anything we give energy to in this MATRIX becomes real. did women become gods as satan promised eve? sure they did. we give them all our energy...even worship
@@notloki3377 He isn’t screaming at the snow. See, once he screams it’ll cut away to a shot of outside and the snow falling as his screaming is heard in the distance.
This is a long video about nothing. “Santa Claus” was based on a real person. His name was St. Nick and he was said to be a legend for traveling around and giving away his inherited wealth. He was a Greek bishop born around 280 AD in Patra (Roman Empire) near Myra which is now in modern-day Turkey. Nick was a fiery defendant of the Christian doctrine, especially in 303 AD when bibles were burned and priests were forced to renounce a Christianity or face persecution. The name Santa Claus means Saint Nick (Klaus/Claus is an anglicized abbreviation of the name Nicholas or Nikolaos in Greek). He is depicted as Northern European even though it’s the opposite of reality/history.
@@ImOk... Im sure. I watched countless of his videos and read the book his brother wrote. The point of the video exists independent of Santa that's why he was able to use the Tooth Fair or a Chair as an example along side Santa. Providing historical context behind the origin of Santa is nice but doesn't relate to the point of the video whatsoever.
The video succinctly describes my suspicion on the flaw of objectively viewing the world. I was an atheist(as in I want to view the world as objectively as possible). But I encounter the "rock" problem. Let's ask the question if a rock exists? Technically, no. What you really have is a collection of quarks arranging themselves into protons and neutrons circling by a cloud of electrons that arranged themselves into an energetically stable configuration that gives rise to their periodic structural lattice which we then calls a crystal and the collection of crystals that clumps together through Van der Waals force is what known colloquially as a 'Rock'. A rock is merely the conceptual representation of the arrangements of quarks in a very very very specific ways, just like Santa Claus is a conceptual representation of a very very very specific network of electrons moving around in the neurons of around 2 billion people(Christians). A rock's existence is no more valid than the way we perceive it and if our perception is what makes something real, the permanent rise of something like Santa Claus must therefore be real too by definition. You can say its not real because you can't weigh it. There's something you can't weight too. RUclips. Does RUclips exist? What RUclips really is from an objective point of view is a collection of sequentially firing of nano-sized transistors in a computer/server. You can't measure RUclips nor can you weigh it. You can obviously weigh the electrical charge on all the transistor that involved in generating RUclips, or the staffs from the Janitor to the CEO of RUclips, or perhaps the weight in gold its revenue represents. But is RUclips merely the firings of transistors, or the company staff that runs it, or the staff that runs its parent company Alphabet Inc., or is it the culmination of our collective consciousness manifesting via the generation and viewership of RUclips content that makes up RUclips? Or is it just Quarks? Technically yes. But it's not a helpful analysis.
"Let's ask the question if a rock exists? Technically, no." It exists. The fact that the rock can be ontologically reduced to quarks doesn't mean the rock doesn't exist, which is our denotation for that collection of quarks in that manner. That reference however, is not the referent itself, nor relevant for the actual existence of the referent. You guys wouldn't pass a graduate level ontology class and are impressed by postmodern blabbering. It usually ends the minute physical harm or money is involved.
@@malchir4036 how does this refute the existance of Santa? If your argument is denotation, than it's just a definition problem. Well, we define Santa therefore he exists.
This is without a doubt one of the best videos I've seen in a very long time. I've not yet come across any thinker who explains these concepts with the wit, brevity and humour that you do, Jonathan. All of your work should be compulsory viewing for anyone remotely interested in the times we live in, because your videos above all others that I have seen truly shine a light on the dark age we currently live in. By which I mean that the world as presented by the materialists like Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins is so drab, 2D and lifeless in contrast to the rich tapestry of being that you describe. Can I just add that I became a Christian in my late 20s because all throughout my childhood and early adulthood, although it was cool to be atheist, I couldn't help but intuit that there was much more to this universe than meets the eye. It is such a relief to find that I am not the only person who has noticed this, and a pure delight to have its geography laid out in so lively and vivacious a manner. Thank you, brother!
What? His argument is that Santa exists because the little girl believes he does for a brief moment in a shopping mall. For something to "exist" it needs to satisfy the full definition of the word, not just a warm and fuzzy moment in time. The little girl's belief in a fairy tale is not enough. She isn't aware the adults made up the story, and paid a man to dress up in a suit. When Santa only exists for an ignorant child at the shopping mall, Santa most certainly does not exist. As for God, we don't have higher intelligent beings to ask, but if we did, there's a very good chance they'd inform us that God doesn't exist in the way described by popular religions.
@@chaiTV I agree his take falls short, cuz while we collectively co-create a giant world-spanning puppet-ghost of "Santa" who exists, for sure, in the realm of "mankind's imagination" or something, that puppet has no agency of it's own, so is a bad springboard to argue for the reality of a human Soul or an Eternal God...
@@Lu11abi he has no agency? Where is the pattern of the Santa Claus located materialistically? Is the whole santa in my head? Are the parts of the Santa distributed through all of our heads, and their sum is the whole? Its not in the little girl's imagination. It came from outside her
I recently discovered your channel thanks to a tweet from J.B.Peterson. I'm glad i found it, your videos are so interesting. Your analysis are easily understandable and brilliant. I was as an adolescent a deep nihilistic atheist and as i'm growing up, i'm more and more fascinated by the meaning of life, the symbolic of human experience. What does it mean to be part of the human being journey. As you open my understanding, i'm more and more agreable with faithful people. Faithful people who understand why they believe, who thought hard about what it means to believe. I can't find pleasure anymore to speak with a nihilistic guy who has no purpose in his life. You have my thanks from France, more people here should see your work as we are the European champions of nihilisim, materialism and post-modernism mixed chaos. Have a nice day Jonathan
"To me it seems completely absurd to say Santa Claus doesn't exist. Because, obviously, Santa Claus exists." *cut to intro* Well played, Jonathan. Well played. I really like your videos, man; very insightful, each of them. Keep at it; keep doing God's work.
This brings so much more depth to “god is dead and we’ve killed him” and “there is no such thing as govt, just people acting as govt”...among others. Thank you.
I have been falling in love with your channel and content. Some of it is over my head in understanding, but there's a spark of curiosity and a sense of truth that seems to settle into my being. Especially during these dark times, it was your videos that i was guided to watch that helped me come out of a dark spell that i had been stuck in for a few weeks. I began knowing nothing about Orthodox faith, and now I find myself asking all sorts of questions to my inner dialogue. Thanks for sharing your light. Merry Christmas.
I think the same pragmatical argument could be made to rationalist types in this way "Are numbers real? If not, why do you insist on using them? Does the amount of utility you get out of treating them as something 'real'-like make them more or less real?" I think this would be effective as most of them are sciency types and have lots of experience with numbers.
lajexander Numbers are only a concept in your head. If you want to include concepts in your head as being real, then they are real. The same goes for santa and god, as they are only concepts in your head. Why would the utility of an idea have anything to do with how real it is? Is a number more or less real than a Realicorn? If utility equals realness then why are we talking about ideas being real? We should be talking about their usefulness. Santa (the idea) is useful because it keeps children in line during christmas season. God (the idea) is useful because we don't want people masturbating or being gay. They are watching.
Nico Dez - I can't answer this question, but this conversation between John and his brother might come close: ruclips.net/video/0VIRA6T33o4/видео.html His book seems to provide a profound mindset shift to be able to see the world in a phenomenalogical way (in a way that not even John understood before reading it). I haven't read it myself, but I'd like to.
Nico Dez, it is a consistent reduction of the semantic layers - "levels of being", as a result of which we come to the essence (Santa) that is manifested in them.
