The Philosophy Now Forum

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Wed Oct 14, 2026 11:52 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Oct 14, 2026 5:42 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Wed Oct 14, 2026 3:56 pm

There's nothing to "play". I'm a broken Romeo who has nothing but burdens to offer his Juliet. Sorry to disappoint.

Oh, it's not me you'll be disappointing. It's you. You'll have to live with what you're prepared to do; I won't.

I think you can make something of your situation. Phyllo says you can't. So who's on your side?

Funny that you don't realize that. But okay...you'll only go so far as you tell yourself you can go.

Fair enough. Being chronically depressed and sometimes delusional or hallucinating aren't exactly pluses in the dating game. But if you think I have nothing to complain about, then I have noted it.

I didn't say you had nothing to complain about. I said you had to play your hand of cards, no matter what that hand had in it. You have no choice. You can sit down and cry, or you can get up and do something. It's pretty clear which one of those stands to do you any good.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Oct 15, 2026 12:25 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Wed Oct 14, 2026 11:52 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Oct 14, 2026 5:42 pm
Oh, it's not me you'll be disappointing. It's you. You'll have to live with what you're prepared to do; I won't.

I think you can make something of your situation. Phyllo says you can't. So who's on your side?

Funny that you don't realize that. But okay...you'll only go so far as you tell yourself you can go.

Fair enough. Being chronically depressed and sometimes delusional or hallucinating aren't exactly pluses in the dating game. But if you think I have nothing to complain about, then I have noted it.

I didn't say you had nothing to complain about. I said you had to play your hand of cards, no matter what that hand had in it. You have no choice. You can sit down and cry, or you can get up and do something. It's pretty clear which one of those stands to do you any good.

You don't know anything about me other than what you read on this forum. If a person has to "play the hand s/he's dealt," then that's practically a tautology, and goes without saying. There is no one on this Earth who doesn't "play the hand s/he's dealt". What's the point in saying that other than to be insultingly condescending and patronizing?

It is what it is, Gary.




No don't hit me I'm just kidding bro!

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Oct 15, 2026 12:30 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Oct 15, 2026 12:25 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Wed Oct 14, 2026 11:52 pm

Fair enough. Being chronically depressed and sometimes delusional or hallucinating aren't exactly pluses in the dating game. But if you think I have nothing to complain about, then I have noted it.

I didn't say you had nothing to complain about. I said you had to play your hand of cards, no matter what that hand had in it. You have no choice. You can sit down and cry, or you can get up and do something. It's pretty clear which one of those stands to do you any good.

You don't know anything about me other than what you read on this forum.

It doesn't matter. The same rule is true for every person alive: either you make something of what you've got, or you don't.

What's the point in saying that other than to be insultingly condescending and patronizing?

To be helpful. You don't seem to realize the consequences of doing nothing.

phyllo wrote: ↑Wed Oct 14, 2026 11:04 pm The Baltimore catechism doesn't deal with immigration.

Oh it does, but less specifically than the 1991 catechism. The outline is there, and as well there are Encyclicals that deal on the issue in some depth. I have glanced through them but I do not remember their titles.

You should also call to mind that in 1991 there was no immigration crisis. Not anywhere close to now.

So you're basically inserting your own interpretation of how "helping strangers" applies to immigration.

To some degree, perhaps. But what I am trying to communicate revolves around how “Catholic communities under siege”, for example in France, turn to the Encyclicals, to traditional ideas and doctrines, and common sense applications of 1) reason and 2) charity, to formulate the resolution that they must act against the the irresponsible and destructive policies of government.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Oct 14, 2026 11:46 pm Before you knock it, consider the alternative: slavish obedience to the Papacy. No public literacy. No critical or independent thinking. An uneducated public. No academic freedom. And a much slower and more stunted development of science, if it were to develop at all. Had there been no Reformation and no Protestantism, you would probably live in a very different world than you do -- that is, unless something else like the Reformation were to come along to break the stranglehold of the Papacy and monarchy on public life.

