So you're going to believe one thing because TIK made a video and now you're going to instantly change your opinion because of another video. Are you not making the same mistake again?
In the course of my studies, professors have emphasized to me that we still don't have much of an idea regarding groups utilizing the gnostic texts. We can hypothesize their basic belief system based on reading their scriptures, but understanding the beliefs and practices would be equivalent to reading the Bible and assuming we could understand the beliefs and practices of Christianity. Christians who are active in practicing their religion and, use the same texts can't agree with one another about what Christians believe or the proper way to practice the religion.
Yes, this is why the utility of the entire category of Gnosticism has been questioned. However I do think, as I mentioned in my video, that there's a common agreement on a core group of Gnostic beliefs, so I think the term has usefulness.
Interesting, I knew Hans Kelsen mostly as a legal scholar were he argued mostly for legal postivism. And he helped to draft the Austrian constitution of 1920 and had to flee Austria because of the Nazis...
Been loving this. As you were describing the secrecy integral to ancient gnosticism (if we accept the term) made me think of how it sounds almost like a Christian equivalent to the Greek Mystery Cults. I wonder if those were a bit of inspiration, or perhaps that this obsession with mystery and secrecy was simply a common fascination at the time for mystics and scholars?
"and i'm absolutely certain hardly anyone is following up on my sources and checking them for validity" -- neither i nor most people have the time to check the claims of every informational content i read or watch. i only check sources IF i am to engage in the topic itself, that is, if I care to "officially" speak about it and to adopt an "official" opinion. otherwise, why bother? i'm a biologist, i have different specialities, i cannot spent my time checking sources about gnosticism. maybe i have listened to bart ehrman's old lectures about them and have a bit of a background, but specifically checking singular sources and reading the scientific literature? i'm already reading other scientific literature in my spare time.
The main problem IMO isn't that people don't always have the time to check everything, its that they form extremely strong opinions on things they haven't verified or looked into. When i only have a passing knowledge of something i do form an opinion, but i always keep in mind that my opinion is not well informed and as such is subject to change
People tend to have a knee-jerk rejection of a mystical interpretation of modernist and post-modernist ideologies, since it sounds too absurd to be true, and the mainstream elites continually insist it isn't. Of course, something sounding outrageous is not proof of it being untrue, and our elites have a vested interest in maintaining the potentially rebellious elements of the population ignorant of the nature of what they're truly up against. If you actually trace back the origins of the movements and ideas that plague our current society, you'll inevitably reach esotericism.
Hi, ive been watching your channel for a few days now and im really quite intrigued by your analysis of history channels. One question thats bugged me was that i've always been weary of Tiks political and economic videos (which set off the 'snake-oil salesman' alarms in my brain). However, i've see plenty of his historical videos, such as his Battlestorm series, and im wondering whether his historical integrity differs in those compared to his political videos which are more opinion pieces. His historical videos always seemed well researched and sourced, although he does offer his opinions in alot of his analysis of engagements in WW2. Im just not quite sure whether i should bank on him purely based on his merit as a historical disseminator of WW2 history such as his Stalingrad and North African Campaign series despite my extremely cautious attitude towards his own personal political takes. Do you have any particular stance on this?
I feel the same way. His history videos seem mostly correct but then he just goes off on these wild ass rants. I guess the only solution here is to take it with a grain of salt and use other sources.
I have little knowledge of modern military history, but from numerous comments I've seen on TIK by people who are knowledgeable and/or qualified in the field, TIK's military history is reasonbly accurate, with a few exceptions, but fairly basic; more descriptive than analytical.
I feel like his insanity just disqualifies him as a source of information. Better to find sources that don't go on delusional ideological illogical rants
As I was listening to this it occured to me getting your political insight/philosophical point of view from a dissatisfied German ........ What could possibly go wrong 😅
Tik is getting even more desperate. His latest video is a weird tour de force of ignorance in which he claims all philosophy is nonsense, based primarily on the fact that he cannot understand it. The arrogance of the man is astounding. If he doesn't understand something, it cannot be coherent. This is the man who thinks materialists reject the notion that there is anything real. He's gone full on right wing projectionist - accusing his critics of doing everything he does himself, and blocking comments that expose his fans to his mistakes. When he constantly talks about the 'leftist cult', you kinda have to start wondering how far his projection goes. Are we witnessing a putsch from within the party? Is he gunning for Lindsay's crown?
I saw his latest and it was almost incoherent. He just drags things together and tries to make them fit however he can, without even understanding them. Again I noticed his mischaracterization of Joachim, and again I noticed his completely unhistorical claim that MATERIALISTS do not believe in MATTER. Now that he is reading Ayn Rand and taking his cue from Objectivist philosophy, I expect his political content will become even more devoid of historical accuracy.
You're maliciously mischarecterizing him. His argument wasn't based on the fact he didn't understand philosophy, it was that idealists purposefully make their texts cryptic and incoherent. He can actually understand it, but that actually goes against the intention of the authors.
@@HeortirtheWoodwarden You misunderstand my point. I'm saying that because he doesn't understand philosophical ideas and is pretty bad at logic, he thinks it's meaningless. He clearly doesn't understand it, because he's adopted the most laughably naive philosophical ideology there is - Randian objectivism, which, boils down to 'anything I agree with is true, and anything I disagree with is false'. Again, to be clear, he doesn't actually think that's what it is, but this is actually how he comes to conclude whether something is true or false. The idea that philosophers deliberately obscure the points they are making is a sophomoric accusation. Yeah - some are very proud of their own eloquence and some are just not very clear - but the idea that this is a deliberate ploy to prevent people from understanding what they say is just an absurd conspiracy theory, and like all conspiracy theory, it's incoherent, and lacks any explanatory power.
There is still much debate on the Gospel of Thomas being designated as a gnostic text, and it's dating. Considering that it is solely a book of sayings with no real narrative it is really a unique text as compared to other gnostic texts, non- conical, or the New Testament.
Yes there's debate about almost every text characterized as Gnostic, and even about the entire category, as I mentioned. But it was found among other Gnostic texts, and whether or not the Gnostic elements are original or were added by a later editor they are still there. So I think it's reasonable to treat it as a Gnostic text, though a composite text.
Sure would be a feat if Gnosticism predated Christianity considering how far most Gnostic ideas deviate from the baseline metaphysical assumptions of the near east.