I thought phenomenological observation Just means the way it is observed. So for instance the earth is flat, phenomenologically speaking...because that’s how we observe it when walking around on it.
My neighbor told the Christmas story to her 3 year old son at the time, then when they went to the mall and he saw Santa there he said "Look mommy! It's Jesus!"
You know, I never really stopped believing in the Three Wise Men even when my mother told me that she was the one placing the gifts. I knew their spirits existed, and my mother placing the gifts was a consequence of their existence.
I've been watching this channel for a couple days straight. I love your analysis. I feel like the more diverse your understanding of Christianity, or anything really, the more you start to see the patterns. I'm an artist as well so I can relate it to when I started to paint the figure and still life with only color. The patterns and relationships started to reveal themselves the more intensely I looked for them. And I literally mean patterns in color. Similar to pointillism, I started to separate out local color then mold the forms based on a sort of wrestling with the truth of what I was seeing. My work is now completely different and much more abstract expressionistic but I do have a very serious understand of drawing and painting realistically which helps to make sense of the chaos. I think knowing the "scales" is essential when venturing out into a more chaotic forms of image making like abstraction and expressionism. A good foundation in anything will help you when you wander off into the unknown. You'll have a sort of tool kit to make it more real, or at least bring something back from the void. I feel the same way about the search for what Christianity means in the modern world.
This video is highly underrated. It actually summarizes The Symbolic World in a way anyone can understand. Btw, check out Akira the Don's music video of this too :D
Jonathan, I think your argument is pretty solid, but it left me wondering about consciousness. Surely we cannot deny the existence of a BELIEF in the spirit of a culturally-dependent entity called Santa Claus, nor the fact that people who adhere to that culture act out his existence, in Petersonian terms. What I don't understand - and I'm not saying you've implied that this is possible in the video at all - is how one could make a leap from a phenomenological existence of a belief in Santa Claus, and the fact that he does have objective properties, to the conclusion that this entity possesses consciousness or, if you will, a soul. I ask this, of course, because this leap would be necessary in order to formulate a phenomenological claim of the existence of God, which, again, I don't think you're explicitly trying to prove here. Do you think that leap is possible or is consciousness not encompassed in this ontology? Thank you for the video. Great stuff.
I think that maybe Saint Nicholas existed and that Santa Claus is somewhat/somehow tied to that spirit/soul. The life of Saint Nick and the mythos of Santa are from the same spirit. Saint Nick did not know that he would become Santa after his death, but his hope/prayer for the world encompassed such a heart and idea for the whole world. Maybe, just maybe, his prayers for the world were answered and He is able to still use his hands and his feet today after his death...through his soul/spirit.
You could argue that the collective mental effort and physical actions of people believing in Santa Claus forms a distributed mind/soul. Kind of like how an ant hive has a distributed mind that vastly exceeds what any individual ant has going on their individual nervous systems. If the combined efforts of ant minds can form such an impressive super-mind, just how impressive is one formed by human minds?
I love the slightly maniacal cackle that Jonathon gives when he talks about the 'voice of the United states' near the end of the video ... where he realizes that he is communicating a form of realisation that is both essentially true and yet can be taken as literally false. Really think this video hits it out of the park. For the material realist/neuroscience/new atheists a way of understanding this may be we, as a species, seem to be able to orient our attention to different levels of neuroprocessing (E.g I can see Santa Claus, the Joe who is dressed as Santa Claus, the Santa Claus as a representation of category called mall workers or mall Santa clauses or mall members of public or out of mall member of public or member of human race or member of life or member of the universe of material things. To do each of those requires a variance in brain processing which can be seen by different patterning on mri, as an example. This different patterning also facilitates and inhibits over areas of brain function which has a top down sequential change on other cellular function (tissue/organ etc) and thus they process differently and achieve different states of being. Consciously while we can cognitively differentiate or highlight or attend to aspects of experience (what I see or hear or even within the realms of sight such as colour or movement) this is always contingent upon synthesis or synasthesia (some brain parts get direct connection from multiple sensory organs). If we were to synthesize a person in a community in a world of beings in a world of animals in a world of material in a world of forces in a world of flux/interactions and encapsulated that process we could envision a unity. Some people envision this as a form of being (gods etc) and some folks don't (atheistic ultimate causation).
This is really fascinating. It’s funny because I remember being sort of a Santa agnostic as a kid lol My parents never told me one way or another but I would sometimes leave cookies out just in case. As for the Tooth Fairy, on some level I always knew that my dad was the one putting the money under my pillow, but at the same time I knew “the tooth fairy” was the reason in an abstract sense. This is the first video to put that into words
Absolutely love this video!! This form of love is one that exists within me....lol Great video Jonathan. Thank you so much for what you give here. You add so much to my journey.
Santa Claus is not one physical deity. But instead is made up of the carols and the laughs who are in reference to Santa Claus. Santa Claus is made up of the people who dress up as him, the figure in children's minds who put the presents under the tree (the mystery and delightful anticipation accompanying the night before Christmas) - the old man on the street who wishes you a merry Christmas and as you walk past him, laughs; oh oh oh oh. Santa Claus is the personification of Christmas, and to say he doesn't exist is like saying Christmas doesn't exist. Santa Claus is the spirit of Christmas. I never thought of it like this; thank you; insightful video and you put a smile to my face. I've always given my children presents under the guise of being Santa, and now I realise I was Santa; I was a manifestation of him. I'm always going to play Santa and when my children grow old I'll tell them what you have told me in the hope that they shall do the same. I now believe again in Santa.
"The Hogfather" by Terry Pratchett is a very interesting fantasy novel that approaches this argument *from* the absurd. There's even a SkyTV made-for-TV movie that wasn't too bad. An excerpt from the book to entice: “All right," said Susan. "I'm not stupid. You're saying humans need... fantasies to make life bearable." REALLY? AS IF IT WAS SOME KIND OF PINK PILL? NO. HUMANS NEED FANTASY TO BE HUMAN. TO BE THE PLACE WHERE THE FALLING ANGEL MEETS THE RISING APE. "Tooth fairies? Hogfathers? Little-" YES. AS PRACTICE. YOU HAVE TO START OUT LEARNING TO BELIEVE THE LITTLE LIES. "So we can believe the big ones?" YES. JUSTICE. MERCY. DUTY. THAT SORT OF THING. "They're not the same at all!" YOU THINK SO? THEN TAKE THE UNIVERSE AND GRIND IT DOWN TO THE FINEST POWDER AND SIEVE IT THROUGH THE FINEST SIEVE AND THEN SHOW ME ONE ATOM OF JUSTICE, ONE MOLECULE OF MERCY. AND YET-Death waved a hand. AND YET YOU ACT AS IF THERE IS SOME IDEAL ORDER IN THE WORLD, AS IF THERE IS SOME...SOME RIGHTNESS IN THE UNIVERSE BY WHICH IT MAY BE JUDGED. "Yes, but people have got to believe that, or what's the point-" MY POINT EXACTLY.”
Very clever and emotional writing by a true master Psychopomp, Terry Pratchet... But I don't buy it um...ontologically. Justice, Mercy, Duty...these things have some sorta "form" like light...they are a part of us, at least, if not the Universe itself, whether we were here or not.
This video transformed my life from atheist materialism Orthodox Christianity, ultimately. It wasn't overnight. And it wasn't easy. But this video played a pivotal role. thank you, Jonathan!
That was an a-ha moment for me (and I'm 24) It explains the magic of the game. Also I enjoyed the part where his daughter carried the game on to another person. I explains so well where traditions come from and how they function.
