With a new practical philosophy of control, nature comes a new theoretical philosophy because the objective reality is only nature. This teaching is called naturalism and narrows the objective reality only on matter, time, space, and motion.  An alternative to this teaching is supernaturalism, whose followers are convinced that objective reality includes something more than just nature, something like God.

If “objective reality” represents God, it is better to cause Him, and it is foolish to force Him to adapt. The U.S. However, if object objective reality ’is only a nature that we can conquer, we would be foolish to adopt it. The common principle of both philosophies is that the lower stage of development should be subordinated to the higher, and not the other way around. The practical philosophy of the time, respectively the opinion for life, was based on the theoretical philosophy of the time, from the worldview: God is here so that we will adapt to him.

The modern view of life is based on the modern world of opinion: there is no God, and therefore his role in the world we will play. Both philosophies are catching up, but one of them is wrong—cadastral wrong. Until recently, we were still optimistic about the new one’s thoughts and ideas associated with uncovering the secrets of the universe and the related myth of the universality and necessity of technical progress. However, they are two reasons why this optimism dies quickly. One is, of course, the fear of collective thermonuclear or social suicide. The other one, but it eats us deeper. Freud’s simple observations in Civilization and Its Discontents show that we are not at all happy with his new, godlike power.

We control nature, but we can’t control the controller, which we are. Self-control is uninteresting until the subjugation of nature “flies.” But that is exactly the moment when we need self-control the most. If we rule everything around us except ourselves, we do not dispose of essentially any power. Increasing power, he concentrates on nature in ever weaker and weaker hands. Inheritance, the environment, the spirit of the times, the “necessary dialectic of history,” the media – it’s always something else that he has a foot on the gas instead of us.

IN HISTORY Where are our weaknesses?
Certainly, not in technology. We are like King Mi data – we are intoxicated with new power and wealth beyond a fierce price: everything we touch dies and cools down. Not even intellectually. We are learning more and more and more, though it is becoming less and less important. I am intoxicated by knowledge as well as by power. Figuratively speaking, our heads are going to fly away; some have it already, and it happened.  We are not even morally weaker. I do not think so, that we are generally much more immoral than our ancestors. We are less courageous, more sincere, we cannot command and are clearly more chaste than they were, but they were more difficult than us, intolerance, snobbery, and inhumanity. They were better in “harder” things; we are better in “finer” ones; however, I think the balance has been maintained. Although we are not weak in morality as such, we certainly do much weaker knowledge about her. We know incredibly much about nature, but very little about well. We know much more about what is less than us and less about what is more than us. So if we act morally, we are better than our philosophy. Our ancestors were worse than their philosophy. 

The problem was that they did not live according to the established rules and principles. Our problem is that we don’t have any. For the first time in history, we have abandoned moral objective the law. Philosophy of moral positivism (its morality is determined and created by man), moral relativism, and subjectivism ceased to be considered a heresy with which some rioters came and became the predominant “orthodoxy” intellectual institutions. University faculty and the media refused to believe any state of general and objective morality. Our civilization, especially the two groups mentioned, has now played a grandiose game of ethics. Discussion of ethics filled the gap that arose after the death of the image of ethics. However, it is a discussion that St. Paul (2 Tim 1: 7) characterizes as follows: “They are always learning, and they can never know the truth “(perhaps it was a prophetic vision of ours TV talk show!). It’s intellectual “ping pong,” in which opinions are rather “shared” rather than to seek the real truth. But how can we look at something we don’t believe exists? The opinion that in the sphere of morality, there is truth and that an accessible and impartial mind is not in itself its goal, but a means of its search, they called intellectual institutions “simplified,” but “simplified” was just their idea, not of society. In an era in which “anything flies,” virtue becomes a wonderful revolutionary phenomenon. In times of rebellion, authority becomes a radical solution. At the age of confusion”progress to” leading to self-destruction, tradition becomes a hero on a white horse.

This entry was posted in Nezaradené. Bookmark the permalink.


  1. fantastic post, very informative. I’m wondering why the other experts of this sector don’t realize this. You should proceed your writing. I’m sure, you’ve a great readers’ base already!

  2. Peter Prochac says:

    Your comment encouraged me.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.