First they came for Georgians, and I did not speak out because I was not Georgian. Then, they came for Ukrainians, and I did not speak out, because I was not Ukrainian.... to be continued?"

Meanwhile in Kaliningrad...

News / Is this the first clear and open signal that Poland makes preparations for war with Russia? [163]

In all seriousness, though, what would you expect of us in such a situation?
When Russia invaded Georgia in 2008, the West (i.e. the EU, US and NATO) did jack sh!t. If Russia invades Ukraine and the West continues to do nothing then Putin - and everyone else - will know for certain that he can pretty much do whatever the hell he wants. Now, depending on which side you're on (if you're taking sides) that might not be a bad thing, but for those of us in Central Europe, it's a frightening prospect.

Let's face it, Europe has disarmed so rapidly that its militaries aren't really capable of sustained operations, which means any military intervention has to come from America. The closest American military installation of any size is away in Bulgaria. American military installations capable of actually supporting some sort of serious mobilization and intervention are in Germany, miles away. Those distances are too great to be able to conduct any sort of intervention from the air that seeks to be more than symbolic, i.e. a no fly zone or something of that nature. Building up, in Poland perhaps, a credible expeditionary land force, meanwhile, would take months. Likewise there is no American naval presence in the Black Sea. They'd need to get permission from Turkey to cross the Bosporus, and you can be certain the Russian Black Sea fleets would attempt to blockade the straights if the Americans were serious about fighting their way to the Ukrainian side of the Black Sea to lend a hand. Could it be done? Probably. The US can muster more naval power that is in better condition than the Russians can, but what we're talking about at this point is full-scale war. The sort of graduated military escalation USA usually engage in in response to crises like these, i.e. move a carrier battle group off the coast, launch a few cruise missiles, etc. aren't feasible options given the relative geographic remoteness of Ukraine from bases of American military power. That means it's either go all in militarily, or pursue some sort diplomatic and economic sanctions against Russia. The only options available are either too extreme, i.e. full-scale war, or too meek, i.e. threatening to freeze bank accounts.

News / Don't let Poland become like my country, France. [630]

The majority of humans seem to have a need for spirituality/religion built in. As has been often noted, when the common people lose their religion, they immediately start worshiping something else, like Dear Leader, The Party or Progressivism.

However, this creates a sort of "conflict of interest". The political authorities are vulnerable to corruption and error. They function best when they are treated as a necessary evil. Kept at arms length and watched like a hawk. Blind faith in the political authorities is dangerous. If the political authorities (Dear Leader or The Party) are your religion, you are hardly likely to treat them with the necessary skepticism.

Adopting an ideology like Progressivism as your religion is similarly problematic. Ideologies set out a blueprint for a certain desired social order. That is to say, they make claims about reality; do this and good stuff will happen. Claims about reality must be continuously and relentlessly tested to ensure that they are actually true statements about reality. Buying into an incorrect claim about reality is an easy way to fall into error. If an ideology is your religion, you are hardly likely to treat it with the necessary skepticism. You may even unconsciously ignore data that tends to falsify the your religion's claims about reality.

It seems to me that we were better off when religion was our religion. Making ideology into a religion has been disastrous.

The following quote applies to our times as well as it did to his revolution.

Love / Is it considered rude to stare ( especially at women ) in Poland? [12]

It is by no means rude to look at pretty woman.

Love / Polish women betrayal [38]

Notice how whenever these guys try to think of some geniuses, they instead come up with the names of LuftMensching public relations victories whose greatest achievement lay in ... well ... in ... anyway, these guys were jeeniuses'n'stuf.

Schopenhauer? Nietszche? Bach? Beethoven? Tesla? Farnsworth? Shockley? Oh, hell no. Remember, these are Liberals. In addition to reading and writing below a third grade level, these guys don't even know the names of any actual geniuses.

Instead, we get some of the biggest frauds and professional actors that have ever strutted upon the stage of Luftmenschers ... Einstein, Hawkings, Sagan, Gould, assorted losers, charlatans, frauds, ************ and poseurs. Total achievements = Nothing. Total contribution to history and civilization = nada, zilch, zip, zero.

