My respects to you brother. Needed to hear this, iron sharpens iron. I’ll step up and do the same.
Simon, son of John, do you love me?
Hm, I’m not sure that I would say they’re “two different things” but I think I understand what you’re getting at. It seems like you’re leading into Plato’s Theory of forms?
Oh I see what you’re saying. When I say beauty I meant it as the spectrum of “how beautiful”. So for example an ugly apple would have very very little beauty because it is created and creation is good. Just like how an evil human being is still a human being that deserves dignity by the very nature of being a human despite being evil.
The opposite! A subject/object’s beauty is an inherent trait by the fact that it exists.
For example we can think of a “good” apple (goodness being convertible with beauty) that is round, symmetrical, and seems ready for consumption. Whereas a “bad” (ugly) apple would be one that is deformed, rotting, pestilent, etc.
Has anyone here stopped contributing to their 401k out of moral obligation? My conscience is telling me to stop supporting the corporatocracy but it’s a difficult decision to make.
Beauty is inherent to a subject or object. There cannot be a disassociation between the material and its beauty just as color is an accident of a substance. Just because people may have different tastes regarding beauty, doesn’t mean there isn’t beauty or that there’s no space for reason in discerning beauty. Quite the contrary. We can know what is ugly, through our functioning faculties of reason, and correct someone that thinks it’s beautiful by concluding that their faculties of reason (I’m including intellect here) are impaired, sense perception is impaired, and/or they have a disordered will.
There’s been a few threads recently on the topic of masculinity. Wouldn’t have expected Chiefs kicker Harrison Butker to give an insightful speech touching on the topic.
“[I]n reality, every person defines where their value comes from for themselves”
This is not reality. In reality, value and meaning are inherent to beings and actions. For example, every human being has value by the very nature of being human, not because people decide if their life is valuable. At that point there’s no argument against suicide which we all inherently know is bad (because meaning and value cannot be disassociated/overwritten). People can also be wrong about what they value.
This modern nihilism is very pernicious.
“The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church” - Tertullian
It’s true that Feminism has had many negative consequences. The social acceptance of gender dysphoria is just one of many. However, wouldn’t your suggestion be the third wave feminist position? I only point that out since you seem to imply a criticism of feminism while also taking that opinion.
Because men and women are different? And a pretty important difference is precisely the fact that women don’t have “a pair”, to use your language.
I would call it “Deuterocanonical” but either way, the sentiment is appreciated 😉
When you gain a friend, gain him through testing, and do not trust him hastily. For there is a friend who is such at his own convenience, but will not stand by you in your day of trouble. A faithful friend is a sturdy shelter: he that has found one has found a treasure. There is nothing so precious as a faithful friend, and no scales can measure his excellence. A faithful friend is an elixir of life; and those who fear the Lord will find him. - Sirach 6:7-8, 14-16
Excellent interview. Give it a listen.
Would also love to learn more.
If you’re up for it, I recommend reading D.C. Schindler’s “Perfect Difference” on this topic of gender and roles.
Sometimes they do though. It’s a good idea to stop mass murderers, child pornographers, and many other things through force if necessary. We know this inherently which is why we sometimes have to remove little kids from certain situations (force) so they can learn proper behavior.
A lot to chew on here but it seems like the essence is that power is not an imposition of the will but rather a calling of voluntary self giving, to the point of death as of course Christ does. The Man with no “political” (in the secular definition) is the one that has kings and emperors kneel before across all time and space to the point that even our reference of time is predicated on His life. Reminds me of Braveheart where Robert the Bruce tells his father he wants what William Wallace has, true power. Power to the point that people willing give their lives for him, fight for him, die for him.
Circling back then, if I understand correctly it seems like any engagement with community, anything that lessens dependence on the impersonal (Amazon delivery, federal welfare, big grocery store chains, etc.) will shift power down (subsidiarity) and that this will gain momentum not through imposition or force (which is a sign weakness not power) but through a sense of awareness that this is actually the natural order of things (like a farmers market).