Watch the full version: Creed and Culture: Enlightenment Ideals Aren't Working | Jonathan Pageau | EP41: ruclips.net/video/q0Vu7YJueRY/видео.htmlsi=RgFxStO8d8zeJI3l
This question honestly plagues me. It seems to me that whether or not Christ is reason would be dependent on what relation yo Christ we are talking about. Reason and mystery seem to be referring to earth and heaven repetitively, the very structure of being itself, the Son and the Father. So it does seem that in relation to the Father, Christ would be earth, or reason. But the very person of Christ is the joining of these two categories, earth and heaven, because he is fully man and fully God. So perhaps Christ is reason and mystery, and in relation to the Father, he is reason, but he and the Father are one in the spirit, so reason and mystery are one. Idk.
@@johnrankin6040 ya I suppose that’s how I was thinking when I posed the question…in relation to the father He is Reason…perhaps there’s some truth in that eh
I'm an Igbo man from Nigeria and it has been wild to see and listen Mr. Jonathan and Prof. Jordan Peterson both predict the ridiculousness of the world we find ourselves in now years ago. These men are really needed to be at the forefront of reason in our times. They stand between the gates of doom and enlightenment of the individuals. Jonathan is so smart that I can't believe I was a son of a Reverend fr and didn't even know these things. Maybe my father didn't know too. Thank God for RUclips! What a time!!
Fellow Nigerian brother here. I agree completely with your appreciation for these men. The JPs in addition to Bishop Robert Barron have changed my life ❤
And I agree. The world needs to re-learn symbolic thinking and how it relates to the framework of reality. Jonathan and his brother has been a blessing for many including myself.
Well said. Unless a regular person is going deep into Bible research (at or without a university) and following the latest research and analyses, there hasn’t been a link to this level of thinking and knowledge. Back in the 17th or 18th century there were coffeehouses and pamphlets. Nowadays, it’s RUclips.
CS Lewis talked about this. Reason cannot properly exist except in it's proper mental ecosystem. Reason isolated and cut off from mystery tries to justify itself by itself and finds that it cannot. Reason isolated breeds diseases of reason like a species with no predators to keep it in check. Like Chesterton said "he tries to get the heavens into his head and it's his head that cracks"
Reason trying to justify itself with itself can also be explained with an allegory to inbreeding, causing it to mutate over time into something horrific and unrecognizable.
Chesterson in Orthodoxy has a whole chapter on the reason in insanity. A man who thinks everyone is out to get him can always rationalise. “Dude I’m your friend not the mossad” “Ha thats what the mossad would say”… etc. It’s a complete but small worldview. Reason is not sufficient.
In the early 20th century, mathematicians endeavored to create a formal framework-a kind of mathematical grammar-that would enable systematic processing. Their goal was to compare all possible combinations of mathematical statements and, ideally, automate the discovery of all mathematical truths. Ultimately, the endeavor failed when Kurt Gödel definitively proved that this was impossible. He demonstrated that for every formal system there will always be questions that simply cannot be answered using its own axioms, there will always be truths that it cannot prove about itself. This was all proven conclusively 100 years ago, yet people still think we can reason out everything! Just as Jonathan is saying in this video, there will always be impassable voids, inscrutable mysteries, hidden truths. There quite simply have to be a a mathematical fact.
Yes, they have. This is not me defending reason or logic as I am a Christian, but when you see videos in which someone is about to be murdered, they often cry out to their attacker to think about things and to not attack them as they have children. It’s a defense of logic on the victims part.
@@HelloIAmHunterthat’s an appeal to emotion, or even conscience, not reason. To appeal to reason would be to point out how illogical it would be for them to kill you, which, unfortunately for the both of you, might seem perfectly logical to the person in question.
Sir I am going to join the group that prays fervently for you, much blessing (i never understood the ballet the red shoes but this conversation is helping me)
What you have done for me here is explain why I love Terry Gilliam movies so much. 😂 He gets this intuitively. Remember in Time Bandits where Evil says, “… and when I have understanding of computers, I will be the Supreme Being!”
I see a two-fold interpretation: 1. At the edge of human knowledge where reason “steps back” that is when we begin to encounter the mystical spiritual world, though, because reason is not present, it is often initially difficult to distinguish it as such. (Job 33:14-18) 2. By denying reason’s role in human life, we, like Icarus, descend into the depths of human desire at its most base level, pure hedonism. We perhaps see the story of Icarus as relating to our desire to know what God knows, and if we remain humble and allow the wind of his Spirit to lift us up at his appointment, we will be warmed by His Light rather than burned like Lucifer. This is my interpretation, any way. And now, I’m going to watch the video 🍿🥤
Let's call unity love and let's call multiplicity strife. Let's consider this pair as primary powers always in flux...now being drawn together through the force of love and then separated again by the force of strife. As Pageau pointed out, dust is a multiplicity to which you shall return.
Yet we should not completely get rid of reason, as some Christians would like to do. Per Pope Benedict XVI in his 2006 Regensburg Address, "if we are not careful the war of reason against religion will follow that of religion against reason." Ie fanaticism.
No one here wants to throw away reason. It should be in its proper place serving in its role, it is given to us by God since we are made in His image and likeness, thus reason is also an aspect of God. Isaiah 1:18 “Come now, and let us reason together,” Says the LORD, “Though your sins are like scarlet, They shall be as white as snow; Though they are red like crimson, They shall be as wool.
@@sakamotosan1887 I meant to convey this too - that reason points to God’s glory in the world. That’s why we shouldn’t scapegoat and dismiss the Greek philosophers with doctrines like sola scriptura etc.
Regarding the coexistence of unity and multiplicity, it's only difficult to understand if you assume an ontological distinction between the two. Whereas you can instead consider that both unity and multiplicity must necessarily be conceived a priori by a mind. In other words, and in phenomenological reality, there is only a conception of unity and a conception of multiplicity, an act of conceiving either. Therefore, both experiences turn out to be similar phenomenologically speaking. The paradox or complexity should arise only if you ignore or exclude the act of acknowledging of such concepts by (your) mind. There's no unity out there, only a "I'm perceiving unity here" phenomenon; same thing for multiplicity or any other concept or notion...
Reason alone is insufcicient to do anything. Humans require reason and faith to function propperly. Probably the smartest thing james lindsay ever sayd was "reason keeps faith sane and faith keeps reason based". And I think he was exactly right. Faith and reason cannot stand on their own. If either one is lacking, gnosis creeps in. Gnosis is essentially the conviction that you, the gnostic, know better. Not just better than any man but better than God. It is the mindset that caused lucifer to rebel which makes it the ultimate heresy. Another way to think about it is that you need faith and reason to do science for example. Reason to work out the truth and faith to even assume that the truth can be worked out in the first place. Or, there is no reason to believe that the universe is comprehensible. Thus faith is required. The gnostic will just make up whatever seems fit and then force you to accept their truth, see any woke topic for example.