There are massive differences between believing in God and Santa; Santa only exists as a role/character because humans invented him, God is more than a role or a character and exists regardless of humans. The reason an Atheist said to me that he rejected Christianity was because his parents, like you, treat it with the same level of realness as Santa (and so he never had the motivation or divine experience to make his faith personal). Unless I remember incorrectly: Jesus is a separate entity from the church (also called the Body of Christ). Yes people can characterize Christ, fulfill his roles, be his tools, but they're still physically parts of the Church. The Church is joined/married with Christ, but that doesn't mean the members of the Church have become Christ.
Once a man who roamed and gave Who rung his bells through night and day A spirit absorbed and played each year Removing winters touch of fear Out from the hearth and into the hand We spread this love across the land The gift of giving has no bounds The cycle goes around and round To feed the deer to feed the hounds Never forget the man that sounds
I admire you very much for articulating belief so that even a modern person like me can grasp it. It's really cool that you laugh so much, too, because it shows you know how counterintuitive it is for us to consider this seriously, but we gotta get over ourselves to get to the good stuff!
While I appreciate how you've laid this out, (I dig the concept of non-corporeal memes/archetypes/myths having actual physical impact here on earth) I worry about how unconstrained this explanation seems to be, and how it can essentially be applied to anything thereby effectively able to be redefined in whichever way one deems it. How might one avoid this problem?
The definitions humans create are not arbitrary. So if you try to redefine something in a way that is not in line with reality your definition is less likely to sustain the more time passes.
Not completely, because "societal constructs" necessarily flow out of the structure of reality in which society exists. For a society to function it cannot be structured in any which way, but rather there are certain patterns by which functional societies exist, so too a society has expressed the being and pattern which makes us recognize Santa Claus as an important being, a desired story and trope which is remembered and passed on by all.
Kinda like the relationship between nature and nurture and how that expresses itself as lived experience. There is physical, phenomenological, individual and social components etc that express themselves. The brain can be reduced to an individual but the mind cannot. This does not mean by default supernatural. But that our sense of being does not end at the skin. it includes the relationship we are in with others and the culture we are embedded in. These Tooth fairies can be as real as our hand or internal thoughts or feelings. But expressed through cultural tropes. Because they cannot be reduced down to one person individually.
Jonathan Pageau Santa Claus makes more sense to me but why is the tooth fairy an important being? What sort of value is gained from believing a fairy gives you money for losing your baby teeth? Does it have something to do with growing up?
Adrian H I think it may have come from the idea that teeth falling out is a scary thing for kids. Important bits of your body, for no apparent reason falling away. Unlike hair or fingernails which don't hurt when you cut them losing a tooth hurts and it bleeds. Parents tell the child it's ok, this means a new tooth will grow -- But we don't know how long it'll take. A fairy that gives you money the very next day is sort of like a deposit on the idea that you'll be getting a newer, better tooth. Plus it acknowledges that a tooth is valuable and needed as it'll be difficult to eat for some time.
This reminds me of CS Lewis essay on Transposition. I guess how higher abstract medium transpositions into the lower physical medium. Something like that, lol
So there is a degree of existence that goes beyond the material, and influences our actions by allowing us to embody their being. So are you a Christian mainly because you believe the best embodiment for humanity is in the narrative of the story of Jesus? Would you say there is a problem with the religious people that are more concern with the material existence of Jesus and his return rather than trying to embody Jesus? I think those are the people the new atheist types are criticizing. I think this video made things a bit more clear for me. Thanks Jonathan.
Fibius Maximus I didn't say those realities are mutually exclusive or even in conflict. I was looking for some common ground between the people like Jonathan and Peterson that have a more sophisticated view of religion and the new atheist types. Discussions between these two groups never get anywhere because they are always talking about different aspects of religion. It would be interesting to see where the conversation would go once each group acknowledges the other side of the coin.
AdHominus Could you explain your reasoning for saying that? Santa Claus did not have to exist in any point in time in order for parents to embody a Santa Claus and give happiness to their children. Why would it be any different for the story of Jesus?
Space Man Santa Claus is conceived of as an incarnate being. Christ without a body would be a purely spiritual being. You cannot "embody" an unincarnate being by definition. Christ represents both God's incarnation and Man's deification. Without both processes occurring simultaneously, there can be no face-to-face relationship between Man and God. Only signs and symbols.
Jonathan, love your videos! Is it your belief that God exists the same way Santa clause does? Meaning that the idea of God becomes incarnate in human beings as does the idea of Santa Clause but has no independence (or no more independence than any other idea) from humanity? Thanks in advance!
How is Joe doing 3 years later? Just curious? Is he still playing Santa? Did his girlfriend come back? Love your work, Johnathan. Thank you, for what you are doing.
Does this explanation not have a negating effect on the Christian worldview if you are relating the way in which Santa and the tooth fairy exist to the way that God or christ exists? In this sense anything we can imagine would technically exist. Any God or character in literature or film would technically exist if we embody their characteristics. This suggests that Santa exists in the psyche, but not the physical world. Are you saying that God exists in the psyche but not the physical world? This makes the existence of God contingent on our existence.
This is exactly why i convinced my wife to NOT promote Santa in our home. And if my Kids asks i will tell: Well, santa is as real as Mickey Mouse. But not real like mom and dad, or Jesus.
Jonathan, this whole video is brilliant and 100% matches my own views on this topic that I had come to independently before watching it. I was super distraught when I got to that certain age and other kids started saying Santa Claus didn't exist, because he so obviously does. Similarly, the worst mistake atheists make is saying “It's not literally, materially real, so it's NOT REAL!”. That's the intellectual level of a 10-year-old.
Brilliant video! This reminds of my favorite comic book writer Grant Morrison’s perspective on comic superheroes as well. Of course, the difference with God is He doesn’t just exist not on that level, but above it. He’s more real than we are.
Children get this, I remember thinking this about mall Santa's as a kid, I knew they weren't the real Santa, but they were like Santa representatives, they could talk to Santa for me lol!
The interpretation of Santa Claus as someone who wants to put children at ease when you talk to them reminds me of the old version of Miracle on 34th Street with Maureen O’Hara. It also makes me think that my mom didn’t push me to go over and sit on Santa’s lap because I was too scared to speak to strangers. Prayer works the same way I’ve read; we are taught we need to speak out what is on our hearts, and we gradually become ingrained in a silent meditation of our life’s work. The Tooth Fairy also really worries me because I’d be afraid of waking my child to put a coin under their pillow. I wouldn’t even begin to know where to store or what to do with the baby teeth afterward.
To summarize - there is a world of objects and matter (phenomenon, concrete things as they present to us) and a world of ideas and meaning (noumenon - abstract things in themseves) and they both form what we call reality. The respective schools of thought are materialism and idealism and the argument is which takes precedence in forming reality. Atheists and the "modern man" is concerned with materialism and is contented with the answers science provides, regarding it as the bringer of "objective truth" or even the only truth there is. He treats science as religion while failing to acknowledge the irony and is blind to the one-sidedness and impotence of science when dealing with problems within the world of ideas and meaning.
Great video! Your work is new to me. Begs the question, how wise is it to let our kids put on the persona of characters or even caricatures of evil entities at Halloween, including so called fairies, or Disney (supposedly good in some cases, but...)?
I remember arguing with empiricists who accepted my formulation that the only thing that exists is that which is perceived by the 5 senses. I then said terriffic, we must now investigate if science exists: 1. The only things that exists are things which can be perceived by the empirical method 2. I can not perceive Science with my senses 3. therefore science does not exist. It then ended up in a wierd argument where, I a theist, was arguing that science does exists, and people who think science is the be all and end all of human achievement, weren't so sure it existed.....
Sounds like you're trying to find excuses to ignore science. Your brain can handle the concept of science, and your brain is a physical electrical neural network where impulses pass between nerve cells. Just because your hands are not feeling your own neurotransmitters, doesn't mean your perception is not working to perceive science and validate its existence.
