Around the election run and the first days of the presidency of Karol Nawrocki, we are dealing with the strengthening of the dull political propaganda and fierce confrontation among Poles. It would be naive to repeat the word "concord" due to the fact that we no longer have common ground for fundamental concepts specified as justice, regulation of law, good and evil. We don't even agree on a question as basic as what it means. actionReasonably. It is worth considering, all the more so that we are facing further months of tension between the fresh president and the political-media group that holds power.
When I spoke about politics in the past months, I was amazed at how uncritically people with “liberal sensitivity” identify with government-media propaganda. In short: with my own eyes I have seen people treat ABW's fake-list as if it were a collection of confirmed facts; there were besides people who – proceeding that there were specified things as natural law or nonsubjective natural justice – made it clear that there was no law another than arbitraryly established by political power. The problem even occurred at the level of recognition... the nonsubjective reality and ability of human reason to know it.
By the way, I understood how “the speech of hatred” works. All you gotta do is tell the truth, which makes you attached to liberal or immoral theories, to provoke rage in a conversationalist. A process as perverse as primitive is then triggered, and can be described briefly: in a man who hears uncomfortable truth, hatred is awakened. But alternatively of reasoning about it, he accuses the individual who said the truth. It turns out that it is us – average people who respect eternal principles and do not express non possumus against falsehood and evil – we sow hatred due to the fact that we talk truth, and this fact inspires hatred in those who reject it. This seems to be a classical projection, but let us note how in this context a dangerous tool can be the "speak of hatred" Act, given the width and freedom to specify what falls under this imprecise concept.
Are we stuck?
We're inactive told we're antagonized and we should work things out. But how do we get along erstwhile we've lost our common ground? It's like screaming at each another from 2 distant islands and hoping that the sea waves will tell our words clearly and undistorted. All the more so, due to the fact that the "powers of relativism" have been working for respective 100 years to break the human head from reality. Beginning with the alleged enlightenment, natural categories were abandoned, which man always operated on in his thinking. present we are so far from the intellectual “mother” that without reaching out to the sources of knowing reality there can be no agreement.
All you gotta do is scope out to the Dictionary of Polish to see how much we have been overran by enlightened “rationalism”. Here's how SJP defines reason: ability to think, analyze, conclude and understand; mind; intellect. And so the intellect: all intellectual abilities and human knowledge; reason. A bit of butter butter, a bit on the "operational" level, agrees, but in essence, these definitions do not explain what human reason is at all.
However, 1 of the top achievements of realistic doctrine ( seeking to know the truth, not to make abstract intellectual constructs) on which our civilisation was founded is just describing the intelligent nature of man; a nature that distinguishes us from animals.
Reason is, according to the most prominent typical of this stream—Aristoteles—the power of the soul liable for the cognition of good and evil and the making of judgments, which should then be subjected to the second order of spiritual power—will.
Interestingly, even in Aristotle's day, there were madmen who could be called forefathers of cognitive relativism and on the occasion of legal positivism (a mistake rejecting the existence of natural law and accepting that the only law in force was that which was arbitrarily declared political power). Thus wrote the Stagirite in Nicochean Ethics"So, too, as to the concepts of moral beauty and justice, which are dealt with by the discipline of the state, there is specified a far-reaching discrepancy and incontinence of sentences that even the notion that their existence is due only to a contract, not to the nature of things."
We see how clearly this bright head is cut off from later nonsense about the alleged social contract (announced by Jan Jakub Rousseau). It states, however, that the basic concepts, specified good and evil or justice, are in no way dependent on how the people in their issue “speak”. But they are contained in the "nature of things" itself, or in the nature of things, as we would say today.
To Aristotle, the existence of nonsubjective law and natural order was as apparent as breathing air. Although he is not the author of what is present called the "concept of natural law", erstwhile we get to know his ethical, anthropological and political thoughts, it will become clear that he is even permeated by the belief that there is simply a reality independent of human judgment, and the task of reason is only this reality read.
Here again I will repeat the question: How are we expected to work out, erstwhile a large part of Polish society negates not only the existence of nonsubjective reality, but besides the human soul. If the soul is the rule of being and the origin of movement (life or, as we would say today, life energy), as well as the habitat of thoughts and desires, how are we to realize what love, responsibility, concern or order are? If there is simply a origin of cognition in the soul, how can we even establish a common knowing of political principles?
The philosopher (because this word in capital letters is defined by Aristotle as the top continuator of his thoughts – St. Thomas of Aquinas) distinguishes in the human soul the lower part, the unreasonable part and the higher part, or the intelligent part. The lower is liable for contact with the senses and desire and desire. It does not have the measurement of good and bad in itself – it only obtains it erstwhile it submits to the judgement of the higher part. Reason itself besides divides into a lower part, the 1 that operates through senses and a higher part that is capable of abstract thinking—to know the essence of the thing, not just its affliction. This higher part, unlike SJP, is called intellect. In short, reason is liable for variable things and performs applicable functions, while the intellect learns things in their unchanging aspect and is simply a tool of theoretical knowledge, essential for a full assessment of reality.