Gnosis is psyche singularity and fishhook eye perspective that's inescapable. You can't escape your own perspective and your own existence. I see it like Chat GPT that generates data in a sense but not information. As for the counterpoint I think it refers to a shared global observer as CTMU states that perhaps is what integrates data and forms information. It's like a firewall or something. Or like the boundaries of a kingdom. Each one can pretend to control and claim the kingdom. But as long as there's a king everyone is within his boundaries. If the boundaries of the kingdom are not applied then anyone can claim it as their own even when there is a king. I think the trinity is related to the king as the one and kingdom as many in a way. Another view I'm thinking about micro and macro perspective correspondence. A tree relates with other trees and together form a forrest. Perhaps that's the structure of the trinity. Or another way we have trialities everywhere and they could just be mediums interalacing or crossing with each other but in a ordered manner. Perhaps it is aleph the infinite well ordered set in mathematics. Such as I'm thinking like a kind of grid that forms order from chaos that allows for the game of chess to be played for instance. In an RTS C&C game that grid allows for you to build and its formed by a mobile command vehicle or MCV which represents the faction "presence" on the battlefield. The trinity itself perhaps represents a kind of faction, boundary, etc. That in which things are well ordered and collapse and snap into a defined state. Perhaps like a function even that allows for computation. For instance you can't ask the question what's the distance between you and the Warp. The Warp in wh40k is in it's own dimension and you are in your own as well. When one can assume distance it can then is able to calculate and compute as well to bridge distance. But absent distance there's no implication of bridging distance as well. So the function may be that which sets distance like the reference point like 0 from which everything else is relative to and goes both ways - or + all of which represents real numbers and which can be well ordered and you can see the interval between them or distance. While the opposite of that would be like Psi imaginary numbers for which there's no concept of distance. So like a standard of measurement that even allows for quantification must be based on a reference point and that is a function. And that standard then allows for things to be organized and judged. Or perhaps like an ideal which would allow to judge everything else relative to it. Just like for instance we judge offenses based on the civil code. All offenses are relative to the civil code as the reference point that a judge uses. Absent the civil code perhaps we won't know what penalty should anyone deserve. So in a sense the standard and ideal or function perhaps sets value.
Gnosis is psyche singularity and fishhook eye perspective that's inescapable. You can't escape your own perspective and your own existence. I see it like Chat GPT that generates data in a sense but not information. As for the counterpoint I think it refers to a shared global observer as CTMU states that perhaps is what integrates data and forms information. It's like a firewall or something. Or like the boundaries of a kingdom. Each one can pretend to control and claim the kingdom. But as long as there's a king everyone is within his boundaries. If the boundaries of the kingdom are not applied then anyone can claim it as their own even when there is a king. I think the trinity is related to the king as the one and kingdom as many in a way. Another view I'm thinking about micro and macro perspective correspondence. A tree relates with other trees and together form a forrest. Perhaps that's the structure of the trinity. Or another way we have trialities everywhere and they could just be mediums interalacing or crossing with each other but in a ordered manner. Perhaps it is aleph the infinite well ordered set in mathematics. Such as I'm thinking like a kind of grid that forms order from chaos that allows for the game of chess to be played for instance. In an RTS C&C game that grid allows for you to build and its formed by a mobile command vehicle or MCV which represents the faction "presence" on the battlefield. The trinity itself perhaps represents a kind of faction, boundary, etc. That in which things are well ordered and collapse and snap into a defined state. Perhaps like a function even that allows for computation. For instance you can't ask the question what's the distance between you and the Warp. The Warp in wh40k is in it's own dimension and you are in your own as well. When one can assume distance it can then is able to calculate and compute as well to bridge distance. But absent distance there's no implication of bridging distance as well. So the function may be that which sets distance like the reference point like 0 from which everything else is relative to and goes both ways - or + all of which represents real numbers and which can be well ordered and you can see the interval between them or distance. While the opposite of that would be like Psi imaginary numbers for which there's no concept of distance. So like a standard of measurement that even allows for quantification must be based on a reference point and that is a function. And that standard then allows for things to be organized and judged. Or perhaps like an ideal which would allow to judge everything else relative to it. Just like for instance we judge offenses based on the civil code. All offenses are relative to the civil code as the reference point that a judge uses. Absent the civil code perhaps we won't know what penalty should anyone deserve. So in a sense the standard and ideal or function perhaps sets value.
Gnosis is psyche singularity and fishhook eye perspective that's inescapable. You can't escape your own perspective and your own existence. I see it like Chat GPT that generates data in a sense but not information. As for the counterpoint I think it refers to a shared global observer as CTMU states that perhaps is what integrates data and forms information. It's like a firewall or something. Or like the boundaries of a kingdom. Each one can pretend to control and claim the kingdom. But as long as there's a king everyone is within his boundaries. If the boundaries of the kingdom are not applied then anyone can claim it as their own even when there is a king. I think the trinity is related to the king as the one and kingdom as many in a way. Another view I'm thinking about micro and macro perspective correspondence. A tree relates with other trees and together form a forrest. Perhaps that's the structure of the trinity. Or another way we have trialities everywhere and they could just be mediums interalacing or crossing with each other but in a ordered manner. Perhaps it is aleph the infinite well ordered set in mathematics. Such as I'm thinking like a kind of grid that forms order from chaos that allows for the game of chess to be played for instance. In an RTS C&C game that grid allows for you to build and its formed by a mobile command vehicle or MCV which represents the faction "presence" on the battlefield. The trinity itself perhaps represents a kind of faction, boundary, etc. That in which things are well ordered and collapse and snap into a defined state. Perhaps like a function even that allows for computation. For instance you can't know what's the distance between you and the Warp. The Warp in wh40k is in it's own dimension and medium and you are in your own as well. When one can assume distance it can then is able to calculate and compute as well to bridge distance. But absent distance there's no implication of bridging distance as well. So the function may be that which sets distance like the reference point like 0 from which everything else is relative to and goes both ways - or + all of which represents real numbers and which can be well ordered and you can see the interval between them or distance. While the opposite of that would be like Psi imaginary numbers for which there's no concept of distance. So like a standard of measurement that even allows for quantification must be based on a reference point and that is a function. And that standard then allows for things to be organized and judged. Or perhaps like an ideal which would allow to judge everything else relative to it. Just like for instance we judge offenses based on the civil code. All offenses are relative to the civil code as the reference point that a judge uses. Absent the civil code perhaps we won't know what penalty should anyone deserve. So in a sense the standard and ideal or function perhaps sets value.
Gnosis is psyche singularity and fishhook eye perspective that's inescapable. You can't escape your own perspective and your own existence. I see it like Chat GPT that generates data in a sense but not information. As for the counterpoint I think it refers to a shared global observer as CTMU states that perhaps is what integrates data and forms information. It's like a firewall or something. Or like the boundaries of a kingdom. Each one can pretend to control and claim the kingdom. But as long as there's a king everyone is within his boundaries. If the boundaries of the kingdom are not applied then anyone can claim it as their own even when there is a king. I think the trinity is related to the king as the one and kingdom as many in a way. Another view I'm thinking about micro and macro perspective correspondence. A tree relates with other trees and together form a forrest. Perhaps that's the structure of the trinity. Or another way we have trialities everywhere and they could just be mediums interalacing or crossing with each other but in a ordered manner. Perhaps it is aleph the infinite well ordered set in mathematics. Such as I'm thinking like a kind of grid that forms order from chaos that allows for the game of chess to be played for instance. In an RTS C&C game that grid allows for you to build and its formed by a mobile command vehicle or MCV which represents the faction "presence" on the battlefield. The trinity itself perhaps represents a kind of faction, boundary, etc. That in which things are well ordered and collapse and snap into a defined state. Perhaps like a function even that allows for computation. For instance you can't know what's the distance between you and the Warp. The Warp in wh40k is in it's own dimension and medium and you are in your own as well. When one can assume distance it can then is able to calculate and compute as well to bridge distance. But absent distance there's no implication of bridging distance as well. So the function may be that which sets distance like the reference point like 0 from which everything else is relative to and goes both ways - or + all of which represents real numbers and which can be well ordered and you can see the interval between them or distance. While the opposite of that would be like Psi imaginary numbers for which there's no concept of distance. So like a standard of measurement that even allows for quantification must be based on a reference point and that is a function. And that standard then allows for things to be organized and judged. Or perhaps like an ideal which would allow to judge everything else relative to it. Just like for instance we judge offenses based on the civil code. All offenses are relative to the civil code as the reference point that a judge uses. Absent the civil code perhaps we won't know what penalty should anyone deserve. So in a sense the standard and ideal or function perhaps sets value.