Oy vey, check out my hair, tousled itz! Also, I have an old sweater on! A jeenius, I tell you! A jeenius! He even comes with testimonials.

When musicians visited, Einstein would talk about mathematics. When mathematicians visited, he would bring the subject around to music. Always faking, flimflamming, dancing and dodging. Like a snake with tenure. His only real achievement in life was touring the world as a booster of Josef Stalin, who he vouchsafed for was yet another "jeenius!" Oy, a cluster we have, all vouching for each other! In print, no less!

I passed more brain cells in a recent bowel movement than Albert Einstein had in his entire head.

The fake science of Sagan and Hawkings is built upon the pyramid of poop left behind by Albert. The bogus science of Gould builds upon the tower of turds left behind by half a dozen fake anthropologists like Ashley Montague and Margaret Mead. Up and up the skyscraper of bullsh*t goes into the the sky, each successive level of grant milkers trampolining on the air anchors left behind by the previous generation of frauds and phoneys. Up and up we go, Luftmensching into the clouds until we have built false premise upon false premise until we get to dark matter and the Higgs Boson ... up and up and up. But what goes up on air and lies must also come down someday, sooner or later, because it is falsehoods and gibberish with it's only support as self-referential.

Right beside it is a monolith built of concrete which will replace it, which says that entire universe is crazy talmudic rubbish. It says the universe is a charged field of plasma and in doing so it smashes two centuries of lunatic rubbish and solves every single major "problem" in physics by replacing it with a simple unified theory that makes sense at every level of experimental verification.

There is no Higgs Boson. There is no graviton. There are no black holes. There are no strong nuclear and weak nuclear forces. All this stuff is as sick and demented as the thaumaturgy of the 14th century with the difference being that sometimes thaumaturgy accidentally stumbled onto useful chemistry principles.

Love / Polish women betrayal [38]

I did it just for laughs. I can't believe the crap they can shovel through that electron tube into you people's brains. They could package up cat sh!t as French brand dark chocolate and if the commercials were any good you PC-ists would be knockng each other down to buy it and eat it.

This is part of a worldwide surge in multikult propaganda and it isn't in any one particular country. It's the same garbage appearing at the same time presented in the same way across the planet coordinated by central control in the mass media.

Love / Polish women betrayal [38]

Leftists - fail. It's a tyranny of the dysgenics. The kinds of bipeds who rarely lived long enough to reproduce in the past now constitute a numerical majority of astounding proportions. Do you know why there are so many of them? Somebody like me has felt sorry for them and extended medical technology and welfare and social support and preferences to them.

The best and brightest build the civilizations, then the botched and bungled achieve critical mass and break them down. This is why societies last an average of 200 years or less - just divide it right down the middle. The virtuous and noble on the left side with the good genes, the right half of that Bell curve are the leftards who then breed like flies and tear it all apart in an orgy of total insanity. The chromosomal misfires and DNA discharges could never create anything. They can only destroy. It's not any one race or ethnic group, either. It's the unspoken brotherhood of the genetically shabby and sorry that works together as a team on all fronts to rip it all up.

Afterwards the leftards sit around and cry in the smoking ashes as the barbarian multikult invaders puncture their sphincters and wonder what they did wrong. Oh, right ... what with the massive dismantling and destruction of everything ... right ... you know, it appealed to my vanity at the time but now that I'm taking this 14 inch invader baseball bat in the anus I am harboring doubts about my real motivations.

It's aways too late to matter at this point. That's the leftard for you.

Love / Polish women betrayal [38]

Mixed race people are more attractive according to people brainwashed by PC propaganda since birth. Seems legit.

Notice also the contradiction. There is no such thing as racial superiority, but mixed race people are superior.

News / Poland's atheist loonies have had their 5 minutes [239]

Whatever. Who cares. Still, one have to admire his style, when he fought the communist italian party. We could use a pope like that nowdays, who would not flinch to excommunicate everyone supporting abortion or gay marriages.

We can argue all day long, but if someone anty-religious like Jon speaks about current pope with approval, you must see that something is wrong with the guy.


Also known as usefull idiots.

