Pope Leo wrote a short message addressed to the International Conference on Philosophy currently meeting in Paraguay. It's pretty cool and it features him asserting that he's firmly pro-philosophy.https://www.vatican.va/content/leo-xiv/es/messages/pont-messages/2025/documents/20251003-messaggio-congresso-filosofia.htmlIt's nice to have a /lit/ Pope again. Though Francis loved Borges so I guess he wasn't so bad either.
>>24793466> In modern times, GWF Hegel, with his speculation on the "absolute spirit," ended up subordinating faith to the rational development of the spirit. The same illusion is found in various thinkers, that is, the belief that reason and will are sufficient in themselves to attain the truth.These people are so retarded. benedict XVI never disparagingly talked about modern philosophers but instead highlighted the missing link to the church.These >”we live in the second century AD and thats the only philosophy we need”Retards seriously need to be culled. The churches failing to be the center of thought is their downfall; they lose power, they lose merit and they lose Being. All serious German philosophers were Christian yet these cucks can’t see modern Europe needs a church that lives in the same world it does and doesn’t live in nostalgia for a world long passed. Its completely hopeless as long as such performative low IQ popes remain the norm in the Vatican.
>>24794312>hatin on hegelhegel is ass but isn't he like the last european philosopher to make the case for the combination of church and state? shouldn't catholics be all over that?
>>24794312>modern Europe needs a church that lives in the same world it does and doesn’t live in nostalgia for a world long passedAh yes... The church as guardian of truth (immutable) must accommodate to the zeitgeist of the times...
>>24794312Why do you assume he doesnt like or engage with modern philosophy just because he doesnt like Hegel? Maybe he just doesnt like Hegel? Ive met plenty of Christians who like parts of Kant or Hume
>>24793466Why would someone be anti-philosophy? I'm philosophy-neutral. I just ignore it.
There's nothing original in Hegel that isn't in previous philosophers. Why would one read Hegel over Plotinus? The pope as augustinian should be much closer to Plotinus
>>24794319Of course. It’s really easy to see a modern catholic church in Hegel’s concept of the state. He described the unavoidability of the state as the manner through which God marches through his world. How is that not Peter’s church?>>24794340It has lost all tangibility to human Dasein which is a truth as well. Priests are supposed to communicate with us about our Dasein, but instead they preach of anything but the human existence. It’s not hard to see how psychiatrists are confessions with a priest, how the symphony simply walked out of the church into some secular theater building, art hangs in stale brutalist buildings instead of over altars etc.The Ghibellines ultimately won and the catholic church retreated into its cloister like byzantine monks who still live and pray as they did 1500 years ago unchanged.Defeated monks like this pope are too scared to step outside of his ecclesiastical walls.
>>24794349If you believe philosophical texts to have truth you treat it like scripture in the first centuries AD. His comment clearly shows lack of respect if not contempt at apparent falsehoods. Its revolting.
>>24794370>Defeated monks like this pope are too scared to step outside of his ecclesiastical walls.This pope literally walked in the roads of countryside peru. you are absolutely clueless
>>24794312Benedict XVI molested kids though.
>>24794379You are a slanderer
>>24794375The third world is back water (especially the rural). He might as well have walked through a desert.
>>24794381Has to be untrue to be slander anon.
>>24793466>Though Francis loved Borges so I guess he wasn't so bad either.We will probably never live through someone we /phil/ as Benedict again though.