Gnosis is psyche singularity and fishhook eye perspective that's inescapable. You can't escape your own perspective and your own existence. I see it like Chat GPT that generates data in a sense but not information. As for the counterpoint I think it refers to a shared global observer as CTMU states that perhaps is what integrates data and forms information. It's like a firewall or something. Or like the boundaries of a kingdom. Each one can pretend to control and claim the kingdom. But as long as there's a king everyone is within his boundaries. If the boundaries of the kingdom are not applied then anyone can claim it as their own even when there is a king. I think the trinity is related to the king as the one and kingdom as many in a way. Another view I'm thinking about micro and macro perspective correspondence. A tree relates with other trees and together form a forrest. Perhaps that's the structure of the trinity. Or another way we have trialities everywhere and they could just be mediums interalacing or crossing with each other but in a ordered manner. Perhaps it is aleph the infinite well ordered set in mathematics. Such as I'm thinking like a kind of grid that forms order from chaos that allows for the game of chess to be played for instance. In an RTS C&C game that grid allows for you to build and its formed by a mobile command vehicle or MCV which represents the faction "presence" on the battlefield. The trinity itself perhaps represents a kind of faction, boundary, etc. That in which things are well ordered and collapse and snap into a defined state. Perhaps like a function even that allows for computation. For instance you can't know what's the distance between you and the Warp. The Warp in wh40k is in it's own dimension and medium and you are in your own as well. When one can assume distance it can then is able to calculate and compute as well to bridge distance. But absent distance there's no implication of bridging distance as well. So the function may be that which sets distance like the reference point like 0 from which everything else is relative to and goes both ways - or + all of which represents real numbers and which can be well ordered and you can see the interval between them or distance. While the opposite of that would be like Psi imaginary numbers for which there's no concept of distance. So like a standard of measurement that even allows for quantification must be based on a reference point and that is a function. And that standard then allows for things to be organized and judged. Or perhaps like an ideal which would allow to judge everything else relative to it. Just like for instance we judge offenses based on the civil code. All offenses are relative to the civil code as the reference point that a judge uses. Absent the civil code perhaps we won't know what penalty should anyone deserve. So in a sense the standard and ideal or function perhaps sets value.
So its like yin and yang, and as yang tries to get a grip, yin bursts out into wierd rainbows and transbutchering and the other way around? And the point is to recognise the Tao from which they arise or better yet, God?
My 9yr old son wants to create the Philosopher's Stone in our basement. His world is enchanted in the same way that my own used to be. Now to just find a way to obtain mountains of sulfur and mercury...
Agree totally that recognizing the limits of Reason (bounded rationality) is critical, but this has nothing to do with anything "mysterious" or "divine," only with the fact that we operate withing complex systems (in the formal sense of complexity theory) which do NOT allow for rational solutions to all problems. At least not in the sense of constructive rationality (per Vernon Smith's terminology, but then he also defines such a thing as ecological rationality, i.e. a form of rationality not imbedded in any individual, but in the group culture). It is Reason that tells us the actual limits of Reason. But yes, absolutely, elevating Reason to more than what it can actually do is extremely dangerous.
@@KRGruner have you considered you’re being intellectually, if not also spiritually, arrogant? How does one reason the Unconditional Love Nature inherent of reality itself? It is most obvious yet most mysterious, simultaneously (as paradox) Yet you insist on only seeing the obvious You cut your world in two, and are blind to the other half You say “grow up” yet are a baby yourself (I say this without condescension or pettiness)
@@jacksonelmore6227 Blah, blah, total nonsense. Can't make heads or tails of anything you say, so hard to reply. As to your last sentence, it makes it obvious you are a complete ass.
Every part of the human is limited. The senses are limited, intuition is limited, reason is also limited. Considering our limit, who are we to say what is outside of it, as that would exceed our limit?
I highly disagree with this, look at the stoics and Aristotle. "Reason alone" gave them metaphsycis and through reaosn they were capable of of understanding the Logos and a God who is very similar to ours (for the stoics at least). The truth is that reason alone can provide much fruit, but like Aquinas said, can only yeild so much without divine law.
I'm not sure if they had the same concept of "reason" as we did, I think they meant it as in the natural order of things, rather than a quantifiable measurement
There are seven cardinal virtues. Aristotle can explain the pagan virtues, i.e. courage, wisdom, justice, and moderation since these have a highly rational content. The pagan Logos has these characteristics as well. But the christian virtues of faith, hope, and charity by their very definition defy reason. To practice these virtues you have to go against your own logic and reason, just like the christian Logos as described in the gospels goes against all conventional wisdom. And yet these three are the virtues that carried western civilisation for almost 2000 years.
Yet they didn't find our God, only an intellectual idea that is "similar" I enjoy the stoics as much as the next guy but they have become way over rated lately by stoic bros who want a religion without faith.
Multiplicity is when you have a lot of quarks and electrons, unity is when they all come together to form a unity, like a cup. Where does the cup get its "cupness"? It is nothing more than a bunch of particles, after all. But nevertheless, it has its "cupness". It is a unity called a "cup".
The modern dilemma begins with aquinas occam and the nominalists turning away from Plato towards Aristotle. It inevitably leads to atheism and an unbalanced mindset.
I agree with Einstein, “I believe in Spinoza’s god, who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a god who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings".
A mystical, religious experience is absolutely an experience of reason. Provided by it. Spirit is not extrarational. Spirit is rationality itself. Logic itself.
Simply put, there's definitely an irrational aspect of reality with which reason obviously finds itself helpless and useless. The lack of intrinsic essence and the dependent arising or origination of all phenomena, including the self, are a few examples. Existence is too weird when you try to conceptualize; otherwise it is what it is.
When it's considered "intellectual" to assert everything came from nothing by unscientifically demonstrated, yet still somehow scientific means and the understanding of gender itself is being turned on its head you know enlightenment reason has run its course.
Everyone knows Hume said reason is the slave of the passions. So this straw man Enlightenment definition always puzzles me. Yes, Godwin and Condorcet went too far, as there is always over-promising, but isn’t the core of the E about trying to figure out what we can know without the dictates of superstition? Early on, The Church told Galileo they determine the truth of the matter, and they I guess thought science and individual reason ought to submit to that. But Kant, while recognizing the limits of reason, as far as I know didn’t say dare to submit but get out of that immaturity and dare to know. So I always wonder about these characterizations.
@@Wholly_Fool within superstition, however, I would still want to distinguish between the irrational, like instinct and intuition, and the supernatural. And though the fidelity to reason is itself a passion, admitting this doesn’t now make every passion an equal player on the field.