@@sonicnarutoTDpg Actually it's exactly what he is saying. He literally sets a false premise, requiring you to believe it: "nothing can exist outside of what the 5 senses perceive" which is a really bad way to begin a discussion, requiring that everyone agrees with some ridiculous condition. BTW your reply is very simple, like a child wrote it, contrary with no evidence, no reasoning, no point. I suggest adding more substance to your contributions, otherwise you're wasting everyone's time.
@@chaiTV I'm pretty sure he's not denying that science exists, hes just pointing out their flaw in worldview. Science goes beyond your 5 senses. If you're such a dunce to think that everything is to be reduced to physics and chemistry, and say thats the epitome of reality, you have quite a serious problem. You don't actually exist at that kind of level, so its a non-starter.
The family under the bridge is a great children’s book that perfectly exemplifies this. I encourage anyone who has kids to read it with them around Christmas.
Even things with out physical form exist. He touched on that love exists. We can feel love. We can see the effects of love. Even when we can’t understand love, for example, when two people love each other and we can understand why they love each other, we can still see the love they share. Love exist separate to those who share love. When a person you love dies, you can still feel and see the love they had for you and you can feel the love you have for them. The love two people have is felt for generations after two people die in their children and grandchildren. Items can be imbued with love. When you look at a picture, a homemade sweater, a baseball glove, or even a something a trivial as a comb, you can feel the love, experiences, and memories emanating out of them. Metaphysical things exist just as much and often last longer than physical things.
I do like that he is called "Santa Claus" and as I've been living in Greece "Agios Vasilis" that also is a saint. It makes the association with the message of Christmas and "goodness" better. In Sweden we call him "jul tomten" wich actually means something similar to the Christmas elf, but not exactly. People used to believe that it existed small grumpy figures (very small) that you had to please during the years in different ways. Otherwise the harvest might go wrong or you could have bad luck in other ways. Anyways, that is not of course the "tomte" that we tell our children about. He still stands for goodness joy and gifts. When I was a kid my grandmother used to tell me "if you are not nice "tomten" will not come. Only when I was up to something bad of course. It is not really "political correct" to tell your children something like that today. When I was younger I took a college course in Psychology. I read some theory that claimed something like to tell kids those things could cause deep trauma. I feel stupid to say, but I was young, insecure and had some issues, so for a brief period of time I actually belived that I was traumatized from it. Today I find it quite ridicoulos. Even if I never said it to my own kids, I certainly didn't take any damage of it. Quite the opposite I would say. Because it was a very effective way to teach me right from wrong.
This forces me to think more about something I haven't figured out, about how much utility there is in learning about and paying attention to the spirits of beings associated with paganism and idolatry.
100%. The magic is in the worldwide game being played for all the kids. And then when they grow up and figure out the game, THEY get to play the other side. It is so fun. I figured out at age 6 that my mom was the one making presents and she told me to not tell my brother and to play along. And it was fun like I was part of the game! To make it a fun Christmas for the family. It isn’t lying unless you think playing games and make believe is lying… in which case, I’m sorry you never had a childhood.
To me, this comes down to the question of why people say governments exist, but Santa Claus doesn’t. There are many similarities between them regarding their existence and non-existence, but I think what causes people to see them as existing differently lies in the presumed indivisible nature of each one. While people often talk about the government as being an indivisible thing, they too frequently encounter its fractured nature to truly think of it that way. If you ask someone about the parts of government, they can immediately say something about how its made of different people, procedures, parts, locations, etc. But the same thing won’t happen if you ask people about the parts/nature/make-up/etc. of Santa Claus. Confusion is going to be the most likely response because they imagine Santa Claus as a single human doing fantastical things entirely on his own. Some people will answer technically regarding the component parts of the Santa Claus myth/tradition, but most people are either going to ask, “What do you mean?” or they will take extra time to interpret the question (far more time than interpreting the same government question.) If the working parts of something can be identified, people freely accept its existence because it’s merely made of parts doing a bunch of different things. However, if the working parts of something can’t be identified, it’s interpreted as an indivisible will that must either obey the constraints of other indivisible wills or have supernatural powers. Normal indivisible wills are subject to the constraints of material logic while divisible wills aren’t. A government can be in multiple places simultaneously while an individual cannot. A government can “hear the prayers” of hundreds of people simultaneously, while an individual cannot. If we really wanted to be fantastical we could imagine the government being competent enough to deliver presents to everyone in the country in one night, but we couldn’t imagine an individual doing the same thing. Santa Claus exists as much as any government exists. However, that statement only makes sense if you break Santa Claus down into distributed working parts similar to how a government can be broken down into distributed working parts. You can imagine what would happen if people were told to believe in the government in the same way that children might believe in Santa Claus. If people were told we have “Big Brother” and not a government, there would only be three possible avenues of belief for people… 1. Big Brother is an indivisible will with supernatural powers exceeding normal wills. 2. Big Brother is propaganda and doesn’t actually exist. 3. Big Brother is a system made of parts. If there’s one truest way to exist, number 3 ends up winning in many people’s mind because of its explanatory power. It explains the extent of Big Brothers power. It explains how Big Brother can exist while also being propaganda. It explains how the people themselves are Big Brother. And, finally, it shows people that a greater understanding of Big Brother can be achieved by studying its parts.
He is saying Santa exists as an embodied abstraction that everyone participates in and it is in this manner that the character exists similarly to a government. The government as a collective entity has a body a voice, a will ect, even in modern dialouge with the presence of this personification we understand what it means. So similarly Santa exists as a result of a given individual participating in emulating Santa's essence through their action patterns. This comes down to the fact as he said that different phenomena exists on different levels of existence. A rock, a personality trait, a government, fear/love, and Santa have different modes of existence that can be understood and evaluated differently.
I thought this was a good presentation regarding the existence of being. Or how it exists and in what way. If anything I felt what Jonothan was saying was not trying to regress to pre-enlightenment perspectives but show the limitations of the paradigms we have now, and before us. But not rejecting previous either. I think the use of archetypes is very useful with the complexity of experience. Postmodernist and all predecessors limit themselves, in relation to where we are now, by reducing down to one perspective and at the same time rejecting others. ie reducing it down to materialism ignoring phenomenology or reducing it down to literal ignoring modern etc. Archetypes cannot be reduced and it does not mean rejecting others in the process. Nor does it stop either being real. They just manifest in different ways. So it is not postmodern either in sense of everything is relative. But does not reject alternative. If anything this reflects my own sense of making and the role myth plays in providing sense and mean, not just at face value, but at a deeper sense. In this case relationship between Jonathan as the storyteller, me listening and then sharing online.
I do believe in Santa because, when I was a kid, my parents were sleeping, I heard footsteps that woke me up, and then.. the next day, I went to check my storage room, and I saw a big box that was moved and the ventilation grill was open.. but that's not the first time...
Thank you so much for this video and for taking the time to make it. I watched it, and I suppose I'm a little confused about how the analogy applies to God or if it does. I understand that the spirit of Santa is real and at work in children's hearts and minds just as the image of Jesus and the spirit of God may be active. I suppose though there still comes a point where the rubber hits the road and either something is objectively real or not--unless the point is that anything we believe in strongly is as real as the natural world. I think many atheists would affirm that the spirit of 'God' has throughout time played a positive role in the minds of true believers. But to me at least it still seems critical that an actual person is on the other end of the line when we pray. Any thoughts are appreciated!
All those years not believing in Santa Claus. All those wasted years...
Roy The Mac
Hahaha I love this comment.