W Ethics Aristotle discusses the way a reasonable action takes place. It categories “diversities”, or simply moral performance, otherwise virtues. Never head which virtue the author attributes to which parts of the soul, it is crucial that the intent of human being (set to attain happiness) necessarily leads to virtue, while virtue to the good which we justly desire, and reason is the power which this good (in its nonsubjective dimension) recognizes and gives to the lower parts of human nature a model.
There is no freedom, no relativism and no subjectivism, no justification of evil in the name of the "right" to its own "expression" and individualism. Everyone – in their individual expression – is obliged to comply with the universal principles of human nature. And I remind you that we are 3 100 years before Christ and before Christianity, at the head of St. Thomas, developed, perfected and raised to a higher level the knowing of natural law and morality.
Rebellion Against Reason
It's called reason for a reason. authority. For he is to regulation another parts of nature, which, in their disorder and tendency to evil, are like mobs who hotel to rebellion without obedience. In close connection with not utilizing reason (as in the case of the left) or ignoring its orders (as in the case of the political right, but not the moral right), there is an immoral lifestyle (how it affects political choices) I wrote here.).
Proper usage of reason is necessarily moral (in line with nonsubjective standards, not dictated by discretional “situational ethics”) In a word, 1 cannot say that 1 is simply a reasonable individual if 1 ignores nonsubjective moral norms and tries to justify 1 or another deviations from the norm.
In turn, the deficiency of reason Aristotle compares to paralysis of the body: you want to decision left, and the body moves right. Only, as he notes, in the case of the body it is visible, in the case of the soul – no. But the regulation is the same: we are trying to act on the basis of our thinking, but we are going the incorrect way – not according to the right goal of nonsubjective good.
One of the chief arguments against nonsubjective moral order is that modern experimental sciences cannot prove its existence. People who rebel against natural cognitive abilities of their own head deny the existence of God and soul only due to the fact that their mediocre discipline cannot supply proof due to the fact that there are no appropriate tools. How could she have if she was limited to substance and at most to neurological processes mediating between the soul and the senses?
Rebellion against reason has already occurred in ancient times and has returned throughout history, even in the movement of medieval nominalists. However, it was not until the 18th century antiphilosophy began a triumphal march through human minds. A bunch of degenerates like Voltaire (I recommend, for example, a brief look at the biography of this "authorititet" of enlightenment), a group of alleged encyclopedists, decided to synthesize concepts that contradict the nonsubjective order of the world, and in return proposing various theories that no 1 had dreamed of before. The problem is that these “light” rebels besides celebrate triumph in school programs, and the principles they preach lay at the root of modern democracy. present we have come to the universal institutionalization of the mistakes of the time and we gotta prioritize not only the full public system, but above all our own mentality.
Returning to Poland and the Polish-Polish War, let us be aware that for over 3 decades pseudo-elity has been telling us that following reason (in its appropriate sense) is simply a shame and a sign of belonging to the mythical Dark Garden. Time to put an end to this pedagogy of shame. utilizing reason is natural to man like breathing, and his existence does not gotta prove to anyone.
The 20th-century philosopher Leo Strauss makes very interesting conclusions on this issue, nota bene A non-practical Jew, so it would be hard to fishy him of being “reworked” by “the Vatican mafia” or even of a spiritual institution. In an excellent trial Natural law in the light of history He notes that a man who has rejected nonsubjective reality and the ability of reason to know yet falls into “fanatic obscurantism”. In this case, as he wrote, “the more we make our mind, the more we will cultivate nihilism.” People who deny nonsubjective order usage their intellectual abilities to make further intellectual constructs designed to actually separate them from reality, not to uncover its actual nature. Then they block the claim that these structures are internally coherent and logical. Yes, they are. And so what if they're based on fundamentally incorrect premises?
When I think of disputes between 2 camps in Poland (and I do not mean artificial division into PiS and PO), Juliusz Słowacki's poem always comes back to me:
They went screaming: Poland! Poland! — Then 1 time
To scream, they forgot the expression on their lips,
But God will confess to his sons.
They kept going, shouting, "God! Fatherland! Fatherland!
Then God of Moses appeared to the bush,
He looked at the screaming ones and said, "What?"
It is impossible to fill the gap between Poles who are faithful to conventional principles and those who believe that negation of these principles is simply a sign of belonging to the ellipse of "democratic values". No spells or gestures can aid here. Here, a solid effort of intellect is needed, and in discussion – at least a fair definition of concepts. Without the engagement of the intellect (in its appropriate sense) there is no full effective and good action, as Aristotle emphasized.
If we want to remove Poland from the tyranny of abroad influences and from the hands of traitors bearing Polish names, we must first realize who we are as people and what transcendent order is to be at the heart of our imagination of the state and human relations. Otherwise, we will proceed to be condemned to force and lies by the incumbent governments. In order to build a truly fresh value in politics, we must presume that “ethical courage and reason, from which noble acts come forth, have nothing to do with the power of despots.” These, despite the highest phrases on their lips, do not want us to be a free nation in a sovereign country whose strength is based on the independency and work of righteous and God-fearing Poles.
Filip Obara
Filip Obara: We do not want “the president of all Poles”!
Filip Obara: Tusk has no moral right to usage the word... morality
![A gdyby śmierci nie było? [o „Trzecim królestwie” Knausgårda]](https://krytykapolityczna.pl/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/Szablon-rozmiaru-obrazkow-na-strone-2.png)