Again...as much as I love Jonathan I have to ask, have you in fact spent some quality time listening to Lindsey? In my many, many hours of listening to both of you, there are many parallels and contrasts that coincide at a point that balances faith/mystery and reason/? In all of Lindsey's work faith and humility is the check to reason and vice versa. Faith without reason can produce just as many monsterous synthetic subtractions as reason can as examplified by Calvin and Augustinian dialectics turned dogmatiques. Allul warned us of this in the Technological Society, where faith (in science) explodes into what we now realize as the "new" Erathian Atheism. Thats just as much a reason without faith as faith without reason. Flipping out synthesis as though its a ticket to tour with Peterson is just as much of a cop out as Lindsey closet cloaking his leanings toward a "Christian" Neo-conned Conservatism; while all through his lectures the dialectic, gnostic paradigm is continually being confronted. Just saying....
@@markcounseling That's a good question. He sure has no problem answering that question from the Bible. He has quoted many scriptures regarding the specifics of a Christ-centered faith. In his lectures on gnosticism and the dialectic Lindsey has used Hebrews 11 as the Faith chapter to outline a faith-based response to the ambiguous nature of reason dissolved into nameless categories. Starting with faith is often the paradigm breaker from which more specific directions begin. But to say that Lindsey is all reason and no faith is like saying the ocean has no water. Even Atheists have faith. Even to ask "faith in what?" is a scientific approach to saying I have faith in...what. In other words, "what faith is" should be closer to how I think Lindsey would state his position. Maybe after that, faith becomes a journey you answer as Christ frees you from the bondage of evil. So does Lindsey say that? Does Pageau or Peterson say that? Maybe.
@@ChaseyBearMagnanimity I like your answer although I’m afraid I don’t really understand it. By chance I’m beginning Merleau Ponty’s The Visible and the Invisible and he’s discussing “perceptual faith” -- and this seems to me to be what Lindsey has. Which is in line with his atheism. He has faith in what his eyes see and believes very strongly in it. This strong belief in it is perhaps what you refer to as the water in the ocean? That makes sense to me, given the milieu in which he was raised and the critical role of “belief” especially in the southern United States. I haven’t followed Lindsey as closely as you seem to have, but my sense is that his alliance with the Christian Right is strategic, not to say cynical, because of his overarching project to defeat the new communism. Not that he hasn’t moved from his original rejection of Christianity to an awakened embrace of its value in ordering society -- which he most certainly has -- but that’s a very different thing than Christian faith. But perhaps he’s evolved further? I am amazed at his energy, scope of intellect, and creativity, but for me he is dulled by the literalist tendencies endemic to the fundamentalisms of traditional religious thought or atheism. His take on gnosticism seems to me just wrong, for example. I don’t think he has a feeling for what gnosis is or could mean. His logic fix blinds him to it imo. And -- I appreciate the dialogue.
@@markcounseling Very nicely stated. Thank you for taking the time to craft such a thoughtful response. And you make some good points. I looked back on my notes and had forgotten the questions I had concerning a few of his literal takes on logos and ethos for examples, of which fundamentally seem superficial and lineal if you are rushing at them without a strong tradition behind and within you. But you know, I came away with a stronger sense for faith as a co-operative thing as a result of Lindsey's work. I had no question of his personal status. I could only look at my own condition and ask...for more. For that I am grateful to disentangle myself from the vast tree of gnostic variances. Lindsey has been one of the first to tackle gnosis beyond it's face value by throwing it out quite literally and demanding we refill the tub with fresh meaning. And that project seems to be ongoing. Maybe to the Cross?
@@markcounseling I also want to add this from Dante's Inferno, Canto 16, Lines 118-126 which seems applicable to this dialogue: Ah, how cautiously a man should breathe near those who see not only what we do, but have the sense which reads the mind beneath! He said to me: " You will soon see arise what we await, and what you wonder at; soon you will see the thing before your eyes." To the truth which will seem falsehood every man who would not be called a liar while speaking fact should learn to seal his lips as best he can. --And if you read on, faith is what rises from the depths.
@@marismols Sure. I always feel I'm missing something. Doesn't everyone? But I wasn't asking about feelings, rather if there was something a bit more concrete. I dont think there is.
Your feeling of missing something is itself a concrete reality. You feel it, you name it, and you wrestle with it. Your feelings exist, and they don’t exist alone, they exist within the context of reality in some way. There’s something that your feeling of emptiness corresponds to. The thing that your feeling of emptiness corresponds to is the thing you’re missing.
I find the notion that the enlightenment was a "dream of reason" (quite an oxymoron to begin with) or a "representation of the ultimate consequences of reason" to be risible. The enlightenment was everything BUT reasonable. If we do not develop our rationality we leave everything in the hands of "the unconscious" or "God"; which is the same as leaving everything in the hands of the ones who want to take advantage of us. Too much emphasis in "feeling" and in "passions" is what they have put in our heads precisely in order to make us idealists and make us fail.
Here you see Jonathan's spiritual limitations and why he ends up a believer. To think that identities are not constituents of reason is to literally not understand spirit at all. His definition of reason is shallow and "external" in Hegel's language. But yeah, I would not expect otherwise.
@@Fed-tt6cp That is only possible through the concept of god as that which generates identities. Cuz that is the question. What is it that generates and sustains identities? What created the world and its inherent logic/order? Jonathan would say god. But that is just an unenlightened point of view. It is reason itself that sustains and maintains everything as the very nature and fact of spirit. And that reason or logic is what we are, in our eternal essence. But it is obvious. Identities are constituents of an order. And it is through reason that such an order is sustained. It is also through reason that such an order is re-attained, from a human point of view. The divine is accessed through reason, because it is itself, reason.
Watch the full version: Creed and Culture: Enlightenment Ideals Aren't Working | Jonathan Pageau | EP41: ruclips.net/video/q0Vu7YJueRY/видео.htmlsi=RgFxStO8d8zeJI3l
Is Christ then the Reason part of the mystery of God/Trinity?
This question honestly plagues me. It seems to me that whether or not Christ is reason would be dependent on what relation yo Christ we are talking about. Reason and mystery seem to be referring to earth and heaven repetitively, the very structure of being itself, the Son and the Father. So it does seem that in relation to the Father, Christ would be earth, or reason. But the very person of Christ is the joining of these two categories, earth and heaven, because he is fully man and fully God. So perhaps Christ is reason and mystery, and in relation to the Father, he is reason, but he and the Father are one in the spirit, so reason and mystery are one. Idk.
@@johnrankin6040 ya I suppose that’s how I was thinking when I posed the question…in relation to the father He is Reason…perhaps there’s some truth in that eh
I'm an Igbo man from Nigeria and it has been wild to see and listen Mr. Jonathan and Prof. Jordan Peterson both predict the ridiculousness of the world we find ourselves in now years ago. These men are really needed to be at the forefront of reason in our times. They stand between the gates of doom and enlightenment of the individuals. Jonathan is so smart that I can't believe I was a son of a Reverend fr and didn't even know these things. Maybe my father didn't know too. Thank God for RUclips! What a time!!
Fellow Nigerian brother here. I agree completely with your appreciation for these men. The JPs in addition to Bishop Robert Barron have changed my life ❤
God bless brother ☦️🇳🇬. I'm born in the states, but my parents are from Abia State.
And I agree. The world needs to re-learn symbolic thinking and how it relates to the framework of reality. Jonathan and his brother has been a blessing for many including myself.