@@veritasetcaritas Lindsay clearly defines 4 separate and distinct classifications of the word 'gnosis' and how it is used interchangeably to purposefully obfuscate by sophists. Assuming Tik is using these as a foundation for his argument; these definitions may help clear this confusion by understanding the framework they are being referenced in. gnosis (1): as the theological definition; is a knowledge of hidden or revealed nature. gnostic(2): as an identifier; for the belief that life is a sentence you were born into and did not ask for, thus seeing the world as a prison or unjust reality. Gnostic(3 big G, proper noun): as the specific Judeo-Christian heretical movements of the area between 600bc~1200ad. and finally Gnosticism (4 proper noun) as the Post Modern dialectic; used as information control, by in which questioning the validity of all sources nothing can truly be known unless gifted down through scripture and divine right aka reason and virtue (see the French Revolution) of a higher institution aka woke marxist communism(see also Maoist China). or maybe this is just a hit piece against some youtuber for clout idfk
[Framing the problem + path to victory]: Both sides in the Religion vs Science debates use the Materialism/Empiricism version of logic, math and physics which say 1D, 2D, 3D and 4D are "locally real" and 0D is "not locally real". Unfortunately for Materialism/Empiricism, quantum physics proved the observable universe is actually "not locally real" a year ago (Oct 2022 was the earliest article i could find). The immediate lead-up to this was the Nobel Prize proving quantum entanglement. Well over 300 years ago Leibniz vs Newton competed for the title of "Universal Genius". We chose Newton, obviously, but an interesting point is that nobody ever proved Materialism/Empiricism... we simply thought it "ought" to be true. The only proof that happened was a year ago when quantum physics flat-out disproved Materialism/Empiricism: The observable universe is "not locally real" and that proves we chose the wrong guy, full stop 🛑. Zero vs nonzero numbers are what we assign "locally real" and "not locally real" to. If zero is one thing then nonzero is the other. This is due to zero being not-natural whereas nonzero numbers are natural. The "absolute" version of the observable universe proposed by Newton simply does not exist and it never has (was never proven anyhow, just disproven). Leibniz said 0D is necessary and more real; having no predecessor and 1D, 2D, 3D, 4D are contingent and less real; all having an immediate predecessor. Necessary and more real = locally real Contingent and less real = not locally real Leibniz was correct and that means we're all taught contradictory logic, math and physics. [What is the difference between Newton and Leibniz calculus]? Newton's calculus is about functions. Leibniz's calculus is about relations defined by constraints. In Newton's calculus, there is (what would now be called) a limit built into every operation. In Leibniz's calculus, the limit is a separate operation. Study zero (not-natural) vs nonzero (natural) numbers since the difference between 0 (zero) and 1 (nonzero) changed a year ago. Then: 0 = not locally real 1 = locally real Now: 0 = locally real 1 = not locally real It's about time the same tired Religion vs Science arguments we've heard for over 300 years can be updated (on both sides). Holy guacamole its gotten so boring 💤.
Contradictory: *impossible to be true.* Non-contradictory: *possible to be true.* ❌️Contradictory Theology, Mathematics and Physics (knowing good; functions; limit built into every operation)❌️: 1. The Gen 1 character and the Gen 2 character are the exact same character (knowing good). 2. Zero is not fundamental and nonzero numbers are fundamental (Newton/Einstein calculus). 3. 0D is not locally real and 1D, 2D, 3D, 4D are locally real (Newton/Einstein physics). ⬆️ this is what we're all taught. Materialist/Empiricist version of reality.⬆️ ✅️Non-contradictory Theology, Mathematics and Physics (knowing good from evil; relations defined by constraints; limit is a separate operation)✅️: 1. The Gen 1 character and the Gen 2 character are polar opposite characters (knowing good from evil). 2. Zero is fundamental and nonzero numbers are not fundamental (Leibniz calculus). 3. 0D is locally real and 1D, 2D, 3D, 4D are not locally real (Leibniz physics). ⬆️ this is what quantum physics proved a year ago and if Theology doesn't match Math and Physics then you're doing it wrong. Realist version of reality.⬆️ [🦄Materialism/Empiricism💩 version of Religion]: Interpreting the Bible with the Genesis 1 character and the Genesis 2 character as the exact same character generates near 70,000 contradictions (see reason project) and requires heavy apologetics. A Bible interpretation which includes near 70,000 contradictions (impossible to be true) is what a snake-oil salesman would sell you. 🐍 [🦤Materialism/Empiricism💩 version of Science]: The standard model of physics is Einstein's 3+1 space-time, which are considered locally real, where 0 is considered not locally real...been that way since Newton for zero vs nonzero numbers. Problem is...quantum physics proved the observable universe (1D, 2D, 3D and 4D) is actually not locally real...and that was over a year ago. (Yes, Leibniz was correct after all.) 🦧 [Layman's terminology of locally real vs not locally real]: locally real = more real (Leibniz said "necessary") not locally real = less real (Leibniz said "contingent") [Closing arguments]: The Materialism/Empiricism package contains within itself all the contradictions, false dichotomies, paradoxes and literally "life's biggest questions". It's been a year why is everyone still using Logic, Calculus and Geometry that is contradictory at the most fundamental level? Legitimate question 🙋. If both Religion and Science removed their "Materialist/Empiricist-perspective shades 👓" (contradictory for a year) and put on their "Realist-perspective shades 👓" (non-contradictory for a year) they would not only cease to argue...they'd agree with each other (world first 🪙).
[Infinity and zero, theology, soul]: in·fin·i·ty MATHEMATICS a number greater than any assignable quantity or countable number (symbol ∞). (In counting numbers 0 is the subject where positive integers "1, 2, 3 and 4 etc" are the objects). What is the meaning of zero in Webster's dictionary? a. : the arithmetical symbol 0 or 0̸ denoting the absence of all magnitude or quantity. b. : additive identity. specifically : the number between the set of all negative numbers and the set of all positive numbers. Zero is the most important number in mathematics and is both a real and an imaginary number with a horizon through it. Zero-dimensional space is the greatest dimension in physics and is both a real and an imaginary dimension with an event horizon through it. Isn't⚡God⚡supposed to be outside of space (1D, 2D, 3D) and time (4D)? Well, 0D is outside of space and time: 0D (not-natural) = dimensionless and timeless 1D, 2D, 3D (natural) = spatial dimensions 4D (natural) = temporal dimension Read Leibniz's Monadology 📖 and consider that the Monad is the zero-dimensional space binding our quarks together with the strong force (it is). The other side of the Monad is Monos (Alone) and this side is Monas (Singularity) and there's an event horizon between them. So El/Elohim or Theos/Logos etc pick your language. Quarks are dimensionless (no size) and timeless (not-natural). The two main quark spin configs two-down, one-up (subatomic to neutron) and two-up, one-down (subatomic to proton) could easily be construed as the male (upward facing trinity) and female (downward facing trinity) image that Elohim made us in during Genesis 1. Quarks (no spatial extension) experience all 3 fundamental forces plus have a fractional electric charge⚡and that's why protons and neutrons (spatial extension) have electrons orbiting around them. In Geometry any new dimension has to contain within it all previous dimensions. This holds true with it being impossible for atomic protons and neutrons (spatial extension) to exist without subatomically containing within themselves quarks (no spatial extension). "Something (spatial extension) from Nothing (no spatial extension)". A) The postulated soul, 👻, has 1. no spatial extension 2. zero size 3. exact location only B) Quarks are mass with no size measured in Megaelectron Volts. Mass with no size is a unique equation in that it has no spatial extension. Conclusion: A and B are the same thing.