Good one haha
anything we give energy to in this MATRIX becomes real.
did women become gods as satan promised eve? sure they did. we give them all our energy...even worship
Brilliant angle to take. Makes so much sense this way. Thank you!
The virgin santa denier vs. the chad santa believer.
"The phases of life: You believe in Santa; you don't believe in Santa; you are Santa."
The third stage comes about by looking in the mirror and screaming as it begins to snow outside
This is the plot to the film Santa Clause
@@MachoMaamRandallSandwich right except it’s the horror film it was always meant to be
@@XmassWraith why would santa claus scream at snow?
@@notloki3377 He isn’t screaming at the snow. See, once he screams it’ll cut away to a shot of outside and the snow falling as his screaming is heard in the distance.
the Pageau fairy puts insight and understanding under my pillow every week
This is the most perfect comment. I lolled :)
Hahahahahahaha!! 😄🤣😄🤣
Same
Now I have a great way to explain Santa to kids WITHOUT lying to them! Gracias Jonathan.
This is a long video about nothing.
“Santa Claus” was based on a real person. His name was St. Nick and he was said to be a legend for traveling around and giving away his inherited wealth. He was a Greek bishop born around 280 AD in Patra (Roman Empire) near Myra which is now in modern-day Turkey. Nick was a fiery defendant of the Christian doctrine, especially in 303 AD when bibles were burned and priests were forced to renounce a Christianity or face persecution. The name Santa Claus means Saint Nick (Klaus/Claus is an anglicized abbreviation of the name Nicholas or Nikolaos in Greek). He is depicted as Northern European even though it’s the opposite of reality/history.
@@ImOk... That really has nothing to do with the video.. It seems you missed the point completely
@@7ilver Are you sure you’re not understanding correctly?
@@ImOk... Im sure. I watched countless of his videos and read the book his brother wrote. The point of the video exists independent of Santa that's why he was able to use the Tooth Fair or a Chair as an example along side Santa. Providing historical context behind the origin of Santa is nice but doesn't relate to the point of the video whatsoever.
Your mouth is your helper, and the mall Santa is... Santa's helper.
The Truth Fairy puts wisdom under your pillow.
I _really_ loved the story of your daughter and the tooth fairy. Thank you Jonathan. Sometimes children are much wiser than we think.
Makes you wonder if age brings us anything that we don't already own.
The video succinctly describes my suspicion on the flaw of objectively viewing the world. I was an atheist(as in I want to view the world as objectively as possible). But I encounter the "rock" problem. Let's ask the question if a rock exists? Technically, no. What you really have is a collection of quarks arranging themselves into protons and neutrons circling by a cloud of electrons that arranged themselves into an energetically stable configuration that gives rise to their periodic structural lattice which we then calls a crystal and the collection of crystals that clumps together through Van der Waals force is what known colloquially as a 'Rock'. A rock is merely the conceptual representation of the arrangements of quarks in a very very very specific ways, just like Santa Claus is a conceptual representation of a very very very specific network of electrons moving around in the neurons of around 2 billion people(Christians). A rock's existence is no more valid than the way we perceive it and if our perception is what makes something real, the permanent rise of something like Santa Claus must therefore be real too by definition. You can say its not real because you can't weigh it.
There's something you can't weight too. RUclips. Does RUclips exist? What RUclips really is from an objective point of view is a collection of sequentially firing of nano-sized transistors in a computer/server. You can't measure RUclips nor can you weigh it. You can obviously weigh the electrical charge on all the transistor that involved in generating RUclips, or the staffs from the Janitor to the CEO of RUclips, or perhaps the weight in gold its revenue represents. But is RUclips merely the firings of transistors, or the company staff that runs it, or the staff that runs its parent company Alphabet Inc., or is it the culmination of our collective consciousness manifesting via the generation and viewership of RUclips content that makes up RUclips? Or is it just Quarks? Technically yes. But it's not a helpful analysis.
"Let's ask the question if a rock exists? Technically, no."
It exists. The fact that the rock can be ontologically reduced to quarks doesn't mean the rock doesn't exist, which is our denotation for that collection of quarks in that manner. That reference however, is not the referent itself, nor relevant for the actual existence of the referent.
You guys wouldn't pass a graduate level ontology class and are impressed by postmodern blabbering. It usually ends the minute physical harm or money is involved.
Wow man that's really helpful way of explaining it, thanks
There's two categories ; everything and nothing; and the latter doesn't exist... Go ahead point to nothing ...
@@malchir4036 This comes down to materialism vs idealism and that argument is a little bit older than postmodernism.
@@malchir4036 how does this refute the existance of Santa? If your argument is denotation, than it's just a definition problem. Well, we define Santa therefore he exists.
This is without a doubt one of the best videos I've seen in a very long time. I've not yet come across any thinker who explains these concepts with the wit, brevity and humour that you do, Jonathan. All of your work should be compulsory viewing for anyone remotely interested in the times we live in, because your videos above all others that I have seen truly shine a light on the dark age we currently live in. By which I mean that the world as presented by the materialists like Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins is so drab, 2D and lifeless in contrast to the rich tapestry of being that you describe.
Can I just add that I became a Christian in my late 20s because all throughout my childhood and early adulthood, although it was cool to be atheist, I couldn't help but intuit that there was much more to this universe than meets the eye. It is such a relief to find that I am not the only person who has noticed this, and a pure delight to have its geography laid out in so lively and vivacious a manner. Thank you, brother!
What? His argument is that Santa exists because the little girl believes he does for a brief moment in a shopping mall. For something to "exist" it needs to satisfy the full definition of the word, not just a warm and fuzzy moment in time. The little girl's belief in a fairy tale is not enough. She isn't aware the adults made up the story, and paid a man to dress up in a suit. When Santa only exists for an ignorant child at the shopping mall, Santa most certainly does not exist. As for God, we don't have higher intelligent beings to ask, but if we did, there's a very good chance they'd inform us that God doesn't exist in the way described by popular religions.
@@chaiTV I agree his take falls short, cuz while we collectively co-create a giant world-spanning puppet-ghost of "Santa" who exists, for sure, in the realm of "mankind's imagination" or something, that puppet has no agency of it's own, so is a bad springboard to argue for the reality of a human Soul or an Eternal God...
@@Lu11abi This is phenomenology. You're coming at it from a materialist view of consciousness, which is metaphysical, not scientific.
@@Lu11abi he has no agency? Where is the pattern of the Santa Claus located materialistically? Is the whole santa in my head? Are the parts of the Santa distributed through all of our heads, and their sum is the whole?
Its not in the little girl's imagination. It came from outside her
@@chaiTV that's not what he said.
You just changed my life. Merry Christmas!
I recently discovered your channel thanks to a tweet from J.B.Peterson. I'm glad i found it, your videos are so interesting.
Your analysis are easily understandable and brilliant.
I was as an adolescent a deep nihilistic atheist and as i'm growing up, i'm more and more fascinated by the meaning of life, the symbolic of human experience. What does it mean to be part of the human being journey. As you open my understanding, i'm more and more agreable with faithful people. Faithful people who understand why they believe, who thought hard about what it means to believe.
I can't find pleasure anymore to speak with a nihilistic guy who has no purpose in his life.
You have my thanks from France, more people here should see your work as we are the European champions of nihilisim, materialism and post-modernism mixed chaos.
Have a nice day Jonathan
"To me it seems completely absurd to say Santa Claus doesn't exist. Because, obviously, Santa Claus exists."
*cut to intro*
Well played, Jonathan. Well played.
I really like your videos, man; very insightful, each of them. Keep at it; keep doing God's work.
The fact you can talk that way with children makes me smile
I actually shed a tear at the tooth fairy story. Beautifully put.
