Posts from philosophy

In essence, it's not Kolya's fault, but rather his distant ancestor, Peter the First. He laid the foundation for the empire's downfall. Why did he have to go to Europe? Everything was going well; there was no need to imitate others. The best image of Peter for me is saving a drowning man by pulling him out with a rope around his neck. He saved him, but also strangled him.

The best image of Peter for me is saving a drowning man by the rope around his neck. He pulled him out, but also strangled him.

Haha... an interesting image - I imagined it:smile02: But I also understand him; they were cut off from the world, like the Anaharets, didn't shave their beards, and judged in an incomprehensible way, and the church was also organized in a rather uncivilized manner... but at least they were somewhat connected to culture (although what kind of culture is that???:smile17:). In short, it's a rather controversial question - it's unknown whether it would have been worse if he had started "cutting that window" or not.

That’s why I say that judging historical events is a thankless task. Everything is too ambiguous. Life is much more complex than simply dividing things into black and white. It’s a pity that many people don’t understand this.

Does anyone really believe that pre-Petrine Russia, torn apart by political infighting, was a prosperous state? :confused: As far as I know, there was an economic crisis, and its position on the world stage was poor... and let's not even talk about the state of science.
Are you advocating for living in an underground dwelling with a lamp? :D

Or maybe you should read some history before saying such things? Under Alexei Mikhailovich, there was a unification with Ukraine, part of Belarus was liberated, and Siberia was actively being developed. A small number of invited specialists were engaged in their direct responsibilities, rather than trying to climb to the top of power. Books were printed, and church issues were discussed. Russia confidently entered the world stage, overcoming the crisis that arose after the Time of Troubles in a short period of time. And what did Peter do? Under his rule, the population of Russia decreased by 20%. The connection with traditions was destroyed. The institution of the patriarchate was abolished. Judge for yourself.

Well, we were taught in school that Peter was a great reformer. That he centralized power in Russia, created a navy, reorganized the army, and strengthened the state. As for the institution of the patriarchate, it should be noted that the more secular power the church has in a country, the more backward that country is. However, I will not engage in a debate on the latter issue, as my further arguments will definitely offend the religious feelings of representatives of many denominations.

What they teach in our schools is enough to drive you crazy. They say anything but the truth. Before Peter the Great, all the necessary conditions for the progressive development of the country had been laid. But Peter went down the path of direct copying, which never ends well. He simply split the nation into two parts – the Europeanized elite and the main population of the country. With each generation, the gap widened, and by the beginning of the 20th century, it had become so large that ordinary people considered the nobility to be foreigners. This is how the national revolution against the anti-national monarchy took place.
As for the Patriarch, his power has never been secular. According to Orthodox tradition, the clergy are exclusively concerned with saving souls, and not with seeking power, unlike the Pope.

Garkin writes: the judging was unclear, I'm reading about it for the first time: the judging wasn't based on established rules;), I focused – everything seems to be fine:smile26:

By the way, our judicial system is quite a joke. They copied it from the European one, but didn't figure out what to do next.

By the way, our judicial system is quite a joke. They copied it from the European one, but didn't figure out what to do next.

The constitution is a clone, and the legal code too... it's just a rather poor clone:smile30:

I especially like the contradictions in all such things (especially in the UN Charter). For example: the right of nations to self-determination and, at the same time, the inviolability of states. That is, you have the right to secede, but you will be called separatists and suppressed.

We have the best constitution in the world! If we lived according to it, we would have a utopia.

Yes, it's a flawed constitution. Why did they have to imitate something? It would have been better to implement the Soviet constitution – then we would definitely live in a better country. But as it is, it's just a frivolous exercise.

We have the best constitution in the world! If we lived according to it, we would have a utopia.

g.y. utopia is... hmm... it's "utopia"...

Let's talk about ecumenism. Who believes that religious differences stem from the fact that there are many gods? Or is there only one God, who is simply worshipped in different ways? And in general: did God create man, or did man create God?