The links between Stoicism and Christianity certainly speak to a higher truth to be found on our material plain. Consider that in many ways, Socrates considered 'The Great God' to be, essentially, the ultimate expression of wisdom, truth, or knowledge. Perhaps Socrates was correct in his spiritual assessment. It may also then be true that, divine or not, Christ was the human expression of wisdom on Earth, and is deserving of reverence regardless of his potential divinity.
This is a mess. You are mixing this huge topic relation between Christianity as religion with connection to Christianity influenced philosophy (many representatives) in horrible way flatting it so hard to some kind of stoicism. As a very, very brutal generalization its fine but poor intellectually to not say infantile? You can say same thing about many other religions and philosophies not connected to any religion by itself. Wasted 4:08.
Sir, I think you are thinking with too much category. Which certainly sounds smart. In reality I’m not sure that there is a clear boundary between philosophy and religion. Also Stoicism predates Christ, and was popular and well known in some way or another in the area.
@yoseftovshteyn Never said that there is a clear boundary. In my opinion it isn't, but just my opinion. But going back why I wrote this above: punchline from this video is a brutal generalization and IMHO is a great example of faulty generalization. In one word: it's not a very fruitful punchline to say at least.
Logic is a great thing, but it is not the only form of thinking, especially not in philosophy. In this video I am using more Intuition. A great book that solves this conflict is Ian Mcgilchrist’s The Master and his Emissary.
@@yoseftovshteyn Intuition is important too and I'm not neglecting it, but when statement breaks basic logic (that's is just a tool helpful only when used in proper way and for proper aim) one should be aware that is walking on a thin philosophical ice being at risk of hard subjectivism where everyone is right and wrong in the same time. And I know that in some part we are all subjective and we need it in real life but isn't it a philosophy goal to find something more than just subjectiveness?
The links between Stoicism and Christianity certainly speak to a higher truth to be found on our material plain. Consider that in many ways, Socrates considered 'The Great God' to be, essentially, the ultimate expression of wisdom, truth, or knowledge. Perhaps Socrates was correct in his spiritual assessment. It may also then be true that, divine or not, Christ was the human expression of wisdom on Earth, and is deserving of reverence regardless of his potential divinity.
This is a mess. You are mixing this huge topic relation between Christianity as religion with connection to Christianity influenced philosophy (many
representatives) in horrible way flatting it so hard to some kind of stoicism. As a very, very brutal generalization its fine but poor intellectually to not say infantile? You can say same thing about many other religions and philosophies not connected to any religion by itself. Wasted 4:08.
Sir, I think you are thinking with too much category. Which certainly sounds smart. In reality I’m not sure that there is a clear boundary between philosophy and religion. Also Stoicism predates Christ, and was popular and well known in some way or another in the area.
@yoseftovshteyn Never said that there is a clear boundary. In my opinion it isn't, but just my opinion. But going back why I wrote this above: punchline from this video is a brutal generalization and IMHO is a great example of faulty generalization. In one word: it's not a very fruitful punchline to say at least.
Logic is a great thing, but it is not the only form of thinking, especially not in philosophy. In this video I am using more Intuition. A great book that solves this conflict is Ian Mcgilchrist’s The Master and his Emissary.
@@yoseftovshteyn Intuition is important too and I'm not neglecting it, but when statement breaks basic logic (that's is just a tool helpful only when used in proper way and for proper aim) one should be aware that is walking on a thin philosophical ice being at risk of hard subjectivism where everyone is right and wrong in the same time. And I know that in some part we are all subjective and we need it in real life but isn't it a philosophy goal to find something more than just subjectiveness?
I can only again recommend Ian Mcgilchrist’s The Master and his Emissary