[Important point 👉 (dont forget)]: 0D (zero) is different from 1D-10D (nonzero) because 0D is a not-natural dimension whereas 1D-10D are natural dimensions. 0D monad (Creator event horizon) 1D, 2D, 3D are spatial (space) dimensions 1D line 2D width 3D height 4D, 5D, 6D are temporal (time) dimensions 4D length 5D breadth 6D depth 7D, 8D, 9D are spectral (energy) dimensions 7D continuous 8D emission 9D absorption 10D black hole (Destroyer event horizon) It is impossible for anything 1D-9D to approach 0D or 10D due to their event horizons. 10D contains a placeholder 0 (not locally real) for its event horizon. Only 0D is locally real on this side. The other side of the event horizon at the zero-of yourself (near horizon) is God. The other side of the event horizon of a black hole (far horizon) is not God. Anything we know about black holes (Destroyer) we know the opposite of that is true for monads (Creator), and we know some crazy sci-fi stuff about black holes. It's a mirror universe with 0D at the center. This side (Elohim; Singularity) is contingent and less real (the natural dimensions anyway) and the other side (El; Alone) is necessary and more real (pretty sure the entirety of the other side remains locally real). The zero-of ourselves (more real 👻) was made by the Holy Trinity (Deity; possessive; God's) in Genesis 1 which should not be confused with the Unholy Trinity (Deity; plural; gods) in Genesis 2-3 who messes with the 1D, 2D, 3D parts of us (less real 🤷♂️). Elohim was "syncretized" to just mean El during the Babylonian captivity. To avoid this simply use the Latin, "unsyncretized", counterpart Deity for possessive (God's) and plural (gods) context. (Septuagint and Vulgate use Post-Babylonian captivity "syncretized" meaning of Elohim so mistranslate as Theos and Deus, respectively). Gen 2-3 introduces the placeholder Elohim (not locally real) and their blind, foolish chief running amok. Plurality of bad guy that 'are' each other and 'are not' God. Nephilim are sons of the false Elohim associated with Yahweh (the BAAL, or LORD, of the gods).
[Monad in philosophy/cosmogony]: Monad (from Greek μονάς monas, "singularity" in turn from μόνος monos, "alone") refers, in cosmogony, to the Supreme Being, divinity or the sum "I am" of all things. The concept was reportedly conceived by the Pythagoreans and may refer variously to a single source acting alone, or to an indivisible origin, or to both. The concept was later adopted by other philosophers, such as Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, who referred to the Monad as an *elementary particle.* It had a *geometric counterpart,* which was debated and discussed contemporaneously by the same groups of people. [In this speculative scenario, let's consider Leibniz's *Monad,* from the philosophical work "The Monadology", as an abstract representation of *the zero-dimensional space that binds quarks together* using the strong nuclear force]: 1) Indivisibility and Unity: Monads, as indivisible entities, mirror the nature of quarks, which are deemed elementary and indivisible particles in our theoretical context. Just as monads possess unity and indivisibility, quarks are unified in their interactions through the strong force. 2) Interconnectedness: Leibniz's monads are interconnected, each reflecting the entire universe from its own perspective. In a parallel manner, the interconnectedness of quarks through the strong force could be metaphorically represented by the interplay of monads, forming a web that holds particles together. 3) Inherent Properties: Just as monads possess inherent perceptions and appetitions, quarks could be thought of as having intrinsic properties like color charge, reflecting the inherent qualities of monads and influencing their interactions. 4) Harmony: The concept of monads contributing to universal harmony resonates with the idea that the strong nuclear force maintains harmony within atomic nuclei by counteracting the electromagnetic repulsion between protons, allowing for the stability of matter. 5) Pre-established Harmony: Monads' pre-established harmony aligns with the idea that the strong force was pre-designed to ensure stable interactions among quarks, orchestrating their behavior in a way that parallels the harmony envisaged by Leibniz. 6) Non-Mechanical Interaction: Monads interact non-mechanically, mirroring the non-mechanical interactions of quarks through gluon exchange. This connection might be seen as a metaphorical reflection of the intricacies of quark-gluon dynamics. 7) Holism: The holistic perspective of monads could symbolize how quarks, like the monads' interconnections, contribute holistically to the structure and behavior of particles through the strong force interactions. [Monad in mathematics, science and technology]: Monad (biology), a historical term for a simple unicellular organism Monad (category theory), a construction in category theory Monad (functional programming), functional programming constructs that capture various notions of computation Monad (homological algebra), a 3-term complex Monad (nonstandard analysis), the set of points infinitesimally close to a given point
"Some first follow the true Savior but then turn away to worship a dead man." - the revelation of Peter THE WORLD RULER TRIES TO KILL ME And then a voice of the world ruler came to the angels: “I am god and there is no other god but me.” But I laughed joyfully when I examined his conceit. But he went on to say, “Who is the human?” And the entire host of his angels who had seen Adam and his dwelling were laughing at his smallness. And thus did their thought come to be removed outside the majesty of the heavens, away from the human of truth, whose name they saw, since he is in a small dwelling place. They are foolish and senseless in their empty thought, namely, their laughter, and it was contagion for them. The whole greatness of the fatherhood of the spirit was at rest in its places. And I was with him, since I have a thought of a single emanation from the eternal ones and the unknowable ones, undefiled and immeasurable. I placed the small thought in the world, having disturbed them and frightened the whole multitude of the angels and their ruler. And I was visiting them all with fire and flame because of my thought. And everything pertaining to them was brought about because of me. And there came about a disturbance and a fight around the seraphim and cherubim, since their glory will fade, and there was confusion around Adonaios on both sides and around their dwelling, up to the world ruler and the one who said, “Let us seize him.” Others again said, “The plan will certainly not materialize.” For Adonaios knows me because of hope. And I was in the mouths of lions. And as for the plan that they devised about me to release their error and their senselessness, I did not succumb to them as they had planned. And I was not afflicted at all. Those who were there punished me, yet I did not die in reality but in appearance, in order that I not be put to shame by them because these are my kinsfolk. I removed the shame from me, and I did not become fainthearted in the face of what happened to me at their hands. I was about to succumb to fear, and I suffered merely according to their sight and thought so that no word might ever be found to speak about them. For my death, which they think happened, happened to them in their error and blindness, since they nailed their man unto their death. Their thoughts did not see me, for they were deaf and blind. But in doing these things, they condemn themselves. Yes, they saw me; they punished me. It was another, their father, who drank the gall and the vinegar; it was not I. They struck me with the reed; it was another, Simon, who bore the cross on his shoulder. It was another upon whom they placed the crown of thorns. But I was rejoicing in the height over all the wealth of the rulers and the offspring of their error, of their empty glory. And I was laughing at their ignorance.
@@veritasetcaritas I'm saying I don't have to watch the video. The content doesn't matter, since the bias you embrace already fully determines what you have to believe about the subject.
@@junfour then you are wrong. In this video I do not present my own personal opinion. I cite non-leftist historians and academics. This video contains no personal bias from me. All of my statements are based on qjuotations from academics, who I quote . That's what matters. So you are arguing against not me, but mainstream academics. I am guessing you have your own beliefs about this subject and you don't want them challed by facs which could make you unformfortable.