News / Poland's atheist loonies have had their 5 minutes [239]


Well, yes. The last noble pope: Also among the most hated by the current establishment. Coincidence? I think not.

News / Poland's atheist loonies have had their 5 minutes [239]


Pope Francis is doing everything he can to aggrandize himself with both the media and the dumb masses. There isn't an ounce of sincerity in his bones, he has been acting like a media star since his appointment.

Despite all this, lefists will still gripe and complain, since it is the Church itself they hate, pedophile priests and things like that are just an excuse.

News / Poland's atheist loonies have had their 5 minutes [239]


But that's liek, your opinion, man.

News / Poland's atheist loonies have had their 5 minutes [239]

Say person A hates Bieber while person B thinks he is actually a great musician. Person A can still be right while person B can still be wrong whether person A can actually prove his case critically or not. By claiming that person A can only be right unless he can "prove" his opinion automatically implies no true evaluation of the music can actually be considered to be objective or absolute in any way or form, because nobody can actually prove something like that.

I posit that person A can actually be right whether his opinion can be proven rationally or not, and that my evaluation of his opinion is independent of said proof, since I can simply pit my own subjective assessment of the music and decide for myself which one of us is right. By stating that only that which can be proven can be considered to be objective, the rationalist hinders this process of acquiring knowledge from the opinion of others simply by establishing a priori that no opinion is truly objective and cannot be so in principle, and not simply in fact.

News / Poland's atheist loonies have had their 5 minutes [239]


Again, I'm not the one arguing that things cannot exist a priori unless they can be proven to exist. The fact I express absolute certainty in the genius of Beethoven doesn't mean this certainty automatically constitutes proof to those who cannot see that genius, but this is not the same thing as saying my conviction cannot be "objective", or rooted on something that is absolute and very real. The fact I cannot prove the existence of this genius does not automatically mean my impression is false, or relative, but it is according to modern rationalism.

I submit that an Absolute must in fact exist since all phenomena is invariably bound to relativity. Notice that modern science is fond of positing the exact opposite. That the relative "something" is predicated upon a "nothingness" rather then an absolute somethingness. What's arbitrary to me is the idea that this proposition is somehow more "rational" than its opposite.


They are exactly the same, except the Crime and Punishment shows the actual consequences of what a world without religion actually leads to.
Without placing "meaning" in something which transcends the purely material it is sure nihilistic. After all, "belief", by definition, transcends that which is readily visible and tangible, I.E., the relative world. Speaking of which, nihilism in general, at least in its actual "serious" incarnation, I.E., Nietzsche and philosophers of that irk, arose precisely after "belief" was killed off by rationalism (God is dead, etc.). That is, when you deny any reality which transcends the relative world, the latter simply loses all meaning. The so called "Age of Enlightenment" and the optimistic materialism that arose out of that milieu was something only dupes could truly believe in. The "reality" of the rationalists ended up being no reality at all. But while those smart enough to see through the bullsh!t wallowed in their own demented nihilism, the rest of society kept going with their merry charade. Only with Dostoevsky one can find a solution of sort to the problem raised by Nietzsche, but even that wasn't enough since Dostoevsky only knew religion in its exoteric dimension. Ultimately, only pure metaphysics can deliver the modern world from its predicament, but this is a type of knowledge that is extremely hard to come by this days. Western civilization has driven itself into a cul-de-sac.

News / Poland's atheist loonies have had their 5 minutes [239]


If a blind person is calling the light a fairy tale, and demands proof of it's existence, how I should respond?


Nietzsche called Dostoevsky his "favored" philosopher once. This might be the first time in history where a philosopher build a philosophy out of a refutation of that philosophy. Raskolnikov is almost the perfect blue print of what Nietzsche envisioned with the "ubermensch" except Dostoevsky actually showed us what a pitiful figure that truly is.

News / Poland's atheist loonies have had their 5 minutes [239]


Not right, because God is not only transcendence, but also immanence. Even beyond the question of intellection, which in itself surpasses both faith and reason and is able to see the reality for what it is, anyone with a spiritual disposition will still find the atheist world to be a monstrous impossibility, for the face of God is everywhere, as the Muslims say. I didn't start my journey towards spirituality because I was "indoctrinated" by this or that religion. I started out because i saw the absurdity of the modern world, which sees value only in the material, where I always saw value in things which by their nature are transcendent and cannot be "proven". Discovering the Sophia Perennis and the spiritual life has basically confirmed what I knew to be right all along. The world is nothing, only that which transcends this reality matters.


