I very much appreciate this. I think it is worth pointing out that there is a difference between the Platonist understanding of reason and Descartes' understanding. In Platonism, when they talk about reason, it includes things like allegory, metaphor, simile, symbol (for example, the sun), and so forth. This is clear in 'Phaedo' where the arguments of Socrates contain many strategies. Plotinus would refer to many of these strategies collectively as 'comparisons' which in Platonism makes sense due to participation of material objects in higher hypostases. In contrast, Descartes reason is confined to syllogistic and mathematics. One can see this still operating in contemporary analytic philosophy. // Thanks for posting this.
Great stuff! It seems there's no end to the ways of describing how damaging the Cartesian paradigm has been for our civilization. This aspect of elucidating the "flattening" of the transcendent to mere extrinsic/intrinsic dialectic is one I hadn't fully appreciated before. The transcendent *necessarily* becomes vain lip service. What's frightening is how easily this flattened paradigm is imbibed by our intellect so as to make a more well-formed cosmology which includes a robust account of the transcendent all but inconceivable.
@@telosbound Amen - no doubt, our challenge is at the level of worldview. I'll have to look into James Jordan. In harmony with a biblical worldview, I would particularly add a *sacramental* worldview vis-à-vis Theology of the Body. This teaching elevates symbolism to its rightful locus - at the center of the Incarnation and the radical gift of self we find in the sacrament of marriage.
You sound like Dave the Distributist while reading lol (a compliment, I love his writings) To be fair to Descartes, there are some communal ideas in Meditations, so I am not certain of how I feel about him tbh He does seem to understand the issue with self-relation to some extent in book 3 of Meditations: "But if I were independent of every other existence, and] were myself the author of my being, *I should doubt of nothing, I should desire nothing, and, in fine, no perfection would be awanting to me;* for I should have bestowed upon myself every perfection of which I possess the idea, and I should thus be God". And a little later: "All that is here required, therefore, is that I interrogate myself to discover whether I possess any power by means of which I can bring it about that I, who now am, shall exist a moment afterward: for, since I am merely a thinking thing (or since, at least, the precise question, in the meantime, is only of that part of myself ), if such a power resided in me, I should, without doubt, be conscious of it; but I am conscious of no such power, and *thereby I manifestly know that I am dependent upon some being different from myself* ." But he still focuses on the subject heavily, and this has gradually resulted in the void subject of Zizek. Based video.
Wow thank you very much for pulling me ever deeper into our true story !! You made so many important conections new to me ! Espetially pointong the mark of Kain and Lamech making a curse was crucial for me to see more wholy the patern of gradual inversion of receiving identity/name/story from God to creating it by ourselves. Super intersting and dense summary thank you very much ! May God continue to bless your work! And one little remark- it may be only me, but it might be more effective to loosen a bit the tempo of your talking. Maybe just some longer pauses here and there to let the deepest sentences ring out to the listener. SUCH deep and dense ideas as these are naturally better incorporated into us when separated by empty spaces, you know the power of nights between days... Especially for those not yet accustomed in simple richness of the natural language.
Haven’t watched yet but it’s crazy timing for me; I was just today thinking about how Descarte’s forensic and all-encompassing description of reality basically functions like the Tower of Babel and renders reality meaningless. What you experience in the real world is an embodied thing while his world is what happens when you try to describe reality perfectly and absolutely without allowing anything to become embodied. Could possibly apply to Buddhism as well if you want it to
Have you wondered where Dante would have placed Hypatia? In logic I would say Limbo but in faith I say Dis/Heresy, because she has, more than once, directly and voluntarily turned her back on Christ.
Something to consider: Descartes was a zoosadist that tortured animals in the name of science because he thought that they were just a pile of atoms without a mind. To me it seems like many of the western philosophers we praise today were actually horrible people: Aristotle wanted all stupid people to be slaves if they were strong and hated women like the plague and wanted them to suffer for his own sick enjoyment, he was a sadist too. Plato was even worse. Even though he was not as mysogynistic as Aristotle, he wanted all children to be common property and thus removing marriages and fatherhood and motherhood. There is nothing wrong in calling a sadist a person who wants to make your family relationships suffer for his own pleasure (he thought this hell was a good society).
I think I am too stupid to understand this; I am an engineer, not a philosopher/theologian. Are there any resources that make this stuff easier, preferably from a Christian worldview?
I very much appreciate this. I think it is worth pointing out that there is a difference between the Platonist understanding of reason and Descartes' understanding. In Platonism, when they talk about reason, it includes things like allegory, metaphor, simile, symbol (for example, the sun), and so forth. This is clear in 'Phaedo' where the arguments of Socrates contain many strategies. Plotinus would refer to many of these strategies collectively as 'comparisons' which in Platonism makes sense due to participation of material objects in higher hypostases. In contrast, Descartes reason is confined to syllogistic and mathematics. One can see this still operating in contemporary analytic philosophy. // Thanks for posting this.
