Be me

bro, Protestantism paved the smoothest of roads to the Enlightenment then to the ultimately futile work of the 18th century philosophers and to the relativism of today.

I think that's what he meant. He can't take academia's love of Protestantism much more.

I know that's what he meant

I can see how the
>bro,
makes it seem I am disagreeing with him
I meant it to be more of an expression of surprise

Sorry for presuming otherwise. That was, indeed, what sent me down the wrong track.

it's all good man! I can definitely see how you reached that conclusion, so it was reasonable

Protestantism also paves the road for the greatness of the West. Read Weber.

Weber would hardly call it greatness. He has, indeed, shown the importance of the Protestant Ethic for the development of the spirit of Capitalism.It also lead to the disenchantment of the world and the rational-bureaucratic domination characteristic of most modern societies; yet surely you don't think that is necessarily good.

Yeah, I won't deny the great successes of the West. I'm quite blessed to live and prosper in it.

But the West is running on the fumes of the religious, mostly protestants. And you cannot deny the increasing secularism of the West. That came primarily from Protestantism to Enlightenment to yadda yadda to now.

It's beginning to look like Communism killed God instantly, but western governments( Democ, Repub, DR, etc.) are killing Him slowly.

>Are killing him
God has been dead for a while champ.

Ryan?

Religion is not going away. As Eliade says, we are homo religioso, religious man. That said, I subscribe more to Durkheim. And am a Catholic like a good Lacanian.

Anyway, even before I reformed my lapsed ways I had a religious thirst. Unfortunately, I quenched it with psychedelics and eastern meditation. As it does for many. This quickly led to psychosis. For me at least. Ymmv.

Now I am interested in analytic Thomism. I believe fully in the pharmajew and read extensively on insanity and divinity. It's quite an interesting subject.

Have you ever read Hadot and/or Uzdavinys? Very interesting look at practical philosophy.

I'm the first poster.
Eliade is quite right. Religion is absolutely unavoidable, however I think Weber's analysis is worth considering (especially if we consider the study itself as a piece of Protestant inspired liberalism). Carl Schmitt is far more insightful than Weber on this subject and I cannot recommend him enough to Catholics (I am one also).

Well yeah, religion won't go away; but we cannot sit here and ignore that too many people are getting away from religion.

I'm Catholic, and it is clear that people are walking from the truth. I think that started with Luther's rejection of Aristotle—for the West as least. I want to undue this. I think you would agree that we ought to bring people back to the faith, or at least make people aware that the door is open or that any metaphysical door is open. We won't make it without religion, and Catholicism specifically.

>Have you ever read Hadot and/or Uzdavinys?
Nah, who are they? What do they tend to talk about? I'm interested now lol

>Weber's analysis
>Carl Schmitt is far more insightful than Weber on this subject

Subject/analysis on the effects of Protestantism on the West? Could you be a wee bit more specific? I'm considering reading them now. And is it off-putting that Schmitt was of the Nazi party?

Also, what are your guys' views on Catholic monarchy? A traditional monarchy, like that of a medieval one. I think I am gravitating to preferring monarchism because America's democratic republic—though successful and full of blessings—was founded by deists, influenced greatly by the Enlightenment, was created by bloody revolution, is secular, and assumes human rights that do not exist (under a religious pretense, they do exist, but again, the system is secular).

I'm not sure if I want it anymore, even though I greatly appreciate it. I believe it was Pope Leo XIII that said something like: Any form of government is fine if it is founded upon Christian principles. But as times goes on, DR's dismantles any Christian principle that was installed.

Your thoughts?

omg it's ryan lolol

On the first point:
Yes. An analysis on the importance of Protestantism in the development of western capitalist thought; that means, the characteristics of protestant theology that facilitated the rise of capitalism, the disenchantment of the world, and rational-bureaucratic forms of domination.
On Schmitt:
No. I do not find it off-putting, yet I can see how some would find it so; however, if you become more familiar with his life and thought you will see that it is far more Catholic than Nazi, particularly his earlier and last works (what's more, his nazism was, more or less, opportunistic and feigned).