What Dostoevsky did was actually quite spectacular, because he basically agreed with Nietzsche in his critique of conventional morality, but then rejected the latter's definition of what morality was actually about by demolishing the idea of the ubermensh, which technically would have led to a complete nihilistic conception of morality, except he then demolishes nihilism as well. His solution was conventional (faith!), but it sort of feels hackneyed, because faith is not actually what Dostoevsky has in mind. At the end of the novel, what Raskolnikov actually went through was a complete annihilation of the self, an experience which is central to all religious traditions, Buddhism in particular. Dostoevsky basically did what Nietzsche never could do. He stepped over the boundaries of conventional human thought right into the transcendent.


I'm waiting to see your contribution to this thread...

Now, to quote Schuon again:


Does the fact I cannot "prove" that I can see light actually mean that I do not see it? What does the existence of a something have to do with my ability to provide "proof" for its existence? If I see light, do I not see it anymore if i cannot "prove" that i do? And so, if I see that Beethoven is a genius, do I cease to see it merely because I cannot provide proof for its existence? Thus, the fallacy of rationalism is that it seeks certainty in dialectic without taking into account for the fact the existence of a something is completely independent by our ability to explain its existence using words alone.

News / Poland's atheist loonies have had their 5 minutes [239]

I will try to give you a serious answer Jon, one last time.
The same truth CAN in fact be told from many different point of views and can in fact be expressed in many different ways, which is only natural when we are speaking of an "absolute" truth which is then expressed by relative means (which cannot possibly ever hope to cover the entirety of the truth in question). I've already stated in different threads, I believe all the various religions are just different expressions of the same truth, so the fact each of Gospels seems to different from the other doesn't trouble me in the least. Indeed, I would be surprised of the contrary.

News / Poland's atheist loonies have had their 5 minutes [239]

God. Singular. Or to be exact, that there IS Truth. You don't even seem able to follow the argument.

News / Poland's atheist loonies have had their 5 minutes [239]

From the London Review of Booksregarding the "God Delusion". This is precisely what militant internet atheists do, as we have witnessed in this thread. Not exactly what i would call good scholarship.

Atheists only appear to be right if your intellectual level is that of a child. There isn't a single argument made by Dawkins or Hitchens that any of us didn't thought about when we were 13. It takes a greater deal of intellectual maturity to comprehend metaphysical concepts. Reason is easy, which is why lefists like it so much. True metaphysical thinking is hard as hell, which is why concepts such as that of genius, truth, and even god, simply transcend the ability of the modern individual to understand. You can see the childishness of the atheist by his tendency to choose easy and predictable targets for his invectives. You will never see an atheist tackle somebody like Dostoevsky. Indeed, it would never occur to an atheist because his intellectual level isn't developed enough to even contemplate the argument presented by a true metaphysician.

USA, Canada / Polish or American Education? [180]


You must think a high school education means what it used to thirty years ago. The reason all Americans have high school diplomas now is that they simply started to pass everybody no matter what. The same for college - Harvard routinely graduates 80% of it's class now with "honors" and lots of people who graduate Harvard are unable to display the literacy level that was once associated with a second or third grader.

Americans aren't getting more educated, they are progressively completely losing touch with reality. Your typical American college grad spells carrot with a "K" and thinks professional wrestling is a real sport. Stanley Kowalski from A STREETCAR NAMED DESIRE was an intellectual colossus compared to the average American nowadays.

Face it, they are doomed and they will shortly die screaming and there isn't enough spin in the galaxy to change that.

News / Poles start to feel arrogant and superior to Southern Europeans [182]

@AdamKadmon
This thread piqued my interst, I am just reading Ariel Toaff's book. These are not some mad ravings. In fact, he makes a a lot of sense.

I shudder to imagine so, but this kind of ritualistic murder might continue being practiced in the fringes of the world to this day. Specially in the east, being that Eastern Christians are specially aware of this.