Great stuff! It seems there's no end to the ways of describing how damaging the Cartesian paradigm has been for our civilization. This aspect of elucidating the "flattening" of the transcendent to mere extrinsic/intrinsic dialectic is one I hadn't fully appreciated before. The transcendent *necessarily* becomes vain lip service. What's frightening is how easily this flattened paradigm is imbibed by our intellect so as to make a more well-formed cosmology which includes a robust account of the transcendent all but inconceivable.
@@telosbound Amen - no doubt, our challenge is at the level of worldview. I'll have to look into James Jordan. In harmony with a biblical worldview, I would particularly add a *sacramental* worldview vis-à-vis Theology of the Body. This teaching elevates symbolism to its rightful locus - at the center of the Incarnation and the radical gift of self we find in the sacrament of marriage.
You sound like Dave the Distributist while reading lol (a compliment, I love his writings)
To be fair to Descartes, there are some communal ideas in Meditations, so I am not certain of how I feel about him tbh
He does seem to understand the issue with self-relation to some extent in book 3 of Meditations:
"But if I were independent of every other existence, and] were myself the author of my being, *I should doubt of nothing, I should desire nothing, and, in fine, no perfection would be awanting to me;* for I should have bestowed upon myself every perfection of which I possess the idea, and I should thus be God".
And a little later:
"All that is here required, therefore, is that I interrogate myself to discover whether I possess any power by means of which I can bring it about that I, who now am, shall exist a moment afterward: for, since I am merely a thinking thing (or since, at least, the precise question, in the meantime, is only of that part of myself ), if such a power resided in me, I should, without doubt, be conscious of it; but I am conscious of no such power, and *thereby I manifestly know that I am dependent upon some being different from myself* ."
But he still focuses on the subject heavily, and this has gradually resulted in the void subject of Zizek.
Based video.
This is now one of my favorite channels :)
I'm amazed how I keep learning more and more new details from Genesis!
Wow thank you very much for pulling me ever deeper into our true story !! You made so many important conections new to me ! Espetially pointong the mark of Kain and Lamech making a curse was crucial for me to see more wholy the patern of gradual inversion of receiving identity/name/story from God to creating it by ourselves. Super intersting and dense summary thank you very much !
May God continue to bless your work!
And one little remark- it may be only me, but it might be more effective to loosen a bit the tempo of your talking. Maybe just some longer pauses here and there to let the deepest sentences ring out to the listener. SUCH deep and dense ideas as these are naturally better incorporated into us when separated by empty spaces, you know the power of nights between days...
Especially for those not yet accustomed in simple richness of the natural language.
Haven’t watched yet but it’s crazy timing for me; I was just today thinking about how Descarte’s forensic and all-encompassing description of reality basically functions like the Tower of Babel and renders reality meaningless. What you experience in the real world is an embodied thing while his world is what happens when you try to describe reality perfectly and absolutely without allowing anything to become embodied. Could possibly apply to Buddhism as well if you want it to
This is why I like Pascal over Descartes. If modern Europe had followed his lead over Descartes', history would be different.
Very insightful!
Have you wondered where Dante would have placed Hypatia?
In logic I would say Limbo but in faith I say Dis/Heresy, because she has, more than once, directly and voluntarily turned her back on Christ.
When I have money I will rejoin, great channel.
@@telosbound You're too kind! I will get paid in only a few days! So no worries, won't be long 😄
Something to consider: Descartes was a zoosadist that tortured animals in the name of science because he thought that they were just a pile of atoms without a mind. To me it seems like many of the western philosophers we praise today were actually horrible people: Aristotle wanted all stupid people to be slaves if they were strong and hated women like the plague and wanted them to suffer for his own sick enjoyment, he was a sadist too. Plato was even worse. Even though he was not as mysogynistic as Aristotle, he wanted all children to be common property and thus removing marriages and fatherhood and motherhood. There is nothing wrong in calling a sadist a person who wants to make your family relationships suffer for his own pleasure (he thought this hell was a good society).
I think I am too stupid to understand this; I am an engineer, not a philosopher/theologian. Are there any resources that make this stuff easier, preferably from a Christian worldview?
Watch Jordan Cooper’s videos about philosophy or Michael Sugrue’s lectures.
is that tower redeemable ?
@@telosbound truly a castle in the sky moment
From Descartes, to Kant, to Derrida--western philosophy has taken a very unfortunate representationalist direction.
But anti-representationlism has been rebutting it...what do you think?
To be fair, platonism is also wrong
We will strongly disagree here
Sure, but still many compatibilities. Same with Aristotle.
Makes me think that God's providence was working through them.
Everything is both wrong, and right, simultaneously.
@@dieselphiendexcept Christ