@@uchechukwuibeji5532 Udo!✌🏾
Well said. Unless a regular person is going deep into Bible research (at or without a university) and following the latest research and analyses, there hasn’t been a link to this level of thinking and knowledge. Back in the 17th or 18th century there were coffeehouses and pamphlets. Nowadays, it’s RUclips.
CS Lewis talked about this. Reason cannot properly exist except in it's proper mental ecosystem. Reason isolated and cut off from mystery tries to justify itself by itself and finds that it cannot. Reason isolated breeds diseases of reason like a species with no predators to keep it in check. Like Chesterton said "he tries to get the heavens into his head and it's his head that cracks"
Reason trying to justify itself with itself can also be explained with an allegory to inbreeding, causing it to mutate over time into something horrific and unrecognizable.
Brilliantly written 💥
Where does CS Lewis talk about this?
Chesterson in Orthodoxy has a whole chapter on the reason in insanity. A man who thinks everyone is out to get him can always rationalise. “Dude I’m your friend not the mossad” “Ha thats what the mossad would say”… etc. It’s a complete but small worldview. Reason is not sufficient.
The way you wrapped in the trinity part near the end with one and the many was masterful, incredible stuff
In the early 20th century, mathematicians endeavored to create a formal framework-a kind of mathematical grammar-that would enable systematic processing. Their goal was to compare all possible combinations of mathematical statements and, ideally, automate the discovery of all mathematical truths.
Ultimately, the endeavor failed when Kurt Gödel definitively proved that this was impossible. He demonstrated that for every formal system there will always be questions that simply cannot be answered using its own axioms, there will always be truths that it cannot prove about itself.
This was all proven conclusively 100 years ago, yet people still think we can reason out everything! Just as Jonathan is saying in this video, there will always be impassable voids, inscrutable mysteries, hidden truths. There quite simply have to be a a mathematical fact.
Underrated response
Has anyone ever cried out for "reason" or "logic" while staring death in the face?
Yes, they have. This is not me defending reason or logic as I am a Christian, but when you see videos in which someone is about to be murdered, they often cry out to their attacker to think about things and to not attack them as they have children. It’s a defense of logic on the victims part.
@@HelloIAmHunterthat’s an appeal to emotion, or even conscience, not reason. To appeal to reason would be to point out how illogical it would be for them to kill you, which, unfortunately for the both of you, might seem perfectly logical to the person in question.
@@InnovativeSaint it could be reason. say for example the cuban missile crisis. both sides stood down in the face of mutually assured destruction.
@@HelloIAmHunterSo christians don't use reason and logic?
That's the only hope. Medicine, technology, reason.
Sir I am going to join the group that prays fervently for you, much blessing (i never understood the ballet the red shoes but this conversation is helping me)
What you have done for me here is explain why I love Terry Gilliam movies so much. 😂 He gets this intuitively. Remember in Time Bandits where Evil says, “… and when I have understanding of computers, I will be the Supreme Being!”
I see a two-fold interpretation:
1. At the edge of human knowledge where reason “steps back” that is when we begin to encounter the mystical spiritual world, though, because reason is not present, it is often initially difficult to distinguish it as such.
(Job 33:14-18)
2. By denying reason’s role in human life, we, like Icarus, descend into the depths of human desire at its most base level, pure hedonism.
We perhaps see the story of Icarus as relating to our desire to know what God knows, and if we remain humble and allow the wind of his Spirit to lift us up at his appointment, we will be warmed by His Light rather than burned like Lucifer.
This is my interpretation, any way. And now, I’m going to watch the video 🍿🥤
Triumph, might be the child of REALIZATION, *and* REASON.
Yes,...."THIS" requires THOUGHT.....
But is WELL WITHIN
Our NATURE😊❤😊
Let's call unity love and let's call multiplicity strife. Let's consider this pair as primary powers always in flux...now being drawn together through the force of love and then separated again by the force of strife. As Pageau pointed out, dust is a multiplicity to which you shall return.
Yet we should not completely get rid of reason, as some Christians would like to do. Per Pope Benedict XVI in his 2006 Regensburg Address, "if we are not careful the war of reason against religion will follow that of religion against reason." Ie fanaticism.
Reason helps to preserve the Truth
No one here wants to throw away reason. It should be in its proper place serving in its role, it is given to us by God since we are made in His image and likeness, thus reason is also an aspect of God.
Isaiah 1:18 “Come now, and let us reason together,” Says the LORD, “Though your sins are like scarlet, They shall be as white as snow; Though they are red like crimson, They shall be as wool.
Reason is like a sniper, it’s good for some encounters but not all of them. Intuition and mystery is like a shotgun, more wise
@@sakamotosan1887 I meant to convey this too - that reason points to God’s glory in the world. That’s why we shouldn’t scapegoat and dismiss the Greek philosophers with doctrines like sola scriptura etc.
Regarding the coexistence of unity and multiplicity, it's only difficult to understand if you assume an ontological distinction between the two. Whereas you can instead consider that both unity and multiplicity must necessarily be conceived a priori by a mind. In other words, and in phenomenological reality, there is only a conception of unity and a conception of multiplicity, an act of conceiving either. Therefore, both experiences turn out to be similar phenomenologically speaking. The paradox or complexity should arise only if you ignore or exclude the act of acknowledging of such concepts by (your) mind. There's no unity out there, only a "I'm perceiving unity here" phenomenon; same thing for multiplicity or any other concept or notion...
Trying to control what is deeply metaphysical with that which is only part of physics is like taking a knife to a gun fight
Reason alone is insufcicient to do anything.
Humans require reason and faith to function propperly.
Probably the smartest thing james lindsay ever sayd was "reason keeps faith sane and faith keeps reason based". And I think he was exactly right.
Faith and reason cannot stand on their own. If either one is lacking, gnosis creeps in.
Gnosis is essentially the conviction that you, the gnostic, know better. Not just better than any man but better than God. It is the mindset that caused lucifer to rebel which makes it the ultimate heresy.
Another way to think about it is that you need faith and reason to do science for example. Reason to work out the truth and faith to even assume that the truth can be worked out in the first place. Or, there is no reason to believe that the universe is comprehensible. Thus faith is required.
The gnostic will just make up whatever seems fit and then force you to accept their truth, see any woke topic for example.
Gnosis is psyche singularity and fishhook eye perspective that's inescapable. You can't escape your own perspective and your own existence. I see it like Chat GPT that generates data in a sense but not information. As for the counterpoint I think it refers to a shared global observer as CTMU states that perhaps is what integrates data and forms information. It's like a firewall or something. Or like the boundaries of a kingdom. Each one can pretend to control and claim the kingdom. But as long as there's a king everyone is within his boundaries. If the boundaries of the kingdom are not applied then anyone can claim it as their own even when there is a king. I think the trinity is related to the king as the one and kingdom as many in a way. Another view I'm thinking about micro and macro perspective correspondence. A tree relates with other trees and together form a forrest. Perhaps that's the structure of the trinity. Or another way we have trialities everywhere and they could just be mediums interalacing or crossing with each other but in a ordered manner. Perhaps it is aleph the infinite well ordered set in mathematics. Such as I'm thinking like a kind of grid that forms order from chaos that allows for the game of chess to be played for instance. In an RTS C&C game that grid allows for you to build and its formed by a mobile command vehicle or MCV which represents the faction "presence" on the battlefield. The trinity itself perhaps represents a kind of faction, boundary, etc. That in which things are well ordered and collapse and snap into a defined state. Perhaps like a function even that allows for computation. For instance you can't ask the question what's the distance between you and the Warp. The Warp in wh40k is in it's own dimension and you are in your own as well. When one can assume distance it can then is able to calculate and compute as well to bridge distance. But absent distance there's no implication of bridging distance as well. So the function may be that which sets distance like the reference point like 0 from which everything else is relative to and goes both ways - or + all of which represents real numbers and which can be well ordered and you can see the interval between them or distance. While the opposite of that would be like Psi imaginary numbers for which there's no concept of distance. So like a standard of measurement that even allows for quantification must be based on a reference point and that is a function. And that standard then allows for things to be organized and judged. Or perhaps like an ideal which would allow to judge everything else relative to it. Just like for instance we judge offenses based on the civil code. All offenses are relative to the civil code as the reference point that a judge uses. Absent the civil code perhaps we won't know what penalty should anyone deserve. So in a sense the standard and ideal or function perhaps sets value.