About half way through ........ So basically TiK believes there is some "Buddhism-Christianity" out there , interesting you could make a good religion out of a combination of those two
When I went through college almost 15 years ago this was absolutely a common thought, tracing the influences on so many bits and pieces of varying christian philosophies throughout history.
37:46 so you at least agree with JL on this point, that Gnosticism is similar to a mystery cult aimed at personal enlightenment. This is the main thrust of JL's point. This is why he says that Gnosticism is pre-Christian, he is claiming a continuity between the Ancient mystery cults, late antique Gnosticism, Medieval mysticism and modern dialectical philosophy. JL is just calling it Gnosticism as a shorthand in order to stress the theme of a mystery cult of secret knowledge which leads to a salvific enlightenment. He actually says this in his lectures.
JL doesn't define Gnosticism as vaguely as that. If the definition of Gnosticism is "similar to a mystery cult aimed at personal enlightenment", that would include most self-help books from the 80s, along with Buddhism, Hinduism, and a host of other unrelated reigitons and spiritual beliefs. He defines it thus. "The essence of Gnosticism can be expressed in three beliefs. These are (1) that it is not you or your theories that are wrong, but the world itself; (2) that we have been flung into this miserable and intolerable condition against our wants; but (3) are able to attain a consciousness, a knowledge-a Gnosis-that will allow us to repair the world and ourselves." newdiscourses.com/2021/08/calamity-scientific-gnosticism/ This is not only unhistorical, but highly vague. It contains nothing which is essentialy Gnostic, and borrows heavily from Voegelin's false understanding of Gnosticism. The idea of a "continuity between the Ancient mystery cults, late antique Gnosticism, Medieval mysticism and modern dialectical philosophy" was debunked decades ago and is not taken seriously in Gnostic scholarship. This video demonstrates why.
@veritasetcaritas A. what I wrote was not a definition of Gnosticism, but a characterization of a what is a perennial tendency in Western civilization toward mysticism. He refers to this as "small g' gnosticism", specifically to denote a general tendency of which the Gnostic cults are the er example. B. It seems a bit dishonest to claim that JL does not understand Gnosticism and bring a bunch of scholars who make this same point only to turn around and say that Gnosticism is not a very good category at in the first place. Gnosticism may not be a good way to categorize every piece of writing we recognize as "Gnostic" in an academic context. However, JL is not a historian (though TIK does claim to be one), he is not trying to categorize every piece found in Nag Hamadi. He is trying to contextualize "Wokism" as 1. The current iteration of a perennial Western drive toward mystical personal enlightenment. 2. A direct descendant of Hegelian dialectical philosophy, which draws on a tradition of Western Mysticism. 3. A particular branch of these which abhors Form (in the platonic sense) and views it as a prison. This he ties to Gnosticism, specifically the early Gnostic heresies that saw the OT God as an evil demeurge. He then uses gnosticism to refer to these modern movements because certain 1st century Gnostic movements shared enough of these traits (aside form the Hegel thing) with modern movements JL is criticizing.
@@Simon_Alexnder A. You can't have it both ways. If it's just some vague "perennial tendency in Western civilization toward mysticism", then call it that. But it's obvious calling it "gnosticism" is specifically intended to associate with the religious movement of historical Gnosticism, which is why Lindsay uses the word, and why he makes up his own definition of Gnosticism (large G), which is also false. B. It is not dishonest to say JL does not understand Gnosticism, since as I demonstrated his definition is completely astray from historical fact and is contradicted by mainstream scholarship. I didn't cite any scholars who supported his definition. Nor did I say Gnosticism isn't a very goodd cateogry in the first place. I said very clearly that despite difficulties and even despair over a precise definition, there's a general agreement on a cluster of characteristics. I even described them. I completely understand that JL's real target is what he thinks of as "wokism". He's just another average conservative culture warrior. But what he's trying to do in this case is misuse history to make himself seem more authoritative and make his argument seem stronger, and make "wokism" seem scarier by associating it with things people don't understand, don't like, or are afraid of. His definition of "wokism" is just nonsense, he's maiking it up as he goes along. There is nothing about "wokism", which is really just "progressive social valules", which has these features. In particular his claim that it is "A direct descendant of Hegelian dialectical philosophy, which draws on a tradition of Western Mysticism" is utter nonsense. He never presents any evidence for any of this, it's all just assertion, fabrication, and gesturing at Voegelin. Do you know why he confines himself to ranting on RUclips and speaking at venues friendly to him, instead of writing academic papers and submitting them to peer reviewed scholarly journals on Hegelian thought and Gnosticism? It's because he knows actual scholars in these fields would laugh at him. Here's how an actual scholar of Hegel demonstrates Lindsay is hopelessly wrong in his understanding of Hegel. It's 23 pages long, and very detailed. This is what Lindsay should be reading and addressing. typeset.io/pdf/the-gnostic-accusation-31bt4mdi.pdf
@veritasetcaritas B. What would evidence of a connection between wokism and and Hegel look like, to you? What kind of evidence would I need to present in order for you to assent?
@@Simon_Alexnder At least, this. 1. A correct understanding of Hegel's thought. 2. An objective defiition of what you mean by "wokism". 3. A scocio-historical analysis explaining, with evidence, how the two are connected. 4. Peer review by Hegel scholars. He should also explain why Hegel was neither a leftist nor "woke". James Lindsay doesn't do any of this, because he doesn't want his views examined by actual scholars. He's pandering to an audience scared of "wokism", which doesn't understand Hegel any more than Lindsay himself does. He's just aniother random culture warrior isn't really interested in doing proper history.
No. An ad hominem attack takes the form "Argument X is wrong because the moral character of the person making argument X is bad". This video makes absolutely no comment on TIK's moral character. It presents clear evidence from primary, secondary, and tertiary sources that TIK's claims about the history of this subject are wrong. If you think my statements in this video are inaccurate, you need to present your evidence.
Man this is depressing. I wonder how much misinformation I've been propagating without even realizing
The worst of it is the sheer amount of time required to do the necessary research to demonstrate his errors.
So you're going to believe one thing because TIK made a video and now you're going to instantly change your opinion because of another video. Are you not making the same mistake again?
Tik trying to make og conspiracy theories
He's deluded.
In the course of my studies, professors have emphasized to me that we still don't have much of an idea regarding groups utilizing the gnostic texts. We can hypothesize their basic belief system based on reading their scriptures, but understanding the beliefs and practices would be equivalent to reading the Bible and assuming we could understand the beliefs and practices of Christianity. Christians who are active in practicing their religion and, use the same texts can't agree with one another about what Christians believe or the proper way to practice the religion.
Yes, this is why the utility of the entire category of Gnosticism has been questioned. However I do think, as I mentioned in my video, that there's a common agreement on a core group of Gnostic beliefs, so I think the term has usefulness.
Interesting, I knew Hans Kelsen mostly as a legal scholar were he argued mostly for legal postivism. And he helped to draft the Austrian constitution of 1920 and had to flee Austria because of the Nazis...