Life / Homosexuality in Polish Culture [231]


So in other words:
Foreigner4: Explain to me what do you mean.
Kondzior: Here, in the most simple terms I can think of.
Foreigner4: (fingers into ears) Lalalala I am not listening.


The scientific method is itself based on axiomatic foundations. Axioms which cannot be proved, but are simply believed to be true. Anyone looking at science from a pure mathematics or logic background understands this, but I would guess that most people, scientists included, don't actually understand how shaky the house of cards really is.

The 'scientific method' also purposely excludes subjective thinking (such as e.g. religious meditation) as being an acceptable method to discover the truth, despite the fact that this has been the major tool used by all mystics throughout the time that humanity has been around.

Science is good for what it is, but is extremely limited in its applicability. Anyone (read: liberal atheists in particular) that tries to extend science to deal with questions of morality is an idiot. Some of them are idiot savants in a sense (Dawkins for example), and just because they understand in depth their particular slice of science, doesn't stop them being idiots in the broader sense.


Ehhh.. Have you read anything I have writen about intellection?

And one dont't need the intelective intuition to know it, the faith is enough:
And if a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them

Lev., c. 20, v. 13.

Notice here that death is also the punishment for incest, bestiality and infidelity. Of course, since more then 80% of the laws and observances dictated in the Torah aren't really observed anymore, it's significant that this one was kept around.


I simply do not believe that rational arguments can be useful when it comes to questions which only metaphyics can answer (and i'm talking about metaphysics in its real, traditional definition, not metaphysics as defined by profane philosophy, which has fu*ck to do with metaphysical knowledge of any kind) so i see no reason to employ them when it comes to absolute truths. Its a either you get it or you don't deal, there's no middle ground. And yes, i actually happen to believe secular philosophy is a colossal waste of time. The development of secular philosophy was due precisely to an intellectual degeneration among westerners. For most of human history, truths were attained by metaphysical intuitions, and sages were never asked to give clear rational explanations for their believes, because it was understood that such a thing was pointless.

The very fact you find this notion so baffling can be taken as proof you do not possess any intellective faculty of a supra-rational type. Unless you are just being stubborn, particularly since we've all been stunted in our intellectual development since we were children. Modern society inculcates the cult of reason and the worship of scientism from an early age. Its hard to escape this conditioning, even for a gifted individual. I know how hard it was for me. If this is the case here then there is something to be profited by this exchange. If not, it would make as much sense for me to provide a "proper" argument as attempting to explain vision to the blind.

Life / Homosexuality in Polish Culture [231]


Ehh.. Once again.

sophia-perennis.com/philosophy/raison_intellection.htm
sophia-perennis.com/philosophy/intellection.htm

There is no faith involved here, but direct, total knowledge, acquired by means of the intellect, which partakes into the supreme objectivity of God because the human point of view shares the point of view of the divine, which is objective in the highest possible sense. Thus, Beethoven is a genius, not because i say so, but because i know it to be so. Can i "prove" this to you? Not unless you posses this faculty also. At this point, the question of whether God exists becomes academic. The "obviousness" of his existence is a realization that is bound to happen sooner or later for the individual who understands the world from the point of view of essence rather then appearances.


I dispense of any need for dialectal proof by means of direct, total intellection, which is nothing more then intelligence as such.

Just as by means of the intelligence that i have arrived at the "truth" of the origin of man, and the consequent refutation of the theory of evolution.


But all those things also involve acquiring information by rote. Somebody once said that the only thing one could learn by studying Linux is how Linux works (meaning, the entire effort is redundant). Same applies to science. All you can learn by studying Quantum mechanics is... Quantum mechanics! Is this knowledge though? Well, can you test how much any one knows about Quantum mechanics? Yes. Can you test how much one knows about Beethoven? Nope. Can a child prodigy learn Quantum mechanics by the time he is twelve? Yes. Can a child prodigy learn the genius of a Beethoven by the same age? Nope. Something doesn't seem to add up here.