Gnosis is psyche singularity and fishhook eye perspective that's inescapable. You can't escape your own perspective and your own existence. I see it like Chat GPT that generates data in a sense but not information. As for the counterpoint I think it refers to a shared global observer as CTMU states that perhaps is what integrates data and forms information. It's like a firewall or something. Or like the boundaries of a kingdom. Each one can pretend to control and claim the kingdom. But as long as there's a king everyone is within his boundaries. If the boundaries of the kingdom are not applied then anyone can claim it as their own even when there is a king. I think the trinity is related to the king as the one and kingdom as many in a way. Another view I'm thinking about micro and macro perspective correspondence. A tree relates with other trees and together form a forrest. Perhaps that's the structure of the trinity. Or another way we have trialities everywhere and they could just be mediums interalacing or crossing with each other but in a ordered manner. Perhaps it is aleph the infinite well ordered set in mathematics. Such as I'm thinking like a kind of grid that forms order from chaos that allows for the game of chess to be played for instance. In an RTS C&C game that grid allows for you to build and its formed by a mobile command vehicle or MCV which represents the faction "presence" on the battlefield. The trinity itself perhaps represents a kind of faction, boundary, etc. That in which things are well ordered and collapse and snap into a defined state. Perhaps like a function even that allows for computation. For instance you can't ask the question what's the distance between you and the Warp. The Warp in wh40k is in it's own dimension and you are in your own as well. When one can assume distance it can then is able to calculate and compute as well to bridge distance. But absent distance there's no implication of bridging distance as well. So the function may be that which sets distance like the reference point like 0 from which everything else is relative to and goes both ways - or + all of which represents real numbers and which can be well ordered and you can see the interval between them or distance. While the opposite of that would be like Psi imaginary numbers for which there's no concept of distance. So like a standard of measurement that even allows for quantification must be based on a reference point and that is a function. And that standard then allows for things to be organized and judged. Or perhaps like an ideal which would allow to judge everything else relative to it. Just like for instance we judge offenses based on the civil code. All offenses are relative to the civil code as the reference point that a judge uses. Absent the civil code perhaps we won't know what penalty should anyone deserve. So in a sense the standard and ideal or function perhaps sets value.
Gnosis is psyche singularity and fishhook eye perspective that's inescapable. You can't escape your own perspective and your own existence. I see it like Chat GPT that generates data in a sense but not information. As for the counterpoint I think it refers to a shared global observer as CTMU states that perhaps is what integrates data and forms information. It's like a firewall or something. Or like the boundaries of a kingdom. Each one can pretend to control and claim the kingdom. But as long as there's a king everyone is within his boundaries. If the boundaries of the kingdom are not applied then anyone can claim it as their own even when there is a king. I think the trinity is related to the king as the one and kingdom as many in a way. Another view I'm thinking about micro and macro perspective correspondence. A tree relates with other trees and together form a forrest. Perhaps that's the structure of the trinity. Or another way we have trialities everywhere and they could just be mediums interalacing or crossing with each other but in a ordered manner. Perhaps it is aleph the infinite well ordered set in mathematics. Such as I'm thinking like a kind of grid that forms order from chaos that allows for the game of chess to be played for instance. In an RTS C&C game that grid allows for you to build and its formed by a mobile command vehicle or MCV which represents the faction "presence" on the battlefield. The trinity itself perhaps represents a kind of faction, boundary, etc. That in which things are well ordered and collapse and snap into a defined state. Perhaps like a function even that allows for computation. For instance you can't know what's the distance between you and the Warp. The Warp in wh40k is in it's own dimension and medium and you are in your own as well. When one can assume distance it can then is able to calculate and compute as well to bridge distance. But absent distance there's no implication of bridging distance as well. So the function may be that which sets distance like the reference point like 0 from which everything else is relative to and goes both ways - or + all of which represents real numbers and which can be well ordered and you can see the interval between them or distance. While the opposite of that would be like Psi imaginary numbers for which there's no concept of distance. So like a standard of measurement that even allows for quantification must be based on a reference point and that is a function. And that standard then allows for things to be organized and judged. Or perhaps like an ideal which would allow to judge everything else relative to it. Just like for instance we judge offenses based on the civil code. All offenses are relative to the civil code as the reference point that a judge uses. Absent the civil code perhaps we won't know what penalty should anyone deserve. So in a sense the standard and ideal or function perhaps sets value.
Gnosis is psyche singularity and fishhook eye perspective that's inescapable. You can't escape your own perspective and your own existence. I see it like Chat GPT that generates data in a sense but not information. As for the counterpoint I think it refers to a shared global observer as CTMU states that perhaps is what integrates data and forms information. It's like a firewall or something. Or like the boundaries of a kingdom. Each one can pretend to control and claim the kingdom. But as long as there's a king everyone is within his boundaries. If the boundaries of the kingdom are not applied then anyone can claim it as their own even when there is a king. I think the trinity is related to the king as the one and kingdom as many in a way. Another view I'm thinking about micro and macro perspective correspondence. A tree relates with other trees and together form a forrest. Perhaps that's the structure of the trinity. Or another way we have trialities everywhere and they could just be mediums interalacing or crossing with each other but in a ordered manner. Perhaps it is aleph the infinite well ordered set in mathematics. Such as I'm thinking like a kind of grid that forms order from chaos that allows for the game of chess to be played for instance. In an RTS C&C game that grid allows for you to build and its formed by a mobile command vehicle or MCV which represents the faction "presence" on the battlefield. The trinity itself perhaps represents a kind of faction, boundary, etc. That in which things are well ordered and collapse and snap into a defined state. Perhaps like a function even that allows for computation. For instance you can't know what's the distance between you and the Warp. The Warp in wh40k is in it's own dimension and medium and you are in your own as well. When one can assume distance it can then is able to calculate and compute as well to bridge distance. But absent distance there's no implication of bridging distance as well. So the function may be that which sets distance like the reference point like 0 from which everything else is relative to and goes both ways - or + all of which represents real numbers and which can be well ordered and you can see the interval between them or distance. While the opposite of that would be like Psi imaginary numbers for which there's no concept of distance. So like a standard of measurement that even allows for quantification must be based on a reference point and that is a function. And that standard then allows for things to be organized and judged. Or perhaps like an ideal which would allow to judge everything else relative to it. Just like for instance we judge offenses based on the civil code. All offenses are relative to the civil code as the reference point that a judge uses. Absent the civil code perhaps we won't know what penalty should anyone deserve. So in a sense the standard and ideal or function perhaps sets value.