On the Catholic Monarchy:
It is certainly desirable, and has an immensely better track record when it comes to integrating Catholicism. Your ideas on the US are, as far as I'm concerned, too kind. Though that may seem so to me, as a non american.
A traditional Catholic monarchy seems, nowadays, unlikely to be instated anywhere; so, I'd say we need to consider other options.

Its not larping if you believe it is true user

Good god is this thread the nicest religious discussion I’ve seen on the board. Good work Catholic bros

>On the first point:
Any book rec's? Weber and Schmitt
>On Schmitt:
Yeah I can see that his nazism was more opportunistic.
>On the Catholic Monarchy:
On my ideas about the US: There's still more beliefs of mine that are being overturned; it's a little confusing for me as an American, being raised to agree with the principles of the USA. I'll bring it up too, Capitalism really does seem to produce so much more good than bad though. Idk if I'll let that go.
>A traditional Catholic monarchy seems
Yeah I find it very hard to imagine Catholic monarchy to come back. I can see it genuinely forming in Poland though. They hate the EU, are very natoinalistic—prideful in their Pollack-ness— and they are like 70% Catholic.
>consider other options.
I wonder too, what would be good options instead of Catholic monarchy, if it is off the table. I guess the general goal would be to instill Christian principles in whichever governing system.

>also
Thanks for the great discussion man! I appreciate it.

Weber's great work on that is "The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism", though his thoughts on bureaucracy can be found in his short work "What is Bureaucracy?" and more fully in his masterpiece "Economy and Society".

From Schmitt, I'd reccomend, as a starting point, "The Concept of the Political" (Especially the short essay which is also included in most editions "The Age of Neutralization and Depoliticization"); after understanding what Schmitt means by the political I'd recommend "Political Theology" and his excellent , though unknown, essay "Roman Catholicism and Political Form. However, I think all of his work is worth reading.

i hate christfags so much, you all were just a cute detour on the development of Heideggarian ontology that I appreciated sincerely but JBP+ironic Catholic faggots makes me want to commit a genocide

We get it, you don’t understand any immaterial conception of reality, or any ethical system beyond a slightly nuanced utilitarianism. Now leave the /comfy/ thread.

Look into Social Credit. It’s basically an alternate take on Marx’s problems(with a more distributist lens) which argues that Catholic social and economic policy can be easily implemented into existing governments with some small changes.

He may not understand any, but he certain accepts blindly the concepts of logic, math, love, and any explanation of "why," that are transcendental or meaningless, depending on whether someone accepts the truth or not.

Who's the author? And what about capitalism? I guess I'm pretty attached to that. Though, I recognize that there are grotesque parts of it. It seems to work very very well.

thanks for the rec too

>i hate christfags so much

>any immaterial conception of reality
no i understand this, i'm not a fedora
>you must be a utilitarian
no that's debased and ignoble
I have black hair and am taller than that man, also no tattoos and I don't eat sweets. Communism is evil and life denying

Hadot talks about philosophy as a way of life in antiquity. Bios etc. Spiritual exercises. Uzdavinys talks about ancient philosophy (platonism and pythagoreanism specifically) as a rite of rebirth. This is worth reading alongside Eliade's Rites & Symbols of Initiation. I also recommend McEvilley's Shape of Ancient Thought. Talks a lot about similarities in philosophy as wisdom traditions both East and West. And if you can stand a cheesy read I love me a little Peter Kingsley. (Christians before Christ? Idk. They're great guys)
I'm not ready for Schmitt yet lol. I was gonna have him to read in a class but that was back when I had my psychosis drop out.
I like the idea of polises. Like a more civilized version of Nick Land's exit option. United by a Papacy religiously and NWO-type organization politically, of course. I hope.

Interesting about hadot and "friend"

>and
polises?
> United by a Papacy religiously and NWO-type organization politically, of course. I hope.
I like it.

I wonder greatly if Poland would reinstitute the crown. They are 96% Catholic (the number I said before was incorrect), they despise the EU and are very nationalistic. If there was a shot for monarchies to return, I could see Poland leading at the forefront where perhaps Russia, Austria, and other small Eastern-Euro countries join or sympathize with the cause. I would imagine that Britain would be neutral as much as she could but sympathize greatly considering she still has a crown. Perhaps when the queen dies, Charles retains more power as the King of England. I could see Nuclear weapons not being a worry either; the countries are just to close for that type of warfare(if warfare occurs).