You mean the one we have sensible experience of. Meaning, what we can see, ear, touch, smell or taste. But what about those things of an invisible order which can only be attained by the intellect? Or do you deny the existence of human intelligence? Is logic a sensible organ? Is reason a sensible organ? Can you say to be able to "experience" a logically arrived conclusion? And if not, isn't that admitting that there is a level of human "experience" which transcends the constrains of our sensory organs, and if so, why leave intellective intuition out of it?


Why do you think the LHC was build? Because physicists realized they were teetering towards pseudo-mysticism? And how long has Quantum science been operative before such a device even came into the fore? And now that the device has "confirmed" the theory (according to what physicists believe to be a confirmation), do you think all those decades of running on pure abstractions have been validated in any way or form? If the theory didn't need actual testing to be weaved into its current state of development, doesn't that make actual testing redundant? So now physicists are feeling good about themselves. Good for them i guess. Has our understanding of the universe changed in any way or form? Nope. Much ado about nothing i guess.

But truth and knowledge can go out of the window. Remember, science believes men and women are interchangeable. Science believes race does not exist. Science believes Beethoven is no greater then Britney Spears. Science believes the universe can be regressed into pure nothingness.

But none of those things are true. So, prey tell, what the fu*ck is the purpose of science then? Do we know anything about how the universe started going? No. Do we know anything pertaining to the complexity and profundity of human intelligence? No. Can science tell us if we are going anywhere after death? Nope. Again, much ado about nothing.


You have trapped yourself within constraints which do not exist in reality. To wit, we all use intellective intuition on a daily basis. We couldn't be able to exist without it. To be stuck with reason alone would render human existence utterly inoperative. But this is precisely what modern society tries to inculcate into everybody since birth. That we all have our "opinions", and truth is purely subjective and thus relative. This is the underlying paradigm of modern civilization.

Everything that is not reducible to "reason" does not exist, even though my entire existence is predicated upon things which cannot be reduced to reason.


Refer to my earlier posts in this thread.

The real issue here is not in the nature of homosexuality in itself, but how this congenital form of degeneracy affects the individual in so far as the integrity of his virtue is to be considered, given that we are talking about someone who is a sinner but not by choice.

Life / Homosexuality in Polish Culture [231]

A logical argument is one in which the proof lies within the argument itself. This is opposed to reason, which is merely a process of deduction. Both of them are wholly below intellection, which is the act of knowing. For instance, i know that Beethoven is greater then Lady Gaga. I have neither reasoned this out, nor have i used logic to arrive to this conclusion. I know because of my intelligence.

If intelligence exists, knowing exists. Since knowledge is absolute, then the absolute exists. Therefore, God exists. This is a logical argument. Anybody getting this yet?


You have to understand that intellection doesn't need logical proof to achieve certainty of inward realities, or that that is at any rate the underlying premise of this discourse, whether you accept it or not.


Data of what? The physical world? The lowest level of reality? The one level which even the biggest idiot can see and understand? That was a grand discovery, i tell you.

To even try to test theories which stand upon their own mathematical "proofing" is essentially redundant. Science has left the realms of observation and experimentation a long time ago. Right now testings is something they cook up to give a bit of credence on theories they have been working on for decades, theories which are worked out to the last detail without the need of any such verification.

Modern science has discovered that you can make stupidity seem intelligent ever since Cartesianism reared its ugly head. Quantum mechanics is basically a parody of true metaphysics, the last stage of the mental degradation that begun with the Renaissance. First they elevated reason above the intelligence, then they squandered the latter in sheer pragmatism, and now they are simply throwing the sponge down in sheer mathematical mysticism.


These not just my opinions. Actually, they are demonstrable. By the intelligence. This is the difference between traditional wisdom and science. The first is purely qualitative, while the latter is basically quantitative. When a scientific "discovery" has been made, everything pertaining to this discovery is perfectly accessible to even the most mundane of minds. You could learn a book detailing Quantum physics by rote, and you would "know" the whole theory, literally.

Compare this to the wisdom of traditional civilizations, which, on the one hand, could only be "grasped" by those who had the intelligence to do so, and then, only after years of acquiring knowledge which served as preparation for the understanding of a knowledge of an ever "superior" order. In ancient times, it was the general understanding that the highest levels of knowledge could be attained only after a lifetime of efforts. Today, all it takes is an above average IQ and you could "attain" to scientific expertise by the time you are twelve. Quite a contrast, isn't it?


