Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer

Vol. 17 No. 19 (2) (2022)

Articles

Environmentalists and Ecologists. Philosophical Aspects

DOI: https://doi.org/10.32084/bsawp.4896  [Google Scholar]
Published: 2022-12-30

Abstract

The aim of this dissertation is to show the important difference between environmentalists as lovers and guardians of nature and ecologists or ecoterrorists as ideologues who destroy nature. Environmentalists seek, know, and love God as the Creator of the cosmos, while ecologists or ecoterrorists succumb to the illusions of various deities and ultimately to the stupidity of anti-godliness, which cuts off their reflection on man and nature from the most important transcendent reason, which is the Personal Creator of the universe. The same God, as the Creator, repays righteous, good, and pious man for his faithfulness and service to Him and His Divine works in the form of a visible creature, and punishes the unrighteous, evil, or unjust man for his erroneous and hypocritical approach to His Divine works. Environmentalists respect, support and develop man as the visible ruler of the world, to whom the eternal God has entrusted the universe and handed over power over it, while ecologists and ecoterrorists delete man as someone superior to animals, plants and other creatures. In this context of ideological struggle, it is necessary to return to the realistic Christian concept of man as a person and the universe as an extraordinary ontic order and to metaphysical-Christian ethics, which is a good antidote to the contemporary ecological crisis, which even leaves the mark of ecorevolutionaries on some groups. Environmentalists care about marriage and the family as the basis of “ecology” in the social teaching of the Catholic Church of Christ, and in contrast, ecologists and ecorevolutionaries attack man as an individual and destroy marriage and families as the foundations of a truly “human ecology” (John Paul II).

Environmentalists care about nature because they represent the ethos of God’s order, and ecologists and ecoterrorists exploit and destroy it in various other ways because they have rejected God and thus despised man, to whom this nature is supposed to be helpful on the way to moral perfection. Environmentalists understand that animals also participate in the propitiatory sacrifice because they are also moving speciesily or individually toward the Kingdom of Heaven, that is, toward redemption, while ecologists and ecoterrorists reject the saving dimension of our cosmic existence, since they have previously rejected the gift of God’s salvation. Environmentalists do take animals and plants seriously, but they do not accept them as partners, unlike ecologists and ecoterrorists, to whom animals replace other people as neighbours. Environmentalists defend themselves and other people against the negative influence of animals on the basis of natural law, i.e. catching or removing dangerous animals, and ecologists and ecoterrorists call hunters “murderers” only because they perform such an important mission of safety in the natural world. Man has real and legal possibilities of subjugating the animal and plant world to serve him well, but this truth is questioned by ecoterrorists who dethrone the human person in their atheistic and neo-materialistic ideology of ecologism or ecoterrorism from being the visible king of the world to an entity-object subordinate to this objectively objective world. Environmentalists rightly demand state interference in the matter of protection of the broadly understood human environment and nature, while ecologists and ecoterrorists deny the sovereign subjectivity of the state in this respect and commit various iniquities, e.g. report on the Polish State to the European Union. Environmentalists are for the Kingdom of God and the eternal happiness of the saved, and ecologists and ecoterrorists work for the kingdom of Satan and the final condemnation of mankind fallen into the tragic impiety and iniquity of God and the world as the work of God’s creation.

References

  1. Adorno Wiesengrund, Theodor. 1996. „Ästhetische Theorie.” W Gesammelte Schriften. T. 7. Wyd. 6, red. Rolf Tiedemann, Gretel Adorno, Susan Buck-Morss, i in. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. [Google Scholar]
  2. Elżanowski, Andrzej, i Ewa Siedlecka. 2012. „Krowa też człowiek.” https://wyborcza.pl/magazyn/7,124059,12861511,krowa-tez-czlowiek.html [dostęp: 19.11.2022]. [Google Scholar]
  3. Guz, Tadeusz. 2017. „Filozoficzna analiza ideologicznych podstaw animalizacji człowieka i humanizacji zwierząt i drzew.” Nasz Dziennik 129(5882):12-13. [Google Scholar]
  4. Lipp, Wolfgang. 1980. „Biologische Kategorien im Vormarsch? Herausforderung und Aufgabe einer künftigen Soziologie.” W Reden zur zeit, red. Institut für Demokratieforschung Würzburg, 16-29. Würzburg: Johann Wilhelm Naumann. [Google Scholar]
  5. Marcel, Gabriel. 1984. Homo viator. Wstęp do metafizyki nadziei. Warszawa: PAX. [Google Scholar]
  6. Marcuse, Herbert. 1973. Konterrevolution und Revolte. Wyd. 2. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. [Google Scholar]
  7. Miłosz, Czesław. 2006. „Uczeni.” W Miłosz, Czesław. Druga przestrzeń. Kraków: Znak. [Google Scholar]
  8. Monod, Jacques. 1971. „Chance and Necessity.” The New York Times 21.11.1971, Sect. BR, 5. [Google Scholar]
  9. Peeters, Marguerite A. 2009. Nowa etyka w dobie globalizacji. Wyzwania dla Kościoła. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Sióstr Loretanek. [Google Scholar]
  10. Siedlecka, Ewa. 2014. „Nowy wróg po gender: animal studies.” https://wyborcza.pl/7,75398,15462718,nowy-wrog-po-gender-animal-studies.html [dostęp: 19.11.2022]. [Google Scholar]
  11. Singer, Peter. 2004. Wyzwolenie zwierząt. Warszawa: Państwowy Instytut Wydawniczy. [Google Scholar]
  12. Spaemann, Robert. 2000. „Wirklichkeit als Anthropomorphismus.” http://www.kath-info.de/wirklichkeit.html [dostęp: 19.11.2022]. [Google Scholar]
  13. Szyszko, Jan. 2008. „Konwencja klimatyczna, czyli kto chce chronić klimat i jak to zrobić?” Nasz Dziennik 281(3298). [Google Scholar]
  14. Szyszko, Jan. 2009. „Nie powielajmy błędów Unii.” Nasz Dziennik 26(3347). [Google Scholar]
  15. Szyszko, Jan. 2010. „Zarys stanu środowiska naturalnego.” W Ocena i wycena zasobów przyrodniczych, red. Jan Szyszko, Jan Rylke, Piotr Jeżowski, i in., 32-66. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo SGGW. [Google Scholar]
  16. Thüne, Wolfgang. 1979. „Wetter und Politik.” W Reden zur zeit, nr 49, red. Institut für Demokratieforschung Würzburg, 10-22. Würzburg: Johan Wilhelm Naumann. [Google Scholar]

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.