Gnosis is psyche singularity and fishhook eye perspective that's inescapable. You can't escape your own perspective and your own existence. I see it like Chat GPT that generates data in a sense but not information. As for the counterpoint I think it refers to a shared global observer as CTMU states that perhaps is what integrates data and forms information. It's like a firewall or something. Or like the boundaries of a kingdom. Each one can pretend to control and claim the kingdom. But as long as there's a king everyone is within his boundaries. If the boundaries of the kingdom are not applied then anyone can claim it as their own even when there is a king. I think the trinity is related to the king as the one and kingdom as many in a way. Another view I'm thinking about micro and macro perspective correspondence. A tree relates with other trees and together form a forrest. Perhaps that's the structure of the trinity. Or another way we have trialities everywhere and they could just be mediums interalacing or crossing with each other but in a ordered manner. Perhaps it is aleph the infinite well ordered set in mathematics. Such as I'm thinking like a kind of grid that forms order from chaos that allows for the game of chess to be played for instance. In an RTS C&C game that grid allows for you to build and its formed by a mobile command vehicle or MCV which represents the faction "presence" on the battlefield. The trinity itself perhaps represents a kind of faction, boundary, etc. That in which things are well ordered and collapse and snap into a defined state. Perhaps like a function even that allows for computation. For instance you can't know what's the distance between you and the Warp. The Warp in wh40k is in it's own dimension and medium and you are in your own as well. When one can assume distance it can then is able to calculate and compute as well to bridge distance. But absent distance there's no implication of bridging distance as well. So the function may be that which sets distance like the reference point like 0 from which everything else is relative to and goes both ways - or + all of which represents real numbers and which can be well ordered and you can see the interval between them or distance. While the opposite of that would be like Psi imaginary numbers for which there's no concept of distance. So like a standard of measurement that even allows for quantification must be based on a reference point and that is a function. And that standard then allows for things to be organized and judged. Or perhaps like an ideal which would allow to judge everything else relative to it. Just like for instance we judge offenses based on the civil code. All offenses are relative to the civil code as the reference point that a judge uses. Absent the civil code perhaps we won't know what penalty should anyone deserve. So in a sense the standard and ideal or function perhaps sets value.
Reason dreams creating monsters is the premise of the sci fi classic movie "forbidden planet"
“Monsters from the Id”
thinking will get You lost.
Love & Silence in Observation will have You found.
So its like yin and yang, and as yang tries to get a grip, yin bursts out into wierd rainbows and transbutchering and the other way around? And the point is to recognise the Tao from which they arise or better yet, God?
My 9yr old son wants to create the Philosopher's Stone in our basement. His world is enchanted in the same way that my own used to be. Now to just find a way to obtain mountains of sulfur and mercury...
Agree totally that recognizing the limits of Reason (bounded rationality) is critical, but this has nothing to do with anything "mysterious" or "divine," only with the fact that we operate withing complex systems (in the formal sense of complexity theory) which do NOT allow for rational solutions to all problems. At least not in the sense of constructive rationality (per Vernon Smith's terminology, but then he also defines such a thing as ecological rationality, i.e. a form of rationality not imbedded in any individual, but in the group culture). It is Reason that tells us the actual limits of Reason. But yes, absolutely, elevating Reason to more than what it can actually do is extremely dangerous.
Reason is a mystery yet you deny this
@@jacksonelmore6227 It is not a mystery. Grow up already.
@@KRGruner have you considered you’re being intellectually, if not also spiritually, arrogant?
How does one reason the Unconditional Love Nature inherent of reality itself?
It is most obvious yet most mysterious, simultaneously (as paradox)
Yet you insist on only seeing the obvious
You cut your world in two, and are blind to the other half
You say “grow up” yet are a baby yourself (I say this without condescension or pettiness)
@@jacksonelmore6227 Blah, blah, total nonsense. Can't make heads or tails of anything you say, so hard to reply. As to your last sentence, it makes it obvious you are a complete ass.
Every part of the human is limited. The senses are limited, intuition is limited, reason is also limited. Considering our limit, who are we to say what is outside of it, as that would exceed our limit?
I highly disagree with this, look at the stoics and Aristotle. "Reason alone" gave them metaphsycis and through reaosn they were capable of of understanding the Logos and a God who is very similar to ours (for the stoics at least). The truth is that reason alone can provide much fruit, but like Aquinas said, can only yeild so much without divine law.
I'm not sure if they had the same concept of "reason" as we did, I think they meant it as in the natural order of things, rather than a quantifiable measurement
@@DaDoubleDee this is why, as philosophers, it is first important to explain your terms.
There are seven cardinal virtues. Aristotle can explain the pagan virtues, i.e. courage, wisdom, justice, and moderation since these have a highly rational content. The pagan Logos has these characteristics as well. But the christian virtues of faith, hope, and charity by their very definition defy reason. To practice these virtues you have to go against your own logic and reason, just like the christian Logos as described in the gospels goes against all conventional wisdom. And yet these three are the virtues that carried western civilisation for almost 2000 years.
Yet they didn't find our God, only an intellectual idea that is "similar"
I enjoy the stoics as much as the next guy but they have become way over rated lately by stoic bros who want a religion without faith.
For the colorblind, the thumbnail says "REASON IS ENOUGH"
Does anybody know the name of this artwork?
“The sleep of reason produces monsters” by Francisco Goya
This is nice I guess but the presuppositional approach that reason can’t justify itself outside of the Christian world view is much more profound.
I like reasons in my oatmeal.
And is there an adequate definition of "The Monster?" J
Satan hates you, Jonathan. But you know that. Prayers of protection over you.
What does he mean by "multiplicity" and "unity"? Is there a video of his that explains this better?
There are many, just watch more. He almost talks about it all the time
Multiplicity is when you have a lot of quarks and electrons, unity is when they all come together to form a unity, like a cup. Where does the cup get its "cupness"? It is nothing more than a bunch of particles, after all. But nevertheless, it has its "cupness". It is a unity called a "cup".
@@sakamotosan1887 wasnt cupness debunked by diogenes like 2500 years ago
@@buglepong No it wasnt. Fact that he recognised cup is reason why he was wrong about "no cupness".
@@mehowop thats not what forms are. forms precede the instantiation. there's no cup form just as there's no emptiness form
"Who's 'Reason'"?
The modern dilemma begins with aquinas occam and the nominalists turning away from Plato towards Aristotle. It inevitably leads to atheism and an unbalanced mindset.
I agree with Einstein, “I believe in Spinoza’s god, who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a god who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings".
A mystical, religious experience is absolutely an experience of reason. Provided by it. Spirit is not extrarational. Spirit is rationality itself. Logic itself.
it is the sleep of reason, not the dream of reason
Sleep, dream, 🍅🍅🥫🥫
Simply put, there's definitely an irrational aspect of reality with which reason obviously finds itself helpless and useless. The lack of intrinsic essence and the dependent arising or origination of all phenomena, including the self, are a few examples. Existence is too weird when you try to conceptualize; otherwise it is what it is.
2:22 (were you thinking of the reality, that they literally do come from Heaven) 💭 🙃
When it's considered "intellectual" to assert everything came from nothing by unscientifically demonstrated, yet still somehow scientific means and the understanding of gender itself is being turned on its head you know enlightenment reason has run its course.
