It is often said that dignity of person is in itself the greatest moral "given"; that person is "a purpose unto itself" (Kant); that it is inviolable "given" of humanity. And so on and so forth, from the popular moralizing to the real basis of legislature, this perpetually used, yet rarely pondered upon notion strikes us as something that should be the most comprehensible and closest thing to our minds, but, on closer inspection, it is hard to be sure where it really stems from and how we came to understand it as a self evident "given". In this two parts essay we'll inquire about the origin of this "given" in the singular event in history when, quite literary, the "given" was handed to us, while employing help of our regular assortment of traditional authorities. In the first part we treat metaphysics that can prepare the mind for the approach to the heart of the matter, beyond the subject/object split, but that can nevertheless take us only one part of the way. Also we juxtapose the traditional understanding of the relationship of intellect and being against Immanuel Kant's idea of "transcendental philosophy", which could be understood as an epitome of all attacks on metaphysics, by metaphysics, in modernity.
On principle we don't speculate about the obvious crisis de jour. But, then again, why let the good crisis go to waste? In her short, but poignant, reflection on the reaction of a doomsday cultist, whose cult lost the undue attention it had literary over night, Deirdre makes the point we should keep in mind.
It is said that "Christianity is against human nature". Well, if you think that unspoken reason for saying this was originally: "because it prevents people of wanting to conquer and shag each other, thus at the same time deadening their more creative impulses", you would be quite wrong. The original intellectual objections to Christianity came from people who denounced Christians for rejecting the palaios logos - "the word of old" - that is, ancient metaphysical tradition and civilization built around it, and thus ushering a sort of, what we would now call, a revolutionary new beginning. In this series of essays we'll attempt to indicate not only how and why this was a fundamental misunderstanding, but how Christians who in turn unequivocally rejected the proverbial "Athens" for the sake of absolute - in fact: isolated - "Jerusalem" committed quite a congenial mistake.
KT returns to roots - once more you can have no less than 14 pages of essay or 50 minutes podcast. Yet we also return to our old subjects, this time around the metaphysics of Chaos and the influence it performs on our minds. We inspect the idea that just could be lurking behind the set of postmodern projects related to indifference and dissolution of genders - the idea of the androgyny of God. Throughout the essay, we address the inadequacy of modern conservative thought when confronted with what are in fact a historically ancient ideas and principles driving the postmodern project; we employ the aid of St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Gregory Nazianzen to explain why the Word of God has Father only and much more.
When discussing the roots of Communism and of what is called non- or semi-communist Left – which nevertheless keeps some latent causal relation to dialectical materialism – one crucial question usually gets passed over in silence. Namely, is there a single unique ruling principle to this systematical attempt to absorb the world in thought and, if yes, what exactly is it?
In our previous work we pointed out the emerging process of transition of the fringe towards the center. The fringe, we claimed, be it political, intellectual or otherwise during the last few years transformed in the potential mainstream. The circumstances of mass murder in Christchurch, New Zealand of March 15th and manifesto left by pepetrator incite us to revisit the subject.
The horror of history ... there's an air of triviality in this oft repeated phrase, don't you think? Granted that it is not trivial or that we should address even trivialities if we want our thinking to have serious consequences, could we counter its unspoken conclusion of "let's be done with it, then" with the question: "if the life is problem to us, should we solve it by dying?" In this article by the head of the KT's Black Sea Fleet Mihai Marinescu we are presented with the nuanced and definite negative answer to this question.