Message from @Mros
Discord ID: 324009544218836992
Marxism resolves the contradictions in society by removing the material antagonisms in society, but for Fascism it is always perpetual struggle without end.
At least that it the theory, which is infinitely better than Fascism's total lack thereof.
Sell me Monarchism, if you can.
And the Catholic answer to the class struggle is to mediate between the two.
Fascism non-answer is to ignore it and focus on external enemies.
Class Collaboration was heavily promoted by Jose Antonio Primo De Rivera and the Falange
the perfect chat doesn't exi-
ive got a pdf of the some of writings of the founder of the Spanish Falange
finally something decent
you interested
hello comrades
Welcome, Matt.
Hello
hello
hello.
<:st:312060486449364993> <:st:312060486449364993> <:st:312060486449364993>
hello comrade
It does bother me than Marxism and Catholicism are irreconcilable. I would have liked to enjoy both together without contractions. Nonetheless, and strangely, my studies have lead me to study both of these and see where it leads.
What is it about marxism that attracts you?
How are you all?
I'm well.
Speaking from Marxist-Leninism, which has been my focus, the material analysis is quite good.
The theory has been somewhat proven in practice also, which makes it scientific.
But again, they offer opposite explanations, and as of yet I am unsure how to evaluate which has more merit.
Feuerbach, for instance, whose view were later adopted by Marx and Engels, offers and explanation for Christianity from the secular, human perspective. This is good and valid, but it does not address the reason and arguments posed by Aquinas and others, which are also valid.
The two are in competition.
It is annoying but I know that once this is resolved the answer will be very concrete and I will be able to determine which I stand on politics in the future.
The best argument *against* God is probably that his existence is not empirical. When Aquinas makes his arguments for the existence of God, it is deduced from reason alone. Empirically, as far as we know, God does not exist, although the possibility still remains.
This isn't disproven, but explained by the notion that God exists outside of physical things.
For regular purposes, mere possibility holds little relevance. But for God, the smallest potential can still hold highest consequences. Which is why reason alone is so tormenting.
It would simply be impossible to measure God, a being beyond matter, using physical means.
this is a good talk about God and what he is
I suppose you are right about God not being directly measurable. But could His existence still be strongly inferred indirectly from observations we *can* make?
Yes, and that is the purpose of Aquinas' reasoning.
Just because we cannot prove beyond a doubt that God does or does not exist, we can have a belief that is informed by reason.
From an empirical point of view, this resigns God to the theoretical.
I am God
Empircism can only really be limited to the physical.
All of you are robots