Been loving this. As you were describing the secrecy integral to ancient gnosticism (if we accept the term) made me think of how it sounds almost like a Christian equivalent to the Greek Mystery Cults. I wonder if those were a bit of inspiration, or perhaps that this obsession with mystery and secrecy was simply a common fascination at the time for mystics and scholars?
Yes it's very much a syncretism of early Christianity and the pagan Greek and Roman mystery cults, which were popular religious movements at the time.
This is a great series, thank you.
Thank you!
"and i'm absolutely certain hardly anyone is following up on my sources and checking them for validity" -- neither i nor most people have the time to check the claims of every informational content i read or watch. i only check sources IF i am to engage in the topic itself, that is, if I care to "officially" speak about it and to adopt an "official" opinion. otherwise, why bother? i'm a biologist, i have different specialities, i cannot spent my time checking sources about gnosticism. maybe i have listened to bart ehrman's old lectures about them and have a bit of a background, but specifically checking singular sources and reading the scientific literature? i'm already reading other scientific literature in my spare time.
The main problem IMO isn't that people don't always have the time to check everything, its that they form extremely strong opinions on things they haven't verified or looked into. When i only have a passing knowledge of something i do form an opinion, but i always keep in mind that my opinion is not well informed and as such is subject to change
James Lindsay really has turned TIK's brain into soup.
That and the libertarian and Objectivist nonsense he's also reading.
He really should stick to tanks, or at least stay away from theology.
He really should stick to tanks, or at least stay away from theology.
@@alanpennie he should stay well away from ideology, politics, and economics.
People tend to have a knee-jerk rejection of a mystical interpretation of modernist and post-modernist ideologies, since it sounds too absurd to be true, and the mainstream elites continually insist it isn't. Of course, something sounding outrageous is not proof of it being untrue, and our elites have a vested interest in maintaining the potentially rebellious elements of the population ignorant of the nature of what they're truly up against. If you actually trace back the origins of the movements and ideas that plague our current society, you'll inevitably reach esotericism.
Apart from debunking tik, this series is also just fascinating to learn more about gnosticism, i honestly never heard of it before this series.
Elaine Pagels is good, if you want to read more about it.
Hi, ive been watching your channel for a few days now and im really quite intrigued by your analysis of history channels. One question thats bugged me was that i've always been weary of Tiks political and economic videos (which set off the 'snake-oil salesman' alarms in my brain). However, i've see plenty of his historical videos, such as his Battlestorm series, and im wondering whether his historical integrity differs in those compared to his political videos which are more opinion pieces. His historical videos always seemed well researched and sourced, although he does offer his opinions in alot of his analysis of engagements in WW2. Im just not quite sure whether i should bank on him purely based on his merit as a historical disseminator of WW2 history such as his Stalingrad and North African Campaign series despite my extremely cautious attitude towards his own personal political takes. Do you have any particular stance on this?
I feel the same way. His history videos seem mostly correct but then he just goes off on these wild ass rants. I guess the only solution here is to take it with a grain of salt and use other sources.
I have little knowledge of modern military history, but from numerous comments I've seen on TIK by people who are knowledgeable and/or qualified in the field, TIK's military history is reasonbly accurate, with a few exceptions, but fairly basic; more descriptive than analytical.
I feel like his insanity just disqualifies him as a source of information. Better to find sources that don't go on delusional ideological illogical rants
As I was listening to this it occured to me getting your political insight/philosophical point of view from a dissatisfied German ........ What could possibly go wrong 😅
Tik is getting even more desperate. His latest video is a weird tour de force of ignorance in which he claims all philosophy is nonsense, based primarily on the fact that he cannot understand it. The arrogance of the man is astounding. If he doesn't understand something, it cannot be coherent.
This is the man who thinks materialists reject the notion that there is anything real.
He's gone full on right wing projectionist - accusing his critics of doing everything he does himself, and blocking comments that expose his fans to his mistakes.
When he constantly talks about the 'leftist cult', you kinda have to start wondering how far his projection goes. Are we witnessing a putsch from within the party? Is he gunning for Lindsay's crown?
I saw his latest and it was almost incoherent. He just drags things together and tries to make them fit however he can, without even understanding them. Again I noticed his mischaracterization of Joachim, and again I noticed his completely unhistorical claim that MATERIALISTS do not believe in MATTER. Now that he is reading Ayn Rand and taking his cue from Objectivist philosophy, I expect his political content will become even more devoid of historical accuracy.
@@veritasetcaritas
I know it seems petty, but his hilariously bad pronunciation of 'Thales' sums up his amateur approach to all this.
@@bengreen171 I did notice that.
You're maliciously mischarecterizing him. His argument wasn't based on the fact he didn't understand philosophy, it was that idealists purposefully make their texts cryptic and incoherent. He can actually understand it, but that actually goes against the intention of the authors.
@@HeortirtheWoodwarden
You misunderstand my point. I'm saying that because he doesn't understand philosophical ideas and is pretty bad at logic, he thinks it's meaningless.
He clearly doesn't understand it, because he's adopted the most laughably naive philosophical ideology there is - Randian objectivism, which, boils down to 'anything I agree with is true, and anything I disagree with is false'. Again, to be clear, he doesn't actually think that's what it is, but this is actually how he comes to conclude whether something is true or false.
The idea that philosophers deliberately obscure the points they are making is a sophomoric accusation. Yeah - some are very proud of their own eloquence and some are just not very clear - but the idea that this is a deliberate ploy to prevent people from understanding what they say is just an absurd conspiracy theory, and like all conspiracy theory, it's incoherent, and lacks any explanatory power.
There is still much debate on the Gospel of Thomas being designated as a gnostic text, and it's dating. Considering that it is solely a book of sayings with no real narrative it is really a unique text as compared to other gnostic texts, non- conical, or the New Testament.
Yes there's debate about almost every text characterized as Gnostic, and even about the entire category, as I mentioned. But it was found among other Gnostic texts, and whether or not the Gnostic elements are original or were added by a later editor they are still there. So I think it's reasonable to treat it as a Gnostic text, though a composite text.
Well I've learnt Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite is right out as a child's name ........ Bitterly disappointed
You could shorten it to Dion, which is a cool name.
Thanks for this video im glad someone is pushing back on James Lindsay although I know this video isn't about him.
Thank you! James Lindsay is a culture warrior who is just regurgitating bad history for his own agenda.
13:44 that's Christianity four you!
Sure would be a feat if Gnosticism predated Christianity considering how far most Gnostic ideas deviate from the baseline metaphysical assumptions of the near east.
5:50 mauby they where Gnostic.
It who's the 80s
Paint It Black!
Big fan!
Thank you!
At this point, isn't "Gnosticism" just an umbrella term ?
As used by TIK, it's a very large umbrella term. As used by scholars, it's a lot more specific.