Because its not my judgement, its God's judgement. Intellection is a direct intercession with divine wisdom, there is nothing "human" about it.

Back to topic- Homosexuality in Polish culture.

Life / Homosexuality in Polish Culture [231]


VS


The claim is that only "evidence" and "testing" can show whether something is true. This is an absolute axiom. If it wasn't, there wouldn't even be a point of altercation between science and religion, let alone metaphysics. You demand the "facts" to "prove" if divine morality exists. The pitfall of rationalism is that it arrogantly abrogates itself as an axiom without taking into consideration its own inherent limitations and contradictions. Now, for starters:

sophia-perennis.com/philosophy/raison_intellection.htm


Basically, two things here. Does truth exist independently of proof, or is something not true until it can be proven? Because there are a great number of things which we are rational to accept as truth for which there is no "proof".


Now you are just trolling. Greater at what it may be... Cooking?


All of these are still subiective nevertheless.


For the record, the underlying crux of my argument (or the traditionalist argument in general) is that there is something beyond both reason and faith, something by which a person is actually able to attain to absolute certainty regarding a given truth. This something, call it intellection if you will, is precisely what the rationalist hates the most (while the man of faith is probably mostly indifferent to it, assuming that he sees the difference between a truth that is accepted without question and a truth that is discerned by means of an intellectual intuition).


Refer to the first verses of the Tao Te Ching. Suprarational realities cannot be "expressed" in words because human language is limited by reason. This is why discursive proof is besides the point because the intellect is capable of perceiving suprarational realities directly. It is precisely our intellect that is made in the "image of God", and it is by means of the intellect that certainties of objective realities is attained.


Why is ugly bad and beautiful good? Because we "like" beautiful. By the same token homosexuality is bad because it is ugly to *us*. Of course, it goes without saying that there is a specific reason why we look at certain things the way we do. That is, the reason why we know what beauty is and why we reject ugliness is precisely because God made us that way, and in his image, so to speak.

Life / Homosexuality in Polish Culture [231]


Your error is to think that something does not exist, or that it is "reasonable" to suppose it does not exist, unless it can be proven. This impasse leads to paradox once you realize that nothing can be proven. What happens to reality then? It goes without saying then the existence of a something is completely independent on our ability to prove it.

Of course, truth can in fact be perceived directly, by the intellect. When i determine that Beethoven is greater then Britney Spears i'm not relying on scientific inquiry, or discursive proof of any kind. I have no special device that allows me to "capture" the relevant information, no immediate effect can be discerned which would at least point to its "existence", except for the experiences of others. Now, it seems to me that it is precisely those individual perceptions that are dismissed a priori as relative, but only up to a certain point. We do not call the perception of the scientist who observes his theory through experimentation to be subjective and relative, even though technically speaking all perceptions are subjective. Be that as it may, it seems that it is only those subjective impressions that call upon the direct intercession of the intellect that are deemed to be "relative". What this shows is that the modern mentality is prejudiced against qualitative impressions, and not subjectivity in itself. What the modern scientists wants to do is arbitrarily isolate an object from its qualities as experienced by the mind, and then examine the thus denatured object as if its existence was not predicated upon our ability to perceive it in the first place! Thus, when confronted with a musical composition, the scientist believes he can understand the nature of the composition by measuring the vibrations of the particles, or by examining the subatomic structure of the instruments that generate the music. He might even decide to study the structure of the music, but only from a technical point of view. At not point will he ever consider the composition in itself, for what truth can one hope to find in "individual" perceptions?