>>24794312>>24794319He's just using Hegel as an example. The focus here is on isolated (and instrumental) Enlightenment reason, and subtly with Humani Generis, the idea of reason as participation in the Divine Logos.The Nouvelle Théologie of the early 20th century has had one strand that has been very successful in the Church, the Patristic/Eastern focused "recovery" project (de Lubac, etc.). Their outlook on philosophy and "natural reason" versus "grace" is shaped by the idea that "natural versus supernatural" and the idea of natura pura (pure nature) is itself a wholly modern distinction that helped lead towards the crisis of modernity. This seems in line with that general view of reason. Reason and faith (faith as illumination,and so knowledge, not as mere blind assent) are the two wings on which we ascend towards God. Fide et Ratio (but also ratio as intellectus!) and exitus et reditus as a motion of Logos.What people miss when they talk about "tradcaths" here is that there are actually two types of trads.The first largely looks back as far as Trent and a bit further. The read Saint Thomas as he was read in the Counter Reformation and during the anti-modern crises. They don't ignore the ancient faith or early Middle Ages, but their main focus is late-Medieval and Reformation, and they tend to take its nature versus grace dichotomy very seriously and also tend to be drawn to the aesthetics of the early-modern church. They want to recover the supernatural lost in modernity, and tend towards fidesm more.The second group of traditionalists look back more to the Patristics and early Middle Ages, and have their own reading of Saint Thomas (more accurate IMHO) as more of a "Neoplatonist" (and so gravitate to Saint Bonaventure and Saint Maximus). These people are more into dialogue with the Orthodox East and elevating Eastern Catholic positions, and think the whole nature versus grace debate needs to be reformed and that the "supernatural" is a degenerate modern category. They take Heidegger's critique of ontotheology seriously but don't think it applies to much pre-modern Christian thought.They are different and in conflict, even though they both don't like modernity and dislike nominalism, etc. For the second group, the first are moderns (and even voluntaristic). The first group is more active in "Tradcath" spaces and tends to be much more into the Latin Mass. The second has been more influential higher up and in academia and philosophy.When it comes to how "reason" interacts with philosophy, the idea is basically either the dialectic of 1500AD (first group), or, rejecting this as being exactly what led to the Enlightenment sealing off of philosophy, elevating the philosophy of 500AD.
Imagine being a Romecuck:>current pope pissing you off because he cares about the climate and poor>previous pope did same thing>pope before that covered up diddlers and had to resign>Pope John Paul II is made a saint, turns out he helped cover up diddlers too>Pope Paul VI was literally a faggotKek.
>>24794379thats a peak philosopher activity, no?
>>24793466Why does he look like a quadroon, did they finally choose a nigger pope?
>>24794608He was merely returning to Christianity's Platonic roots. Very sad anti intellectuals shut that down.
>>24794312I think your post is interesting since it has a big combination of arrogance and ignorance.The Pope is not criticizing philosophy per se. He is criticizing the belief that just by the use of reason you can reach all transcendent truths. That is at odds with Catholic thought, which says there is some part of the truth that we can get by natural reason and parts of it that we can only get by divine revelation.For example, by natural reason (aka philosophy) you can prove the existence of the unmoved mover, the god of the philosophers . But you can't by pure reason demonstrate certain characteristics of God such as the Trinity. This kind of thing comes from Divine Revelation. There are two different kinds of thinking that are at odd with Catholicism.1. By reason we can uncover all of reality2. By reason we can know nothing about God, it is all pure faith.Also, there are kinds of modern philosophy that are compatible with Catholic thought and others that are incompatible. We shouldn't really embrace those that are incompatible just because we want to look modern.Some people had the same ideology you did and subordinated Catholic beliefs to Freudian psychology or the psychology of certain figures like Rodgers because it sounded more modern. This had terrible practical results and...... if you study modern psychology and neuroscience and you study Thomistic psychology, Thomistic psychology is actually very much compatible with modern neuroscience findings (eerily so at times, you wonder how in the hell Aquinas was able to get some of the things he did), which is not what we can say about the psychology of that era.
>>24794366Where did Plotinus posit the Prussian monarchy as the ideal polity
>>24794648Romecucks don't like Hegel because he was Lutheran and have to bend over backwards to suggest someone else.
>>24794657Hegel didn't believe in an eternal, unchanging God. This makes him incompatible with Catholicism.One thing of note is that the use of Hegelian methods among some Lutheran Biblical scholars led to some stupid theories about the creation of the Gospels that have zero external evidence for them but are taken as... ...Gospel among some Lutherans.
>>24794672>Hegel didn't believe in an eternal, unchanging God. This makes him incompatible with Catholicism.Thank you for admitting Hegel was simply too big brained to be a Romecuck.
>>24794687Hegel was not big brained. He was wrong.
>>24794610He unironically does have some black african in his latin american roots. Hes a total mestizo.
>>24794312>These people are so retarded. benedict XVI never disparagingly talked about modern philosophersBenedict believed basically the exact same thing. You basically didn't understand Leo's point and you are a huge retard.
>>24794692For me it's lordship and bondage as a narrative for understanding the Vatican.