@@veritasetcaritas Lindsay clearly defines 4 separate and distinct classifications of the word 'gnosis' and how it is used interchangeably to purposefully obfuscate by sophists. Assuming Tik is using these as a foundation for his argument; these definitions may help clear this confusion by understanding the framework they are being referenced in. gnosis (1): as the theological definition; is a knowledge of hidden or revealed nature. gnostic(2): as an identifier; for the belief that life is a sentence you were born into and did not ask for, thus seeing the world as a prison or unjust reality. Gnostic(3 big G, proper noun): as the specific Judeo-Christian heretical movements of the area between 600bc~1200ad. and finally Gnosticism (4 proper noun) as the Post Modern dialectic; used as information control, by in which questioning the validity of all sources nothing can truly be known unless gifted down through scripture and divine right aka reason and virtue (see the French Revolution) of a higher institution aka woke marxist communism(see also Maoist China).
or maybe this is just a hit piece against some youtuber for clout idfk
So Gnostic acted like Druze
[Framing the problem + path to victory]:
Both sides in the Religion vs Science debates use the Materialism/Empiricism version of logic, math and physics which say 1D, 2D, 3D and 4D are "locally real" and 0D is "not locally real".
Unfortunately for Materialism/Empiricism, quantum physics proved the observable universe is actually "not locally real" a year ago (Oct 2022 was the earliest article i could find). The immediate lead-up to this was the Nobel Prize proving quantum entanglement.
Well over 300 years ago Leibniz vs Newton competed for the title of "Universal Genius". We chose Newton, obviously, but an interesting point is that nobody ever proved Materialism/Empiricism... we simply thought it "ought" to be true.
The only proof that happened was a year ago when quantum physics flat-out disproved Materialism/Empiricism:
The observable universe is "not locally real" and that proves we chose the wrong guy, full stop 🛑.
Zero vs nonzero numbers are what we assign "locally real" and "not locally real" to. If zero is one thing then nonzero is the other. This is due to zero being not-natural whereas nonzero numbers are natural.
The "absolute" version of the observable universe proposed by Newton simply does not exist and it never has (was never proven anyhow, just disproven).
Leibniz said 0D is necessary and more real; having no predecessor and 1D, 2D, 3D, 4D are contingent and less real; all having an immediate predecessor.
Necessary and more real = locally real
Contingent and less real = not locally real
Leibniz was correct and that means we're all taught contradictory logic, math and physics.
[What is the difference between Newton and Leibniz calculus]?
Newton's calculus is about functions.
Leibniz's calculus is about relations defined by constraints.
In Newton's calculus, there is (what would now be called) a limit built into every operation.
In Leibniz's calculus, the limit is a separate operation.
Study zero (not-natural) vs nonzero (natural) numbers since the difference between 0 (zero) and 1 (nonzero) changed a year ago.
Then:
0 = not locally real
1 = locally real
Now:
0 = locally real
1 = not locally real
It's about time the same tired Religion vs Science arguments we've heard for over 300 years can be updated (on both sides).
Holy guacamole its gotten so boring 💤.
Contradictory: *impossible to be true.*
Non-contradictory: *possible to be true.*
❌️Contradictory Theology, Mathematics and Physics (knowing good; functions; limit built into every operation)❌️:
1. The Gen 1 character and the Gen 2 character are the exact same character (knowing good).
2. Zero is not fundamental and nonzero numbers are fundamental (Newton/Einstein calculus).
3. 0D is not locally real and 1D, 2D, 3D, 4D are locally real (Newton/Einstein physics).
⬆️ this is what we're all taught. Materialist/Empiricist version of reality.⬆️
✅️Non-contradictory Theology, Mathematics and Physics (knowing good from evil; relations defined by constraints; limit is a separate operation)✅️:
1. The Gen 1 character and the Gen 2 character are polar opposite characters (knowing good from evil).
2. Zero is fundamental and nonzero numbers are not fundamental (Leibniz calculus).
3. 0D is locally real and 1D, 2D, 3D, 4D are not locally real (Leibniz physics).
⬆️ this is what quantum physics proved a year ago and if Theology doesn't match Math and Physics then you're doing it wrong. Realist version of reality.⬆️
[🦄Materialism/Empiricism💩 version of Religion]:
Interpreting the Bible with the Genesis 1 character and the Genesis 2 character as the exact same character generates near 70,000 contradictions (see reason project) and requires heavy apologetics. A Bible interpretation which includes near 70,000 contradictions (impossible to be true) is what a snake-oil salesman would sell you. 🐍
[🦤Materialism/Empiricism💩 version of Science]:
The standard model of physics is Einstein's 3+1 space-time, which are considered locally real, where 0 is considered not locally real...been that way since Newton for zero vs nonzero numbers.
Problem is...quantum physics proved the observable universe (1D, 2D, 3D and 4D) is actually not locally real...and that was over a year ago.
(Yes, Leibniz was correct after all.) 🦧
[Layman's terminology of locally real vs not locally real]:
locally real = more real (Leibniz said "necessary")
not locally real = less real (Leibniz said "contingent")
[Closing arguments]:
The Materialism/Empiricism package contains within itself all the contradictions, false dichotomies, paradoxes and literally "life's biggest questions". It's been a year why is everyone still using Logic, Calculus and Geometry that is contradictory at the most fundamental level? Legitimate question 🙋.
If both Religion and Science removed their "Materialist/Empiricist-perspective shades 👓" (contradictory for a year) and put on their "Realist-perspective shades 👓" (non-contradictory for a year) they would not only cease to argue...they'd agree with each other (world first 🪙).
[Infinity and zero, theology, soul]:
in·fin·i·ty
MATHEMATICS
a number greater than any assignable quantity or countable number (symbol ∞).
(In counting numbers 0 is the subject where positive integers "1, 2, 3 and 4 etc" are the objects).
What is the meaning of zero in Webster's dictionary?
a. : the arithmetical symbol 0 or 0̸ denoting the absence of all magnitude or quantity.
b. : additive identity. specifically : the number between the set of all negative numbers and the set of all positive numbers.
Zero is the most important number in mathematics and is both a real and an imaginary number with a horizon through it.
Zero-dimensional space is the greatest dimension in physics and is both a real and an imaginary dimension with an event horizon through it.
Isn't⚡God⚡supposed to be outside of space (1D, 2D, 3D) and time (4D)?
Well, 0D is outside of space and time:
0D (not-natural) = dimensionless and timeless
1D, 2D, 3D (natural) = spatial dimensions
4D (natural) = temporal dimension
Read Leibniz's Monadology 📖 and consider that the Monad is the zero-dimensional space binding our quarks together with the strong force (it is). The other side of the Monad is Monos (Alone) and this side is Monas (Singularity) and there's an event horizon between them. So El/Elohim or Theos/Logos etc pick your language.
Quarks are dimensionless (no size) and timeless (not-natural). The two main quark spin configs two-down, one-up (subatomic to neutron) and two-up, one-down (subatomic to proton) could easily be construed as the male (upward facing trinity) and female (downward facing trinity) image that Elohim made us in during Genesis 1.
Quarks (no spatial extension) experience all 3 fundamental forces plus have a fractional electric charge⚡and that's why protons and neutrons (spatial extension) have electrons orbiting around them.