This brings so much more depth to “god is dead and we’ve killed him” and “there is no such thing as govt, just people acting as govt”...among others. Thank you.
I have been falling in love with your channel and content. Some of it is over my head in understanding, but there's a spark of curiosity and a sense of truth that seems to settle into my being. Especially during these dark times, it was your videos that i was guided to watch that helped me come out of a dark spell that i had been stuck in for a few weeks. I began knowing nothing about Orthodox faith, and now I find myself asking all sorts of questions to my inner dialogue. Thanks for sharing your light. Merry Christmas.
Love your work, Jonathan. This is a unique channel with an important scope of content.
Lovely Jonathan, just lovely. Thank you. Came back here as Christmas is coming. - I'm going to come here every year around Advent.
This is the best video (of those I've seen) by you so far.
Great job!
I think the same pragmatical argument could be made to rationalist types in this way "Are numbers real? If not, why do you insist on using them? Does the amount of utility you get out of treating them as something 'real'-like make them more or less real?"
I think this would be effective as most of them are sciency types and have lots of experience with numbers.
That is a very good way to look at it.
lajexander
Numbers are only a concept in your head. If you want to include concepts in your head as being real, then they are real. The same goes for santa and god, as they are only concepts in your head. Why would the utility of an idea have anything to do with how real it is? Is a number more or less real than a Realicorn? If utility equals realness then why are we talking about ideas being real? We should be talking about their usefulness.
Santa (the idea) is useful because it keeps children in line during christmas season. God (the idea) is useful because we don't want people masturbating or being gay. They are watching.
Killface Killer That was a great reply until the last seven words. Then it became the best 🤣
About Santa - good demonstration of how phenomenological method works.
Скрытый смысл how exactly does the phenomenological method work? I know it starts with from the first person perspective.
Nico Dez - I can't answer this question, but this conversation between John and his brother might come close: ruclips.net/video/0VIRA6T33o4/видео.html
His book seems to provide a profound mindset shift to be able to see the world in a phenomenalogical way (in a way that not even John understood before reading it).
I haven't read it myself, but I'd like to.
Nico Dez, it is a consistent reduction of the semantic layers - "levels of being", as a result of which we come to the essence (Santa) that is manifested in them.
I thought phenomenological observation Just means the way it is observed.
So for instance the earth is flat, phenomenologically speaking...because that’s how we observe it when walking around on it.
The question is...do parents exists?
waterglass21 - does DNA exist?
Parents are a tool of the patriarchy, a social construct. ;)
Parents are merely a medium for Santa Claus to touch our hearts.
Yes, but we speak merely to the mouthpiece of the meta-parent.
They don't wanna include me in their superhero web cosplay.
I suppose things would get too heavy.
Being cross +rigger
My neighbor told the Christmas story to her 3 year old son at the time, then when they went to the mall and he saw Santa there he said "Look mommy! It's Jesus!"
You know, I never really stopped believing in the Three Wise Men even when my mother told me that she was the one placing the gifts. I knew their spirits existed, and my mother placing the gifts was a consequence of their existence.
I've been watching this channel for a couple days straight. I love your analysis. I feel like the more diverse your understanding of Christianity, or anything really, the more you start to see the patterns. I'm an artist as well so I can relate it to when I started to paint the figure and still life with only color. The patterns and relationships started to reveal themselves the more intensely I looked for them. And I literally mean patterns in color. Similar to pointillism, I started to separate out local color then mold the forms based on a sort of wrestling with the truth of what I was seeing. My work is now completely different and much more abstract expressionistic but I do have a very serious understand of drawing and painting realistically which helps to make sense of the chaos. I think knowing the "scales" is essential when venturing out into a more chaotic forms of image making like abstraction and expressionism. A good foundation in anything will help you when you wander off into the unknown. You'll have a sort of tool kit to make it more real, or at least bring something back from the void. I feel the same way about the search for what Christianity means in the modern world.
This video is highly underrated. It actually summarizes The Symbolic World in a way anyone can understand. Btw, check out Akira the Don's music video of this too :D
"Because obviously Santa Claus exists"
rap_battle_black_people_react.mpg
Empire of Autism lmao
PSYCH_das_the_wrong_number.mpg
@@mrwtfwhy lol
I love the intro. Always gives me the chills :)
I loved this and the second part as well... you should have a ton more people following your content.
This is absolutely brilliant! Really opened my mind to a concept I hadn't thought of before. Thank you Jonathan Pageau.
It really makes sense. I can’t get enough. I wish i have seen your site long ago. Thank you.
Jonathan, I think your argument is pretty solid, but it left me wondering about consciousness. Surely we cannot deny the existence of a BELIEF in the spirit of a culturally-dependent entity called Santa Claus, nor the fact that people who adhere to that culture act out his existence, in Petersonian terms. What I don't understand - and I'm not saying you've implied that this is possible in the video at all - is how one could make a leap from a phenomenological existence of a belief in Santa Claus, and the fact that he does have objective properties, to the conclusion that this entity possesses consciousness or, if you will, a soul. I ask this, of course, because this leap would be necessary in order to formulate a phenomenological claim of the existence of God, which, again, I don't think you're explicitly trying to prove here. Do you think that leap is possible or is consciousness not encompassed in this ontology?
Thank you for the video. Great stuff.
Good Q
I think that maybe Saint Nicholas existed and that Santa Claus is somewhat/somehow tied to that spirit/soul. The life of Saint Nick and the mythos of Santa are from the same spirit. Saint Nick did not know that he would become Santa after his death, but his hope/prayer for the world encompassed such a heart and idea for the whole world. Maybe, just maybe, his prayers for the world were answered and He is able to still use his hands and his feet today after his death...through his soul/spirit.
You could argue that the collective mental effort and physical actions of people believing in Santa Claus forms a distributed mind/soul. Kind of like how an ant hive has a distributed mind that vastly exceeds what any individual ant has going on their individual nervous systems. If the combined efforts of ant minds can form such an impressive super-mind, just how impressive is one formed by human minds?
A kid getting hyped to give her friend money on behalf of the tooth fairy is hilarious and cute
Really finding your ideas and studies on symbolism fascinating . Keep up the good work .
I love the slightly maniacal cackle that Jonathon gives when he talks about the 'voice of the United states' near the end of the video ... where he realizes that he is communicating a form of realisation that is both essentially true and yet can be taken as literally false. Really think this video hits it out of the park.
For the material realist/neuroscience/new atheists a way of understanding this may be we, as a species, seem to be able to orient our attention to different levels of neuroprocessing (E.g I can see Santa Claus, the Joe who is dressed as Santa Claus, the Santa Claus as a representation of category called mall workers or mall Santa clauses or mall members of public or out of mall member of public or member of human race or member of life or member of the universe of material things. To do each of those requires a variance in brain processing which can be seen by different patterning on mri, as an example. This different patterning also facilitates and inhibits over areas of brain function which has a top down sequential change on other cellular function (tissue/organ etc) and thus they process differently and achieve different states of being. Consciously while we can cognitively differentiate or highlight or attend to aspects of experience (what I see or hear or even within the realms of sight such as colour or movement) this is always contingent upon synthesis or synasthesia (some brain parts get direct connection from multiple sensory organs). If we were to synthesize a person in a community in a world of beings in a world of animals in a world of material in a world of forces in a world of flux/interactions and encapsulated that process we could envision a unity. Some people envision this as a form of being (gods etc) and some folks don't (atheistic ultimate causation).