Basically there was some dude called C. H. Douglas who was writing at he start of the 1900s, but got passed over in favour of Keynes. There’s a few intellectuals keeping the dream alive tho, mostly in Canada. They’re surprisingly not opposed to capitalism existing, and their current goal as a movement is to use the UBI momentum to institute a “national dividend” issued by government to people, based off production, to make up the imbalance between the sum product of a nation and the citizenry’s sum purchasing power.

socred.org/index.php/blogs/view/social-credit-explained-in-7-points is a pretty good summary, by a philosophy PhD who’s one of their big boys these days.

Here’s a summary of the link to Catholicism: socialcredit.com.au/uploads/1825260710.pdf

Polis like the small Greek city state. Fragmentation with confederation.
Idk. Just a loose thought. Not terribly politically theoretical.

thanks man; that sounds very interesting.

oh okay; loose thought is fine

my poland monarchy statement is loose thought as well

>life denying
Oh boy a wild NEETchean just appeared.
Ignore his empty pseudoprophetic incoherent verbiage based on scheming a wikipedia article

>scheming a Wikipedia article
Where did he edit you user? Show me on the monitor

As someone who's done some research and some writing on the subject, I don't think a strict monarchy is necessary for the propagation of Catholic truth, or of truth in general. It may be ideal, considering that the Church itself is a kind of monarchy, but I think the Italian city-states reveal that one can avoid a monarchy and still maintain fealty to the Church's teachings.

What matters, in the end, is the Church itself. The Church, of course, does not change--the clergy, the episcopacy, and the papacy are fixed. I believe that any system of government that respects the special authority of the Church, granted to it by Christ, may be considered legitimate, whether it's a monarchy or a republic.

This necessarily means that there can be no freedom of religion as the United States understands it. The Church must have its authority in the state. There needs to be an ebb and flow, a push and pull, between the Church and the state; instead of a rigid line, there must be a flowing membrane between the two, both sides leaking into the other according to what generates the outcome most in accord with Christ's will. The real problem with the United States is its overt godlessness, which, if you look at the private writings of the Founding Fathers, was always deliberate and was intended from the beginning.

Especially with Jefferson. Fuck Jefferson.

I see what you mean. People would be afraid that the church would be too domineering and would try to make Catholics a step above others, but by chuch doctrine that would be impossible as we know

>What matters, in the end, is the Church itself.
Amen.

I think communism is the only system which the church can’t work around.

hey remember how the Church launders drug money and cooperated with the Nazis and also stole lots of wealth from the New World and also raped all those people and also declared war a bunch of times and also spied on people with the Jesuits (and still does) and also continues to help drug cartels and oligarchs from Italy and Spain run the international drug trade, and also how Christ probably will probably throw most priests, bishops, cardinals and popes in a lake of fire forever and also how essentially the Church exists to matriculate brown people because whites have abandoned it, and also how the Church again is basically a giant ponzi scheme that was selling indulgences in the Renaissance? I remember all of that, also there were popes who practiced satanism and black magic, and again the raping and killing people thing and the stealing things and money laundering and mafia ties

Interesting. Now, do you have anything to back everything you just said? Might be an interesting read.

over half of that is shitpost/bait libel

But just go read the Decameron Day 1, Story 2.
The argument from peccability.

One more thing:
Where would Christianity be if we left Peter because of Judas?

reuters.com/article/us-vatican-financial-evaluation/vatican-should-bring-money-laundering-cases-to-trial-watchdog-agency-says-idUSKBN1E20X8

can't find the Pope who was literally practicing magic but one of them was notorious womanizer and also occultist; obviously a large number of them were philanderers and homosexuals, the rest is just common knowledge. I'm not going to provide more criminal activity because its so plentiful if you're curious beyond the article you will find it. If i can find the pope who did the magic I will share in this thread, but i'm tired

>over half of that is shitpost/bait libel
no they're facts, the church is a money laundering, rape factory, spy ring that steals wealth and has committed unbelievable amounts of murder in the past. A number of the popes were homosexuals and pedos and a larger number were just womanizers and nepotist criminals.
>But just go read the Decameron Day 1, Story 2.
The argument from peccability.
no
>Where would Christianity be if we left Peter because of Judas?
hopefully a dead faith because its evil

Are you okay there? You sound a little upset.

Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand.

No, I'm fine I have a high tolerance for disgust, though I am beginning to become disgusted.

I have less to worry about than you when I die though friend, I will let you know that

Your mad af lol

Exactly. That's you right there.

Brainlet here, can someone explain to me how the christian immortality of the soul and the soul as form fit together?

>its evil
Then define evil for me

Basically the soul is a seperate entity. It’s a form as in existing on a higher plane, and as it’s the unchanging element of human consciousness, but it’s seperate to forms as ontology.

I’m assuming you’re talking about Plato’s forms.

That's great, OP. Scholasticism gives you a firm foundation to comprehend modern philosophy, if you ever break away from it you will nevertheless be well-equipped to understand what Descartes, Spinoza and other thinkers all the way to Kant were reacting against. Making arguments for positions you may not personally hold is nothing to scoff at.

No, the soul is the form, the form is that which makes material substance into something that it is, the form is the animating principle which is not separate from the body and both are necessary to make man. It is not a separated entity that enters the body and it is not a platonic or cartesian concept.

I should have perhaps been clearer, I was inquiring about the Aquinas's view, since that's what OP made the thread on

Personally, as a shameless communist I'd be fine with a socialist state consisting of a majority Catholic population. But most religious people seem completely cucked by capital so it becomes a real problem. I think state-enforced atheism went too far in at least some socialist countries - we have to remember that socialism existed in many forms during the 20th century, and certainly not all enforced a strict Marxism-Leninism - and ultimately backfired. In my country Catholicism is almost synanymous with right-wing populism and hysterical anti-leftism, and I think this is a regretful development. I like to think that the Church can stop deluding itself by supporting a socio-economic system utterly at odds with its message, I hope we will see this within our lifetimes.
If you read him, Žižek clearly regards the disintegration of moral authority as a dangerous situation, and this is why he is led to a difficult position of defending the Christian heritage, which triggers loads of leftists. But I think this is a logical position and he is certainly not the only Marxist to do so - being a dogmatist on this point is simply not tenable anymore. Religious authority was once firmly wedded to imperialism and it is understandable why Marxists saw it as a duty to firmly oppose any form of religiosity, but social circumstances change as they must, and now the disintegration of such authority is used to promote the worst excesses of capitalism, just as much. It is a difficult dillema, and I am not sure what to believe myself a lot of the time.

>The Church, of course, does not change
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

ugh

Oh. I’m currently rooting for a Platonic basis for Catholic philosophy to get us out of this intellectual rut, so I was predisposed to that. At least the guy who corrected me seems to know his Aquinas.

montfort.org.br/eng/documentos/decretos/anticomunismo/

>The Church, of course, does not change
Hahahahahaha you stupid nonce

Why are people so triggered over this? The clergy isn't going anywhere.

He misunderstood that part of the post and probably doesn't understand basic Catholic theology

Can you recommend a text by Eliade? The concept of homo religioso is something I have been playing with in my thoughts but without any theoretical framework to develop them.

>Religious authority was once firmly wedded to imperialism and it is understandable why Marxists saw it as a duty to firmly oppose any form of religiosity, but social circumstances change as they must, and now the disintegration of such authority is used to promote the worst excesses of capitalism, just as much.
Classic Marxists, mistaking the symptom for the problem

Sorry comrade, but the economic forces of capitalism will destroy all remnants of tradition and family.

Rites and Symbols of Initiation is good. He also has books on yoga and shamanism and alchemy and all kinds of subjects. He is a stealth anti-semite however and his statements about judeo-christian religions versus oriental religions should be taken with a heaping grain of salt.

You're saying all this as if this isn't common knowledge. Did you even bother to read Dante or Boccaccio? None of what you're saying is a new criticism. The Church remains and endures in spite of its members and will continue to do so.

>Fuck

Do you think you using words like that is Christ's will?