In Geometry any new dimension has to contain within it all previous dimensions. This holds true with it being impossible for atomic protons and neutrons (spatial extension) to exist without subatomically containing within themselves quarks (no spatial extension).
"Something (spatial extension) from Nothing (no spatial extension)".
A) The postulated soul, 👻, has
1. no spatial extension
2. zero size
3. exact location only
B) Quarks are mass with no size measured in Megaelectron Volts. Mass with no size is a unique equation in that it has no spatial extension.
Conclusion: A and B are the same thing.
[Important point 👉 (dont forget)]:
0D (zero) is different from 1D-10D (nonzero) because 0D is a not-natural dimension whereas 1D-10D are natural dimensions.
0D monad (Creator event horizon)
1D, 2D, 3D are spatial (space) dimensions
1D line
2D width
3D height
4D, 5D, 6D are temporal (time) dimensions
4D length
5D breadth
6D depth
7D, 8D, 9D are spectral (energy) dimensions
7D continuous
8D emission
9D absorption
10D black hole (Destroyer event horizon)
It is impossible for anything 1D-9D to approach 0D or 10D due to their event horizons. 10D contains a placeholder 0 (not locally real) for its event horizon. Only 0D is locally real on this side.
The other side of the event horizon at the zero-of yourself (near horizon) is God.
The other side of the event horizon of a black hole (far horizon) is not God.
Anything we know about black holes (Destroyer) we know the opposite of that is true for monads (Creator), and we know some crazy sci-fi stuff about black holes.
It's a mirror universe with 0D at the center. This side (Elohim; Singularity) is contingent and less real (the natural dimensions anyway) and the other side (El; Alone) is necessary and more real (pretty sure the entirety of the other side remains locally real).
The zero-of ourselves (more real 👻) was made by the Holy Trinity (Deity; possessive; God's) in Genesis 1 which should not be confused with the Unholy Trinity (Deity; plural; gods) in Genesis 2-3 who messes with the 1D, 2D, 3D parts of us (less real 🤷♂️).
Elohim was "syncretized" to just mean El during the Babylonian captivity. To avoid this simply use the Latin, "unsyncretized", counterpart Deity for possessive (God's) and plural (gods) context. (Septuagint and Vulgate use Post-Babylonian captivity "syncretized" meaning of Elohim so mistranslate as Theos and Deus, respectively).
Gen 2-3 introduces the placeholder Elohim (not locally real) and their blind, foolish chief running amok. Plurality of bad guy that 'are' each other and 'are not' God.
Nephilim are sons of the false Elohim associated with Yahweh (the BAAL, or LORD, of the gods).
[Monad in philosophy/cosmogony]:
Monad (from Greek μονάς monas, "singularity" in turn from μόνος monos, "alone") refers, in cosmogony, to the Supreme Being, divinity or the sum "I am" of all things.
The concept was reportedly conceived by the Pythagoreans and may refer variously to a single source acting alone, or to an indivisible origin, or to both.
The concept was later adopted by other philosophers, such as Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, who referred to the Monad as an *elementary particle.*
It had a *geometric counterpart,* which was debated and discussed contemporaneously by the same groups of people.
[In this speculative scenario, let's consider Leibniz's *Monad,* from the philosophical work "The Monadology", as an abstract representation of *the zero-dimensional space that binds quarks together* using the strong nuclear force]:
1) Indivisibility and Unity: Monads, as indivisible entities, mirror the nature of quarks, which are deemed elementary and indivisible particles in our theoretical context. Just as monads possess unity and indivisibility, quarks are unified in their interactions through the strong force.
2) Interconnectedness: Leibniz's monads are interconnected, each reflecting the entire universe from its own perspective. In a parallel manner, the interconnectedness of quarks through the strong force could be metaphorically represented by the interplay of monads, forming a web that holds particles together.
3) Inherent Properties: Just as monads possess inherent perceptions and appetitions, quarks could be thought of as having intrinsic properties like color charge, reflecting the inherent qualities of monads and influencing their interactions.
4) Harmony: The concept of monads contributing to universal harmony resonates with the idea that the strong nuclear force maintains harmony within atomic nuclei by counteracting the electromagnetic repulsion between protons, allowing for the stability of matter.
5) Pre-established Harmony: Monads' pre-established harmony aligns with the idea that the strong force was pre-designed to ensure stable interactions among quarks, orchestrating their behavior in a way that parallels the harmony envisaged by Leibniz.
6) Non-Mechanical Interaction: Monads interact non-mechanically, mirroring the non-mechanical interactions of quarks through gluon exchange. This connection might be seen as a metaphorical reflection of the intricacies of quark-gluon dynamics.
7) Holism: The holistic perspective of monads could symbolize how quarks, like the monads' interconnections, contribute holistically to the structure and behavior of particles through the strong force interactions.
[Monad in mathematics, science and technology]:
Monad (biology), a historical term for a simple unicellular organism
Monad (category theory), a construction in category theory
Monad (functional programming), functional programming constructs that capture various notions of computation
Monad (homological algebra), a 3-term complex
Monad (nonstandard analysis), the set of points infinitesimally close to a given point
"Some first follow the true Savior but then turn away to worship a dead man." - the revelation of Peter
THE WORLD RULER TRIES TO KILL ME
And then a voice of the world ruler came to the angels: “I am god and there is no other god but me.” But I laughed joyfully when I examined his conceit. But he went on to say, “Who is the human?”
And the entire host of his angels who had seen Adam and his dwelling were laughing at his smallness. And thus did their thought come to be removed outside the majesty of the heavens, away from the human of truth, whose name they saw, since he is in a small dwelling place. They are foolish and senseless in their empty thought, namely, their laughter, and it was contagion for them.
The whole greatness of the fatherhood of the spirit was at rest in its places. And I was with him, since I have a thought of a single emanation from the eternal ones and the unknowable ones, undefiled and immeasurable. I placed the small thought in the world, having disturbed them and frightened the whole multitude of the angels and their ruler. And I was visiting them all with fire and flame because of my thought.
And everything pertaining to them was brought about because of me. And there came about a disturbance and a fight around the seraphim and cherubim, since their glory will fade, and there was confusion around Adonaios on both sides and around their dwelling, up to the world ruler and the one who said, “Let us seize him.” Others again said, “The plan will certainly not materialize.” For Adonaios knows me because of hope. And I was in the mouths of lions. And as for the plan that they devised about me to release their error and their senselessness, I did not succumb to them as they had planned. And I was not afflicted at all.
Those who were there punished me, yet I did not die in reality but in appearance, in order that I not be put to shame by them because these are my kinsfolk. I removed the shame from me, and I did not become fainthearted in the face of what happened to me at their hands. I was about to succumb to fear, and I suffered merely according to their sight and thought so that no word might ever be found to speak about them.
For my death, which they think happened, happened to them in their error and blindness, since they nailed their man unto their death. Their thoughts did not see me, for they were deaf and blind. But in doing these things, they condemn themselves. Yes, they saw me; they punished me.