But ultimate causation is not the same as ultimate Reality - see The Experience of God: Being, Consciousness and Bliss
This is really fascinating. It’s funny because I remember being sort of a Santa agnostic as a kid lol My parents never told me one way or another but I would sometimes leave cookies out just in case. As for the Tooth Fairy, on some level I always knew that my dad was the one putting the money under my pillow, but at the same time I knew “the tooth fairy” was the reason in an abstract sense. This is the first video to put that into words
Absolutely love this video!! This form of love is one that exists within me....lol
Great video Jonathan. Thank you so much for what you give here. You add so much to my journey.
Then you’re good people.
Santa Claus is not one physical deity. But instead is made up of the carols and the laughs who are in reference to Santa Claus. Santa Claus is made up of the people who dress up as him, the figure in children's minds who put the presents under the tree (the mystery and delightful anticipation accompanying the night before Christmas) - the old man on the street who wishes you a merry Christmas and as you walk past him, laughs; oh oh oh oh. Santa Claus is the personification of Christmas, and to say he doesn't exist is like saying Christmas doesn't exist. Santa Claus is the spirit of Christmas.
I never thought of it like this; thank you; insightful video and you put a smile to my face.
I've always given my children presents under the guise of being Santa, and now I realise I was Santa; I was a manifestation of him. I'm always going to play Santa and when my children grow old I'll tell them what you have told me in the hope that they shall do the same.
I now believe again in Santa.
"The Hogfather" by Terry Pratchett is a very interesting fantasy novel that approaches this argument *from* the absurd. There's even a SkyTV made-for-TV movie that wasn't too bad.
An excerpt from the book to entice:
“All right," said Susan. "I'm not stupid. You're saying humans need... fantasies to make life bearable."
REALLY? AS IF IT WAS SOME KIND OF PINK PILL? NO. HUMANS NEED FANTASY TO BE HUMAN. TO BE THE PLACE WHERE THE FALLING ANGEL MEETS THE RISING APE.
"Tooth fairies? Hogfathers? Little-"
YES. AS PRACTICE. YOU HAVE TO START OUT LEARNING TO BELIEVE THE LITTLE LIES.
"So we can believe the big ones?"
YES. JUSTICE. MERCY. DUTY. THAT SORT OF THING.
"They're not the same at all!"
YOU THINK SO? THEN TAKE THE UNIVERSE AND GRIND IT DOWN TO THE FINEST POWDER AND SIEVE IT THROUGH THE FINEST SIEVE AND THEN SHOW ME ONE ATOM OF JUSTICE, ONE MOLECULE OF MERCY. AND YET-Death waved a hand. AND YET YOU ACT AS IF THERE IS SOME IDEAL ORDER IN THE WORLD, AS IF THERE IS SOME...SOME RIGHTNESS IN THE UNIVERSE BY WHICH IT MAY BE JUDGED.
"Yes, but people have got to believe that, or what's the point-"
MY POINT EXACTLY.”
Very clever and emotional writing by a true master Psychopomp, Terry Pratchet...
But I don't buy it um...ontologically.
Justice, Mercy, Duty...these things have some sorta "form" like light...they are a part of us, at least, if not the Universe itself, whether we were here or not.
@@Lu11abi I’m agnostic and I love his idea.
Jajaja, thanks for systematize that thought, also the story with your daughter was pretty funny. Loving your videos!
Dear Journal. I have reached the pinnacle of enlightenment. I now believe in santa claus and the tooth fairy.
Santa deniers be like "it was your mom and dad that punched Arius at the council of Nicea"
This video transformed my life from atheist materialism Orthodox Christianity, ultimately. It wasn't overnight. And it wasn't easy. But this video played a pivotal role. thank you, Jonathan!
Jonathan, love the story about your daughter and the tooth fairy!
That was an a-ha moment for me (and I'm 24) It explains the magic of the game. Also I enjoyed the part where his daughter carried the game on to another person. I explains so well where traditions come from and how they function.
"Man some people are going to freak out at this!" No shit Sherlock, I think you blew a few valves.
I have never been able to explain to people what i mean when i say i believe in santa. This is brilliant.
Santa Claus dropping the gavel. Judges Angels and praying to the spirit of the United States...
Thoroughly enjoy your work
There are massive differences between believing in God and Santa; Santa only exists as a role/character because humans invented him, God is more than a role or a character and exists regardless of humans. The reason an Atheist said to me that he rejected Christianity was because his parents, like you, treat it with the same level of realness as Santa (and so he never had the motivation or divine experience to make his faith personal). Unless I remember incorrectly: Jesus is a separate entity from the church (also called the Body of Christ). Yes people can characterize Christ, fulfill his roles, be his tools, but they're still physically parts of the Church. The Church is joined/married with Christ, but that doesn't mean the members of the Church have become Christ.
This ties in so much to what I've wanted to say to people but always fumbled; magic exists, but it's not how you think it is.
You have justified my naive childhood in the best way.
Once a man who roamed and gave
Who rung his bells through night and day
A spirit absorbed and played each year
Removing winters touch of fear
Out from the hearth and into the hand
We spread this love across the land
The gift of giving has no bounds
The cycle goes around and round
To feed the deer to feed the hounds
Never forget the man that sounds
I admire you very much for articulating belief so that even a modern person like me can grasp it. It's really cool that you laugh so much, too, because it shows you know how counterintuitive it is for us to consider this seriously, but we gotta get over ourselves to get to the good stuff!
While I appreciate how you've laid this out, (I dig the concept of non-corporeal memes/archetypes/myths having actual physical impact here on earth) I worry about how unconstrained this explanation seems to be, and how it can essentially be applied to anything thereby effectively able to be redefined in whichever way one deems it.
How might one avoid this problem?
120%
God is love. Period.
@@josephtravers777 but what does that mean realy?
@@empcat1254 He made us for Himself and wants us to know Him
The definitions humans create are not arbitrary. So if you try to redefine something in a way that is not in line with reality your definition is less likely to sustain the more time passes.
Please pray for Joe everybody, he’s had a rough year
So basically he’s a social construct
Not completely, because "societal constructs" necessarily flow out of the structure of reality in which society exists. For a society to function it cannot be structured in any which way, but rather there are certain patterns by which functional societies exist, so too a society has expressed the being and pattern which makes us recognize Santa Claus as an important being, a desired story and trope which is remembered and passed on by all.
I understand now
Kinda like the relationship between nature and nurture and how that expresses itself as lived experience. There is physical, phenomenological, individual and social components etc that express themselves. The brain can be reduced to an individual but the mind cannot. This does not mean by default supernatural. But that our sense of being does not end at the skin. it includes the relationship we are in with others and the culture we are embedded in. These Tooth fairies can be as real as our hand or internal thoughts or feelings. But expressed through cultural tropes. Because they cannot be reduced down to one person individually.
Jonathan Pageau Santa Claus makes more sense to me but why is the tooth fairy an important being? What sort of value is gained from believing a fairy gives you money for losing your baby teeth? Does it have something to do with growing up?
Adrian H I think it may have come from the idea that teeth falling out is a scary thing for kids. Important bits of your body, for no apparent reason falling away. Unlike hair or fingernails which don't hurt when you cut them losing a tooth hurts and it bleeds. Parents tell the child it's ok, this means a new tooth will grow -- But we don't know how long it'll take. A fairy that gives you money the very next day is sort of like a deposit on the idea that you'll be getting a newer, better tooth. Plus it acknowledges that a tooth is valuable and needed as it'll be difficult to eat for some time.
This reminds me of CS Lewis essay on Transposition. I guess how higher abstract medium transpositions into the lower physical medium. Something like that, lol
My goodness this is so freaking helpful
So there is a degree of existence that goes beyond the material, and influences our actions by allowing us to embody their being. So are you a Christian mainly because you believe the best embodiment for humanity is in the narrative of the story of Jesus?
Would you say there is a problem with the religious people that are more concern with the material existence of Jesus and his return rather than trying to embody Jesus? I think those are the people the new atheist types are criticizing.