A fuller and balanced picture allows more varied notions or interpretations. I am not interested in debating any of this with you — I know your opinions are adamantine — but simultaneously with the “good” of revolutionary innovation and severance from the Church, came also an intense, revolutionary spirit as well as a larger refusal to see an Authority that should be obeyed. (You argue constantly against people who are “outcomes” of this same rebellion, though they are farther along the trajectory, and as well you too are aligned with rebellion. There are entire realms of Authority that you will not accept — because of a certain hard-headed Protestant attitude (and overt contempt for Catholicism).

You could also say that had the Protestant rebellion and revolution occurred differently, and more within the fold of Catholicism, that with that too we’d all be in a very different situation.

This is not my particular axe to grind — I accept and admire the Church as it is — but there are all sorts of problems with Protestantism. And most often the strongly Protestant are loth to dealve into a depth examination.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Oct 15, 2026 12:59 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Oct 15, 2026 12:30 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Oct 15, 2026 12:25 am
I didn't say you had nothing to complain about. I said you had to play your hand of cards, no matter what that hand had in it. You have no choice. You can sit down and cry, or you can get up and do something. It's pretty clear which one of those stands to do you any good.

You don't know anything about me other than what you read on this forum.

It doesn't matter. The same rule is true for every person alive: either you make something of what you've got, or you don't.

What's the point in saying that other than to be insultingly condescending and patronizing?

To be helpful. You don't seem to realize the consequences of doing nothing.

Who doesn't make "something" of what they've got? How does one not do that? Everything we do is making "something" and doing "nothing" is logically impossible. It's all banter to invalidate the complaints of others. That's all your banter does. I don't invalidate the suffering of those who have it worse than me. I have never told anyone who is in worse shape than I am to "look on the bright side" as "advice". So why do you do it to me?

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Oct 15, 2026 1:16 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Oct 15, 2026 12:59 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Oct 15, 2026 12:30 am

You don't know anything about me other than what you read on this forum.

It doesn't matter. The same rule is true for every person alive: either you make something of what you've got, or you don't.

What's the point in saying that other than to be insultingly condescending and patronizing?

To be helpful. You don't seem to realize the consequences of doing nothing.

Who doesn't make "something" of what they've got?

You, apparently.

Or prove that wrong. Prove Phyllo wrong. Make your life better.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Thu Oct 15, 2026 1:00 am

phyllo wrote: ↑Wed Oct 14, 2026 11:04 pm The Baltimore catechism doesn't deal with immigration.

Oh it does, but less specifically than the 1991 catechism. The outline is there, and as well there are Encyclicals that deal on the issue in some depth. I have glanced through them but I do not remember their titles.

You should also call to mind that in 1991 there was no immigration crisis. Not anywhere close to now.

So you're basically inserting your own interpretation of how "helping strangers" applies to immigration.

To some degree, perhaps. But what I am trying to communicate revolves around how “Catholic communities under siege”, for example in France, turn to the Encyclicals, to traditional ideas and doctrines, and common sense applications of 1) reason and 2) charity, to formulate the resolution that they must act against the the irresponsible and destructive policies of government.

You mean these :

AI Overview

Papal encyclicals and major Catholic social teaching documents establish the right to migrate for survival and dignity, while balancing national sovereignty and the common good.

Key Papal and Magisterial Teachings

• Rerum Novarum (Leo XIII, 1891): Affirmed the fundamental right of individuals to work to survive and support their families.

• Exsul Familia Nazarethana (Pius XII, 1952): Often called the "Magna Carta" of migration teaching, this apostolic constitution framed the Holy Family's flight into Egypt as the archetype for all refugees and affirmed that people have a right to migrate when facing poverty or persecution.

• Pacem in Terris (John XXIII, 1963): Stated that human beings have the right of freedom of movement and residence within the confines of political communities for just reasons.

• Caritas in Veritate (Benedict XVI, 2009): Emphasized that every migrant is a human person with fundamental, inalienable rights that must be respected in every circumstance.