>>24793466Why's Leo saying Karl Barth was a modern Christian theologian distrusting of secular philosophy? Barth wrote an introduction in my version of Feuerbach's critique of Christianity, where he says how important it is for Christians to read, understand, and take Feuerbach seriously for them to have an informed Christian response, and he considers Feuerbach very very valuable for Christian theology. It doesn't sound to me like Barth is so distrustful after all, quite the contrary.
>>24794319If you read any history of philosophy written by a Catholic this is what you get. We're arguing where do we go after Kant and how to dialogue with contemporary physics and other scientific discoveries and these assholes can't see past Aquinas.>>24794312The heads of the faith are exactly the same performative low IQ as the people in the churches, streets, parliaments and talk shows: they understood they have to match their intended target audience. In fact, Benedict's vision was more ostentatious for the same reason Trump is adding gold all over the White House, to appeal to easily impressionable fans.
>>24794831feuerbach claimed to continue protestant christianity by other means, like in "philosophy of the future" in the first paragraphs. With hegelian double negation and all that. To call him a materialist atheist, like i've seen on Wikipedia, would be mischaracterization.
>>24794832Your post is just posturing in order to pretend you are a superior Protestant intellectual to those silly Catholics. There is nothing substantive there, except a status game where you claim to be above them.
>>24794856
>>24793466Can you post the english transl
>>24795595There is none. It's only in Spanish and Italian. Just use your web browser's translation feature.
>>24794856Being a Romecuck is like being a jeet. A nonstop metronome between delusional gloating and whining.
>>24795607The Catholic Church is the most glorious institution in all of human history, why wouldn't you gloat about being a part of it?
>>24794509>accusing the German idealists of “instrumentalizing” reasonAre you fucking kidding me? Why not read some of le wicked modern thinkers rather than parroting what you’ve read on blogs and in propaganda books? You guys annoy the shit out of me because you don’t care about philosophy as such, it’s just part of your trad identity. You all use the same stupid buzzwords too.
>>24795627Was. It's been in decline since the 14th century. Really no different than the Islamic world. Except the Islamic golden age happened during it's period, while the enlightenment was all post reformation occurring in secular or protestant spaces. Your comment is like a jeet crediting the manhattan project to Indians inventing the Arabic number system.
“Hmmm society is le bad…. I can’t even go to the library, there are black people everywhere! What we need is a vertical ontology. Yessir that’s the ticket, throw in some luminous divine logos while we’re at it. Based.”We’ve been through this already. You should seriously ask yourself why premodern philosophy died. If you don’t understand this, if for you it’s just bad morals, evil Protestants, evil Franciscans, “nominalism”, you’re thinking like a child. You can’t critique your own time if you don’t understand it. So read the idealists, besides Kant they all had serious reservations about modernity or rejected the Enlightenment entirely even, but they looked forward instead of back, and they tried to understand it from the inside, and its tensions and contradictions. Hegel would say that this entire “trad” phenomenon is simply the shadow of modernity, not a genuine alternative. The trad vs fedora dialectic is explored at length in chapter 6 of the Phenomenology of Spirit. I’m not anti-religion, I just don’t like retarded, pretentious, trad baloney like you always see in these threads.
>>24795719Reading and discussing is one thing, action is another. I think what makes a lot of Trads annoying is that they basically sit around and navel-gaze. Posting "the West has fallen" impotently, it makes them kind of pathetic.But if you can ACT, if you actually can strike a meaningful blow against the philosophical and spiritual forces that you hate, it's not so pathetic, I don't think, and it's not so cringe. De Maistre says there will always be a gulf between philosophers and those who act.
>>24793466This guy is very boring and milquetoast and doesn't have any main character energy at all
>>24795736The trads have “acted”, Trump is president. They think we’ll go back in time to Charlemagne but with lower infant mortality. In fact, he’s a retard, his supporters are retards, and if we’re lucky we’ll end up like Slovenia or Hungary, a corrupt, retarded government living off its corrupt, retarded supporters. But they think we’re about to time travel into a pretend golden age. Imagine if someone’s only knowledge of India came from reading Gandhi’s autobiography, that’s how these idiots stand vis a vis the Middle Ages.
>>24795776Not a child molester or embezzler though, so top 10% of popes of all time.
>>24795719>>24795736>>24795736Schizo samefag writing incoherently about off topic shit. What in the hell Trump has to do with anything here?