Everyone knows Hume said reason is the slave of the passions. So this straw man Enlightenment definition always puzzles me. Yes, Godwin and Condorcet went too far, as there is always over-promising, but isn’t the core of the E about trying to figure out what we can know without the dictates of superstition? Early on, The Church told Galileo they determine the truth of the matter, and they I guess thought science and individual reason ought to submit to that. But Kant, while recognizing the limits of reason, as far as I know didn’t say dare to submit but get out of that immaturity and dare to know. So I always wonder about these characterizations.
Behind reason is always a passion, a superstition, and an autobiography. Nietzsche understood this.
If you dont believe in a God, all universals are superstitious.
@@Wholly_Fool within superstition, however, I would still want to distinguish between the irrational, like instinct and intuition, and the supernatural. And though the fidelity to reason is itself a passion, admitting this doesn’t now make every passion an equal player on the field.
Again...as much as I love Jonathan I have to ask, have you in fact spent some quality time listening to Lindsey? In my many, many hours of listening to both of you, there are many parallels and contrasts that coincide at a point that balances faith/mystery and reason/?
In all of Lindsey's work faith and humility is the check to reason and vice versa. Faith without reason can produce just as many monsterous synthetic subtractions as reason can as examplified by Calvin and Augustinian dialectics turned dogmatiques. Allul warned us of this in the Technological Society, where faith (in science) explodes into what we now realize as the "new" Erathian Atheism. Thats just as much a reason without faith as faith without reason. Flipping out synthesis as though its a ticket to tour with Peterson is just as much of a cop out as Lindsey closet cloaking his leanings toward a "Christian" Neo-conned Conservatism; while all through his lectures the dialectic, gnostic paradigm is continually being confronted. Just saying....
I see a certain humility in Lindsay but faith? What would you say he has faith in?
@@markcounseling That's a good question. He sure has no problem answering that question from the Bible. He has quoted many scriptures regarding the specifics of a Christ-centered faith. In his lectures on gnosticism and the dialectic Lindsey has used Hebrews 11 as the Faith chapter to outline a faith-based response to the ambiguous nature of reason dissolved into nameless categories. Starting with faith is often the paradigm breaker from which more specific directions begin. But to say that Lindsey is all reason and no faith is like saying the ocean has no water. Even Atheists have faith. Even to ask "faith in what?" is a scientific approach to saying I have faith in...what. In other words, "what faith is" should be closer to how I think Lindsey would state his position. Maybe after that, faith becomes a journey you answer as Christ frees you from the bondage of evil. So does Lindsey say that? Does Pageau or Peterson say that? Maybe.
@@ChaseyBearMagnanimity I like your answer although I’m afraid I don’t really understand it. By chance I’m beginning Merleau Ponty’s The Visible and the Invisible and he’s discussing “perceptual faith” -- and this seems to me to be what Lindsey has. Which is in line with his atheism. He has faith in what his eyes see and believes very strongly in it. This strong belief in it is perhaps what you refer to as the water in the ocean? That makes sense to me, given the milieu in which he was raised and the critical role of “belief” especially in the southern United States.
I haven’t followed Lindsey as closely as you seem to have, but my sense is that his alliance with the Christian Right is strategic, not to say cynical, because of his overarching project to defeat the new communism. Not that he hasn’t moved from his original rejection of Christianity to an awakened embrace of its value in ordering society -- which he most certainly has -- but that’s a very different thing than Christian faith. But perhaps he’s evolved further?
I am amazed at his energy, scope of intellect, and creativity, but for me he is dulled by the literalist tendencies endemic to the fundamentalisms of traditional religious thought or atheism. His take on gnosticism seems to me just wrong, for example. I don’t think he has a feeling for what gnosis is or could mean. His logic fix blinds him to it imo.
And -- I appreciate the dialogue.
@@markcounseling Very nicely stated. Thank you for taking the time to craft such a thoughtful response. And you make some good points. I looked back on my notes and had forgotten the questions I had concerning a few of his literal takes on logos and ethos for examples, of which fundamentally seem superficial and lineal if you are rushing at them without a strong tradition behind and within you. But you know, I came away with a stronger sense for faith as a co-operative thing as a result of Lindsey's work. I had no question of his personal status. I could only look at my own condition and ask...for more. For that I am grateful to disentangle myself from the vast tree of gnostic variances. Lindsey has been one of the first to tackle gnosis beyond it's face value by throwing it out quite literally and demanding we refill the tub with fresh meaning. And that project seems to be ongoing. Maybe to the Cross?
@@markcounseling I also want to add this from Dante's Inferno, Canto 16, Lines 118-126 which seems applicable to this dialogue:
Ah, how cautiously a man should breathe near those who see not only what we do, but have the sense which reads the mind beneath!
He said to me: " You will soon see arise what we await, and what you wonder at; soon you will see the thing before your eyes."
To the truth which will seem falsehood every man who would not be called a liar while speaking fact should learn to seal his lips as best he can.
--And if you read on, faith is what rises from the depths.
Is the subconscious not reasonable 🤔 J
Was Isaac Newton an "Enlightenment" thinker? He was a big fan of alchemy etc. haha
I'm a nihilist (amongst other things). What am I missing?
Do you feel like missing something?
@@marismols Sure. I always feel I'm missing something. Doesn't everyone? But I wasn't asking about feelings, rather if there was something a bit more concrete. I dont think there is.
A reason to think that to exist is better than not to exist, perhaps.
@@reinedire7872 Oh, I have that already. I prefer existing to not existing.
Your feeling of missing something is itself a concrete reality. You feel it, you name it, and you wrestle with it. Your feelings exist, and they don’t exist alone, they exist within the context of reality in some way.
There’s something that your feeling of emptiness corresponds to. The thing that your feeling of emptiness corresponds to is the thing you’re missing.
I find the notion that the enlightenment was a "dream of reason" (quite an oxymoron to begin with) or a "representation of the ultimate consequences of reason" to be risible.
The enlightenment was everything BUT reasonable. If we do not develop our rationality we leave everything in the hands of "the unconscious" or "God"; which is the same as leaving everything in the hands of the ones who want to take advantage of us.
Too much emphasis in "feeling" and in "passions" is what they have put in our heads precisely in order to make us idealists and make us fail.
Sci inti fic /research in Latin = means
“Know that it is fiction “
This is meaningless. This has nothing to do with the modern English word "scientific". You're really grasping here.
Interesting
Here you see Jonathan's spiritual limitations and why he ends up a believer. To think that identities are not constituents of reason is to literally not understand spirit at all.
His definition of reason is shallow and "external" in Hegel's language. But yeah, I would not expect otherwise.
reason is a post hoc regulator of identities which are assumed and understood pre-reason.
@@Fed-tt6cp That is only possible through the concept of god as that which generates identities. Cuz that is the question. What is it that generates and sustains identities? What created the world and its inherent logic/order? Jonathan would say god. But that is just an unenlightened point of view. It is reason itself that sustains and maintains everything as the very nature and fact of spirit. And that reason or logic is what we are, in our eternal essence.
But it is obvious. Identities are constituents of an order. And it is through reason that such an order is sustained.
It is also through reason that such an order is re-attained, from a human point of view. The divine is accessed through reason, because it is itself, reason.
The return of Mary Magdalene will complete christianity.
When will she return?
Why will she return? J@@InnovativeSaint
Who takes this man seriously ? Please steel man his position for men