The difference is that one is a distortion of the other, which means you can elevate normal sexuality to its transcendent dimension, where as homosexuality is forever doomed to be a dispersion of principal unity. This does not give one the right to persecute or mistreat homosexuals, but it ought to be clear why societal institutions, the function of which ought to be in principle purely "sanctifying" (and have always been in all traditional societies) cannot be made to conform to every imperfection of the human form. The problem of homosexuality from a traditionalist point of view is summed up succinctly in this article:

tracksinthewitchwood.blogspot.it/2011/04/homosexuality-and-integral.html


The author seems to understand the non-dualistic stance of tradition, but then becomes confused because he still hasn't grasped the basic premise of the emanationist argument, which is the same argument that explains the existence of evil in general and not just imperfections of the human form like homosexuality:

sophia-perennis.com/evil.pdf


Thus, homosexuality is a manifestation of an universal contrary, which is metaphysically necessary at the level of the relative, but is a distortion of an universal principle.

Life / Homosexuality in Polish Culture [231]


The problem with the natural argument is that the revulsion people feel instinctively for homosexuals is also natural. Of course, try to argue with a liberal that homophopbia is just something one is born with. Lulz are bound to ensue.


Natural != proper. But improper != unnatural. What this means is that homosexuality is a deviation of a divine principle, but its existence is divinely mandated as well, in the sense that all possibilities are inherent in manifestation, including deviations and degeneration, in that manifestation, being other then God, cannot be perfect. Yet, manifestation comes from God, and is thus an extension of his nature, however corrupted this nature might become as manifestation grows distant from the source.

Homosexuality, as a deviation of a transcendental principle, falls right out of process of "consecrating" our fallen nature. To most people this may not mean much, including some of the most materially oriented Christians, who see nothing transcendental about life. But if you happen to be an individual with an instinct for transcendental values, and always made an effort to elevate things to an higher level, this business of certain individuals being "cursed" with a deviation which makes them unable to participate in any form of love and sexual union beyond its most vile and animalistic aspect, it is a very grave predicament to contemplate.

It would be easy to dismiss homosexuals as simply being evil, but that's obviously not the case which makes the problem very complicated.

Life / Homosexuality in Polish Culture [231]

@Sparks11
Well, the average person would say that they are both "unnatural". Which is true, albeit few people understand what that means at an higher level.

In terms of understanding how such things can affect society, consider, in the way of analogy, that "ugliness" is also unnatural, and a distortion of a divine principle. But ugliness, unlike homosexuality, has already been normalized, and ugliness is the single most pervasive aesthetic principle presiding all modern forms of artistic expression. Our society still cherishes beauty in a more superficial manner, such as physical beauty, but even there ugliness has a tendency to distort and twist beauty in a way that it becomes offensive and repellent, such as the hyper sexualization of the human body (particularly grotesque when it is applied to children), or the utter and complete lack of inner beauty and character in the way outwardly beautiful people are portrayed in movies or in the media in general. Indeed, ugliness of character has somehow become synonymous with being sexually desirable, with inner goodness and nobleness of spirit being equated with stupidity and sexual naivety. Some attempts have already been made at normalizing ugliness even at a superficial level, where beauty still clings by sheer force of popular demand among the majority of people, such as the Dove's "Real Beauty" campaign, which mercifully enough has turned out to be a complete fiasco. It won't be long until the usual suspects slap us with a "Brokeback Mountain" for ugly people, with the underlying moralistic message that if you somehow reject the normancy of ugliness and somehow feel disgusted by two disfigured people copulating with one another you are a bad, evil person.

So we have already seen how the proliferation and exaltation of ugliness has resulted in deep spiritual fissures in the fabric of western society, and the normalization of homosexuality follows the same trend.

Life / Homosexuality in Polish Culture [231]


Perhaps it's people like you and your complete lack of principles and standards that need such assumtion.


Look at the scared little liberal, using ad-hominem and petty shaming tactics because he cannot buttress his arguments in any way or form.

Lefists, lefists never change. How does it feels, having to cook up the most vile allegations, fully knowing that you cannot face kondzior's towering intellect head on?


You don't think, indeed, you did not thought your ideology through. That's a pretty arbitrary idea coming from a group that doesn't believe in an objective morality. Why is having sex with children wrong, whether they consent to it or not?

Ho wait, it infers on the happiness of the children in question. But then, does it mean that it is ok to make pedophiles suffer because to act out their desires would involve bringing pain upon others? By that rationale, why isn't it ok to make homosexual suffer, considering how deleterious to society their desires are?

This whole thing about basing everything on individual happiness is a bit confusing.