• Fratelli Tutti (Pope Francis, 2020): Calls for universal fraternity, social friendship, and overcoming a "globalization of indifference" toward vulnerable persons and strangers.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Thu Oct 15, 2026 1:13 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Oct 14, 2026 11:46 pm Before you knock it, consider the alternative: slavish obedience to the Papacy. No public literacy. No critical or independent thinking. An uneducated public. No academic freedom. And a much slower and more stunted development of science, if it were to develop at all. Had there been no Reformation and no Protestantism, you would probably live in a very different world than you do -- that is, unless something else like the Reformation were to come along to break the stranglehold of the Papacy and monarchy on public life.

A fuller and balanced picture allows more varied notions or interpretations. I am not interested in debating any of this with you — I know your opinions are adamantine — but simultaneously with the “good” of revolutionary innovation and severance from the Church, came also an intense, revolutionary spirit as well as a larger refusal to see an Authority that should be obeyed. (You argue constantly against people who are “outcomes” of this same rebellion, though they are farther along the trajectory, and as well you too are aligned with rebellion. There are entire realms of Authority that you will not accept — because of a certain hard-headed Protestant attitude (and overt contempt for Catholicism).

You could also say that had the Protestant rebellion and revolution occurred differently, and more within the fold of Catholicism, that with that too we’d all be in a very different situation.

This is not my particular axe to grind — I accept and admire the Church as it is — but there are all sorts of problems with Protestantism. And most often the strongly Protestant are loth to dealve into a depth examination.

What happened to the one true objective morality which came directly from God?

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Thu Oct 15, 2026 1:13 am You could also say that had the Protestant rebellion and revolution occurred differently, and more within the fold of Catholicism, that with that too we’d all be in a very different situation.

Actually, this was tried. If you know the history, you know that Martin Luther was originally a Catholic priest himself. And when he nailed his famous theses to the church door in Wittenberg, it was not an act of rebellion...it was an attempt to generate discussion about reform. Did you not wonder why it's called "The Reformation," and not "The Rebellion"?

But the Catholics wouldn't have it. They went after Luther, and would have subjected him to the Inquisition, no doubt, if he had not been rescued by Fredrick the Wise, of Saxony -- or following his trial at the Diet of Worms, Luther would have been a dead man...after torture, of course. And while I don't say they'd do it now, they certainly would have then.

So it seems the Catholic hierarchy were simply not up for reform. That's the nature of an authoritarian clergy. They don't tend to like being questioned.

...most often the strongly Protestant are loth to dealve into a depth examination.

I find the very opposite: that Protestants are continually interested in reform and improvement, and judge themselves critically by the Scriptures. I also note that Protestants have been very active in the philosophical world, and in the world of street apologetics. You can find them all over YouTube, doing just that. That's hardly the behaviour of people "loath to delve into an in-depth examination" of anything.

Hey, one was just murdered by a tranny-advocate for that very thing...remember?

You might not know very many Protestants, I'm guessing. But I note that the institutional churches, like the Catholic or the C. of E. tend to wait for their prelates and councils to do any reforming, and leave the greater masses of their people simply to obey whatever they generate -- quite a different view and practice.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Oct 15, 2026 1:23 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Oct 15, 2026 1:16 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Oct 15, 2026 12:59 am
It doesn't matter. The same rule is true for every person alive: either you make something of what you've got, or you don't.

To be helpful. You don't seem to realize the consequences of doing nothing.

Who doesn't make "something" of what they've got?

You, apparently.

Or prove that wrong. Prove Phyllo wrong. Make your life better.

I cannot make my life any better. I cannot escape from depression. I'm sorry, I can't comply with your wishes. Can you do me a favor and make your life worse? Misery loves company, and I would find you much more amicable and better company if you shared depression with me. If not, that's OK. I'm used to being lonely and the odd man out.

phyllo wrote: ↑Thu Oct 15, 2026 2:08 am What happened to the one true objective morality which came directly from God?

I think you operate from a strange and likely non-productive critical platform. What is it that you desire to achieve? If you can get clear about this within your own self and then articulate it I may be able to interact with you more fruitfully.

