Metamodern Spirituality | Philosophy, Wisdom & Metamodernism (w/ James Cussen)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 15 сен 2024
- James Cussen, creator of the @TheLivingPhilosophy RUclips channel, talks to Brendan about metamodernism within the context of intellectual history, the relationship of philosophy to academia, the need for wisdom schools, and much else.
📼 Check out James's video on metamodernism:
• What is Metamodernism?
📺 Check out The Living Philosophy:
/ thelivingphilosophy
www.BrendanGrahamDempsey.com
It was a delight speaking to you Brendan. I was left with my mind firing with inspiration and with new thoughts to hound down which is always fulfilling!
It was very clear that you loved this conversation James. What a great smile you have, like your mind. Love what you do. Thank you so much for the meta modernism video. ❤
Love all your ideas you’re def flushing out a path forward for a new take on beauty
i love digging into all your interviews.
i appreciate your getting into wilbur’s critiques of archetypes. i don’t see how old archetypes are merely primordial and regressive - evolved reservoirs of meaning are a product of complex life emerging, attractors riding the line between order and chaos, fractal substantiations of what are still meaningful through intellectual analysis
it’s also why i see whatever new religion may emerge won’t really be new - we are largely the same animals who have mostly existed without language; we have just gained an increasing appreciation of reality’s subtleties. any new religion will just make what previously was sufficient as implicit understanding into explicit knowledge, as our intellect further disconnects us from embodied wisdom
James is a great at breaking down so many abstract ideas and movements in religion and philosophy.with passion and feeling that is missing in so in todays world. You just get the wonderful vibe from him in every video
The weekends at the college didn't turn out like you planned
The things that pass for knowledge I can't understand
-Steely Dan
"The key is balance. Harsh selection must be balanced with tolerance of failure, rigor with playfulness, convergent with divergent thinking, authority with autonomy, mindfulness with mind-wandering, educational depth with breadth, small steps with giant leaps. Compared to Darwinism 1.0, that insight is already revolutionary."
-Andreas Wagner
😢
Very much enjoyed this convo, I’m always learning something from you both, I hope to see you both team up again soon! All the best to you and your channel.... Cheers 💖!
Loved the conversation! I feel right at home listening to you two speak and that just brings me a lot of joy. Thanks for that!
Also, I have been thinking about how to really be open towards ideas coming from different echo chambers and the way James is framing it as being curious instead of being certain is really helpful.
7:46 this gave me so much anxiety lol
So cool..
What arises from this discussion for me is the pattern of thinkers rising out from the tumult of social ecologies that have been the source of the modern philosopher's displacement. It seems like we as a society are moving fast and breaking things for a particular model of freedom which is unsustainable in the eyes of some individuals with the capacity to imagine the future through the lense of modern social practice. There seems to be a recognizable shift in the philosophical paradigm from the continental and analytic traditions to a a form of thought less contingent with the academic tragectory and more immersed in the observance of the sacred now.
❤🙏🌀
The way I see the iteration of philosophy and society, it's an issue of trust. It has been the philosophy of the last two centuries that has brought us to the current situation of hopelessness, increase in mental disorders (here include the basis of which capitalism consists: individualism) and nihilism. The "cultural war" is increasingly problematic; it is based on postmodernism. Can philosophy be trusted to repair what it itself has created, by almost destroying the social fabric and therefore the moral fabric?
As James Cussen has said, Faulcault did not build anything, he only denounced. Nietzsche destroyed and did not give him time to reconcile his contradictions. There is talk of optimistic nihilism, but it seems to me to be an oxymoron: it lacks epistemic validity. Almost no one believes Camus, no one wants to dig a meters three-hole for several days, fill it in again for several days (to change the analogy to a more accessible one) and start again. Philosophy has to be intertwined with science and sociology to reach "rights." Ideas cannot be shuffled without contrasting them statistically, at least. The philosopher has to come down from his ivory tower, but RUclips is not enough, he must have real data. It occurs to me that this is what is being done in the philosophy of mind, but the same work would be needed on a moral level and to establish a social fabric that is now almost completely destroyed.
Let's take the case of the problems raised by feminists. Violence will never reach zero..., if so, is it optimal or legitimate for society to add more problems to an unsolvable problem? It is only creating a culture war between men and women, which can never be for the better. Science says that intragenomic sexual conflict exists. That is: the war of the sexes has existed since sexual reproduction was born in evolution. Each sex has different means and ends. Each one tries to take evolution to their side. Each species has some precarious balance to such conflict. Feminism cannot resolve such conflicts. Women can adhere to balanced positions for the good of humanity. The weaker sex at an evolutionary level is the male, once he deposits his sperm he is no longer required. His sense of life is weaker, his hormones more destructive to his brain and body (he dies earlier, dies more in accidents, has more tendencies toward serious mental disorders, and kills himself more). Through the family, women gave it meaning, but that meaning is being lost because women need it less and less. He has to look for a meaning in himself, which no longer seems to be the couple or the family, but evolution and for man - at a deep level, I would say even ontological, if what I affirm here is followed - is more tending to "connect" with the meaninglessness of life, in a fateful way. Almost all of the "creators" of nihilism have been male philosophers, it is in their "veins."
I go back to the beginning. How to regain trust? In my point of view, male philosophers cannot provide it. It must be women putting the family as the center again, giving their anthropological meaning to men again, as caregivers and providers (this does not mean that women stay "at home and with a broken leg"). We must put an end to the cultural war, which if analyzed at a sociological level, is carried out above all by feminists (not all countries have "ethnic war"; It is at least disturbing that every woman is instigated to suspect men, when at a mythological level the woman is the mother and her quality is to love both her sons and her daughters without noticing the distinction). It is carried out by the left by adhering to or making their own the war of the sexes and therefore the cultural one. War that was started by philosophers: postmodernism. Does philosophy now intend to return to humans something that was stolen from us? We no longer have trust. We lack faith, nihilism has already taken its toll and it seems like an impossible task. The West has killed itself through its philosophies and now the ball is in the court of the Eastern cultures.
Good to question the idea of consciousness at a societal level. It can't happen. Society is not a person. Hobbes was wrong.
In my context it is easier to be Jew-ish than Christian-ish or Roman Catholic-ish- it sounds more correct and real too😅
will there even be a time that religion will relax attachment (and it’s containment) to what is literal/historical/physical?
I think it is futile for religion to be esoteric as all are currently bounded too much by the Physical for it to exist -especially also by their own histories and tradition (and political agenda)
-hence formal offshoots start as denominations and all others just start as cults (and some have different graduations to its attachment to the physical --and I would rather not be branded as part of any of it- even if I may be part in one😅 ultimately if it attaches me to the world in a very warped manner that it pushes away the world or another thinking person that is quite concerning
Tldr. Can someone summarize it for me in 3 paragraphs or less?