It was another, their father, who drank the gall and the vinegar; it was not I. They struck me with the reed; it was another, Simon, who bore the cross on his shoulder. It was another upon whom they placed the crown of thorns. But I was rejoicing in the height over all the wealth of the rulers and the offspring of their error, of their empty glory. And I was laughing at their ignorance.
"Socio-political issues, ideological disputes, memes, and even clickbait, are all scrutinized here from a leftist perspective,"
Yes. So what?
@@veritasetcaritas These things tend to correlate very strongly with "perspective".
@@junfour ok I am just not sure what kind of comment you're making on the actual video content.
@@veritasetcaritas I'm saying I don't have to watch the video. The content doesn't matter, since the bias you embrace already fully determines what you have to believe about the subject.
@@junfour then you are wrong. In this video I do not present my own personal opinion. I cite non-leftist historians and academics. This video contains no personal bias from me. All of my statements are based on qjuotations from academics, who I quote . That's what matters. So you are arguing against not me, but mainstream academics. I am guessing you have your own beliefs about this subject and you don't want them challed by facs which could make you unformfortable.
About half way through ........ So basically TiK believes there is some "Buddhism-Christianity" out there , interesting you could make a good religion out of a combination of those two
I'd love to see a theologian try and create it
I mean when you read some gnostic text there definitely is some sort of eastern cosmological aspect to it
When I went through college almost 15 years ago this was absolutely a common thought, tracing the influences on so many bits and pieces of varying christian philosophies throughout history.
37:46 so you at least agree with JL on this point, that Gnosticism is similar to a mystery cult aimed at personal enlightenment. This is the main thrust of JL's point. This is why he says that Gnosticism is pre-Christian, he is claiming a continuity between the Ancient mystery cults, late antique Gnosticism, Medieval mysticism and modern dialectical philosophy.
JL is just calling it Gnosticism as a shorthand in order to stress the theme of a mystery cult of secret knowledge which leads to a salvific enlightenment. He actually says this in his lectures.
JL doesn't define Gnosticism as vaguely as that. If the definition of Gnosticism is "similar to a mystery cult aimed at personal enlightenment", that would include most self-help books from the 80s, along with Buddhism, Hinduism, and a host of other unrelated reigitons and spiritual beliefs. He defines it thus.
"The essence of Gnosticism can be expressed in three beliefs. These are (1) that it is not you or your theories that are wrong, but the world itself; (2) that we have been flung into this miserable and intolerable condition against our wants; but (3) are able to attain a consciousness, a knowledge-a Gnosis-that will allow us to repair the world and ourselves."
newdiscourses.com/2021/08/calamity-scientific-gnosticism/
This is not only unhistorical, but highly vague. It contains nothing which is essentialy Gnostic, and borrows heavily from Voegelin's false understanding of Gnosticism. The idea of a "continuity between the Ancient mystery cults, late antique Gnosticism, Medieval mysticism and modern dialectical philosophy" was debunked decades ago and is not taken seriously in Gnostic scholarship. This video demonstrates why.
@veritasetcaritas
A. what I wrote was not a definition of Gnosticism, but a characterization of a what is a perennial tendency in Western civilization toward mysticism. He refers to this as "small g' gnosticism", specifically to denote a general tendency of which the Gnostic cults are the er example.
B. It seems a bit dishonest to claim that JL does not understand Gnosticism and bring a bunch of scholars who make this same point only to turn around and say that Gnosticism is not a very good category at in the first place. Gnosticism may not be a good way to categorize every piece of writing we recognize as "Gnostic" in an academic context. However, JL is not a historian (though TIK does claim to be one), he is not trying to categorize every piece found in Nag Hamadi. He is trying to contextualize "Wokism" as
1. The current iteration of a perennial Western drive toward mystical personal enlightenment.
2. A direct descendant of Hegelian dialectical philosophy, which draws on a tradition of Western Mysticism.
3. A particular branch of these which abhors Form (in the platonic sense) and views it as a prison. This he ties to Gnosticism, specifically the early Gnostic heresies that saw the OT God as an evil demeurge.
He then uses gnosticism to refer to these modern movements because certain 1st century Gnostic movements shared enough of these traits (aside form the Hegel thing) with modern movements JL is criticizing.
@@Simon_Alexnder A. You can't have it both ways. If it's just some vague "perennial tendency in Western civilization toward mysticism", then call it that. But it's obvious calling it "gnosticism" is specifically intended to associate with the religious movement of historical Gnosticism, which is why Lindsay uses the word, and why he makes up his own definition of Gnosticism (large G), which is also false.
B. It is not dishonest to say JL does not understand Gnosticism, since as I demonstrated his definition is completely astray from historical fact and is contradicted by mainstream scholarship. I didn't cite any scholars who supported his definition. Nor did I say Gnosticism isn't a very goodd cateogry in the first place. I said very clearly that despite difficulties and even despair over a precise definition, there's a general agreement on a cluster of characteristics. I even described them.
I completely understand that JL's real target is what he thinks of as "wokism". He's just another average conservative culture warrior. But what he's trying to do in this case is misuse history to make himself seem more authoritative and make his argument seem stronger, and make "wokism" seem scarier by associating it with things people don't understand, don't like, or are afraid of.
His definition of "wokism" is just nonsense, he's maiking it up as he goes along. There is nothing about "wokism", which is really just "progressive social valules", which has these features. In particular his claim that it is "A direct descendant of Hegelian dialectical philosophy, which draws on a tradition of Western Mysticism" is utter nonsense. He never presents any evidence for any of this, it's all just assertion, fabrication, and gesturing at Voegelin.
Do you know why he confines himself to ranting on RUclips and speaking at venues friendly to him, instead of writing academic papers and submitting them to peer reviewed scholarly journals on Hegelian thought and Gnosticism? It's because he knows actual scholars in these fields would laugh at him. Here's how an actual scholar of Hegel demonstrates Lindsay is hopelessly wrong in his understanding of Hegel. It's 23 pages long, and very detailed. This is what Lindsay should be reading and addressing.
typeset.io/pdf/the-gnostic-accusation-31bt4mdi.pdf
@veritasetcaritas B. What would evidence of a connection between wokism and and Hegel look like, to you? What kind of evidence would I need to present in order for you to assent?
@@Simon_Alexnder At least, this. 1. A correct understanding of Hegel's thought. 2. An objective defiition of what you mean by "wokism". 3. A scocio-historical analysis explaining, with evidence, how the two are connected. 4. Peer review by Hegel scholars. He should also explain why Hegel was neither a leftist nor "woke".
James Lindsay doesn't do any of this, because he doesn't want his views examined by actual scholars. He's pandering to an audience scared of "wokism", which doesn't understand Hegel any more than Lindsay himself does. He's just aniother random culture warrior isn't really interested in doing proper history.
This video sounds a bit much on the ad hominem attack spectrum.
No. An ad hominem attack takes the form "Argument X is wrong because the moral character of the person making argument X is bad". This video makes absolutely no comment on TIK's moral character. It presents clear evidence from primary, secondary, and tertiary sources that TIK's claims about the history of this subject are wrong. If you think my statements in this video are inaccurate, you need to present your evidence.