One mistake you seem to make is to erroneously project onto me the rôle of ultra-defender of Catholicism. And assume I am to answer any knotty questions you put forth. You seem to have an issue with the general Catholic position on immigration but you have not made this clear. I will say it once more that Catholic social teaching could not ever support or encourage an influx of migrants — say “massive migration” and “illegal migration” — into any host country that results in harm to the social and economic body (and not to speak of the ‘spiritual body’) of that nation. It would be counter the idea and practice of charity.

In respect to the citations you posted, I would imagine that we would have to examine the context of the Encyclicals. The implicit topic may have been specific events and conditions in Europe at the time which created refugees. I am uncertain as it is not my topic.

Now it is true that with Pope Francis and his declaration in respect to Muslim migrants into Europe that his positions are radically supportive of mass migration and seemingly with little regard for the health of the body politic of the host nation. Do you desire that I respond to his radicalism in this area? Is this really an issue that concerns you or, more likely, do you operate from pique and desire to provoke mere conflict?

You must know that within Catholicism, within that Catholic social body, there are factions, debates, disagreements that at times almost become schismatic. It has been right on the edge as a result of policy and liturgical remodeling that began in the late 1950s and gathered strength in the 1960s. Effectively, the integrity of the Church as a guiding authority was severely damaged. Would you like me to interpret this? Or would you prefer to take the lead and reveal your own ideas and views?

I very clearly laid out the genesis of my own inquiry into that perplexing issue “What went wrong?” All that I can reliably report to you is that: Within Catholicism, within Catholic ideation and philosophy, there many valuable jewels that, in my view, should not be dismissed offhand by people who are fundamentally insensitive to that very issue: that of values.

We then circle around and here we are back again examining the core issue: values and meaning. My basic and largest assertion is this: Catholicism and Christianity are essentially One up to a certain point. It is that which molded “Europe”. And Europe was, as Robinson Jeffers pithily said, “the jewel of the world” until effectively the First World War when — when what? How shall we talk about ‘that’? How shall we define and talk about unraveling, suicide, destructive warfare, a mindless but consuming unleashing of degenerative force? How shall we view this and what happens in men’s souls? In my soul, in your soul?

The turn to conservative modes of thought always has to do with a longing and a desire for regeneration. For recovery. For growth and fruitful production. For that reason I mentioned Dawson’s valuable, Catholic-appreciative little book The Historic Reality of Christian Culture: A Way to the Renewal of Human Life.

There is a claim there. And it is a claim that I align with. I put it like this: Within the Christian tradition(s) there are elements of value unlike those of any other tradition (that I am aware of). There is no area of life that is excluded from consideration. It is literally the foundation of who we are and what we are, and it must be defended and explained from those who have become, who embody, the ignorantiae invincibiles of our age.

"You could also say that had the Protestant rebellion and revolution occurred differently, and more within the fold of Catholicism, that with that too we’d all be in a very different situation."

Nah. Because the subjects of Catholicism and Protestantism aren't real, the rebellion of one or the other is imaginary, a psychological revolt. Protestantism was what happened when the ruling class parasites went too far with their propoganda and tried to impose, interfere, and restrict an already anxiety ridden and exhausted working class. Enough was enough. f*** off with your creepy confessionals and collection baskets.

Right, but they didn't throw the baby out with the bath water. They got rid of the priests of death but kept the jesus fellow.

The final results of the Protestant revolution: a magnificent downsizing of the useless priest class living off the labor of the workers.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Oct 15, 2026 3:15 am You might not know very many Protestants, I'm guessing.

Frankly I am a consequence of Protestant mentality even to a rather extreme degree insofar as I am American and a product of radical Americanism. Establishing polarities, as is how discussions hare are structured and rehearsed ad nauseam, will get is nowhere.

I do not profoundly disagree with any point you, as Protestant and committed anti-Catholic make. My endeavor is to step out of the “mode of conflict” — and I am only tangentially referring to the durable, the perennial, conflicts plated out here. I mean in the larger Occidental world, in our hemisphere and also in Europe.