I think this video made things a bit more clear for me. Thanks Jonathan.
God not becoming flesh=>No resurrection & afterlife=>No objective reason to embody Jesus.
There would no way for us to embody Christ if He had not also been embodied. Does that make sense?
Fibius Maximus
I didn't say those realities are mutually exclusive or even in conflict. I was looking for some common ground between the people like Jonathan and Peterson that have a more sophisticated view of religion and the new atheist types. Discussions between these two groups never get anywhere because they are always talking about different aspects of religion. It would be interesting to see where the conversation would go once each group acknowledges the other side of the coin.
AdHominus
Could you explain your reasoning for saying that? Santa Claus did not have to exist in any point in time in order for parents to embody a Santa Claus and give happiness to their children. Why would it be any different for the story of Jesus?
Space Man
Santa Claus is conceived of as an incarnate being. Christ without a body would be a purely spiritual being. You cannot "embody" an unincarnate being by definition. Christ represents both God's incarnation and Man's deification. Without both processes occurring simultaneously, there can be no face-to-face relationship between Man and God. Only signs and symbols.
This is one of the most interesting motions I've heard in a long time. It opens the world, by several degrees, for me. Thank you.
Jonathan, love your videos!
Is it your belief that God exists the same way Santa clause does? Meaning that the idea of God becomes incarnate in human beings as does the idea of Santa Clause but has no independence (or no more independence than any other idea) from humanity? Thanks in advance!
I have this same question. It seems like he's saying that God does not exist outside of man's concept of him.
@@loganwilliams6872 I think the inverse is what he’s getting at. God does exist, which is why you have a concept of him.
Haha, I was expecting some answer like "why don' t you just give me the money, here is the tooth" :D :D
*I see in feed- "Oh this is gunna be good"
And then you were disappointed by the meaningless drivel it turned out to be?
@@JamesKing-oe9gf Not at all. Sorry I'm late. Didn't get your message.
I found your channel today and I find it very informative. Thank you Jonathan 🙂
I could see the Tooth Fairy moving behind your glass door :-)
This was great, it helped my daughter understand part of a much larger concept. Thanks.
How is Joe doing 3 years later? Just curious? Is he still playing Santa? Did his girlfriend come back? Love your work, Johnathan. Thank you, for what you are doing.
Now there's no Joe, only santa
@@TakiGosc427 in harmony with santa
Does this explanation not have a negating effect on the Christian worldview if you are relating the way in which Santa and the tooth fairy exist to the way that God or christ exists? In this sense anything we can imagine would technically exist. Any God or character in literature or film would technically exist if we embody their characteristics. This suggests that Santa exists in the psyche, but not the physical world. Are you saying that God exists in the psyche but not the physical world? This makes the existence of God contingent on our existence.
This is exactly why i convinced my wife to NOT promote Santa in our home. And if my Kids asks i will tell: Well, santa is as real as Mickey Mouse. But not real like mom and dad, or Jesus.
Jonathan, this whole video is brilliant and 100% matches my own views on this topic that I had come to independently before watching it. I was super distraught when I got to that certain age and other kids started saying Santa Claus didn't exist, because he so obviously does.
Similarly, the worst mistake atheists make is saying “It's not literally, materially real, so it's NOT REAL!”. That's the intellectual level of a 10-year-old.
Brilliant video! This reminds of my favorite comic book writer Grant Morrison’s perspective on comic superheroes as well. Of course, the difference with God is He doesn’t just exist not on that level, but above it. He’s more real than we are.
I’m now in a head spin of what constructs are and different scenarios in which they play out.
Cool content man, made me laugh.
Denying Christ because of the tooth fairy would go down well with the creator I'm sure, may he judge them fairly.
Did you just assume Santa's gender?
Children get this, I remember thinking this about mall Santa's as a kid, I knew they weren't the real Santa, but they were like Santa representatives, they could talk to Santa for me lol!
Don’t try to explain this in a first date.
The interpretation of Santa Claus as someone who wants to put children at ease when you talk to them reminds me of the old version of Miracle on 34th Street with Maureen O’Hara. It also makes me think that my mom didn’t push me to go over and sit on Santa’s lap because I was too scared to speak to strangers. Prayer works the same way I’ve read; we are taught we need to speak out what is on our hearts, and we gradually become ingrained in a silent meditation of our life’s work. The Tooth Fairy also really worries me because I’d be afraid of waking my child to put a coin under their pillow. I wouldn’t even begin to know where to store or what to do with the baby teeth afterward.
My daughter used to ask me "Daddy, is Santa Claus real?" To which I answered "Yes, the concept of Santa Claus is real."
So a mix of Platonism and phenomenology.
Very interesting.
Jonathan, that was an awesome explanation. Something not easy to explain, by the way. I learned something. Thanks!
This is brilliant. Very unique way of seeing things.
This clicked for me with the name "spirit of st. Louis"
To summarize - there is a world of objects and matter (phenomenon, concrete things as they present to us) and a world of ideas and meaning (noumenon - abstract things in themseves) and they both form what we call reality. The respective schools of thought are materialism and idealism and the argument is which takes precedence in forming reality.
Atheists and the "modern man" is concerned with materialism and is contented with the answers science provides, regarding it as the bringer of "objective truth" or even the only truth there is. He treats science as religion while failing to acknowledge the irony and is blind to the one-sidedness and impotence of science when dealing with problems within the world of ideas and meaning.
Great video! Your work is new to me. Begs the question, how wise is it to let our kids put on the persona of characters or even caricatures of evil entities at Halloween, including so called fairies, or Disney (supposedly good in some cases, but...)?
Mr. Pageau, would you say that if all human beings ceased to exist, then it would no longer be true that "God exists"?
I remember arguing with empiricists who accepted my formulation that the only thing that exists is that which is perceived by the 5 senses. I then said terriffic, we must now investigate if science exists:
1. The only things that exists are things which can be perceived by the empirical method
2. I can not perceive Science with my senses
3. therefore science does not exist.
It then ended up in a wierd argument where, I a theist, was arguing that science does exists, and people who think science is the be all and end all of human achievement, weren't so sure it existed.....
Sounds like you're trying to find excuses to ignore science. Your brain can handle the concept of science, and your brain is a physical electrical neural network where impulses pass between nerve cells. Just because your hands are not feeling your own neurotransmitters, doesn't mean your perception is not working to perceive science and validate its existence.
@@chaiTV that is not at all what his comment sounded like.
@@sonicnarutoTDpg Actually it's exactly what he is saying. He literally sets a false premise, requiring you to believe it: "nothing can exist outside of what the 5 senses perceive" which is a really bad way to begin a discussion, requiring that everyone agrees with some ridiculous condition. BTW your reply is very simple, like a child wrote it, contrary with no evidence, no reasoning, no point. I suggest adding more substance to your contributions, otherwise you're wasting everyone's time.
@@chaiTV I'm pretty sure he's not denying that science exists, hes just pointing out their flaw in worldview.
Science goes beyond your 5 senses. If you're such a dunce to think that everything is to be reduced to physics and chemistry, and say thats the epitome of reality, you have quite a serious problem. You don't actually exist at that kind of level, so its a non-starter.
Dude... I'm so pushing you on Quantum of Conscience and Owen's Bears!
The family under the bridge is a great children’s book that perfectly exemplifies this. I encourage anyone who has kids to read it with them around Christmas.
Dang it Jonathan, I was just starting to get my hair grown out to look like yours and you went and got it cut.
I am going to the US in two weeks. When you see me get my hair cut, it is I am about to cross the border.
Jonathan Pageau oh nice! Going for business/speeches or for visiting?
Jonathan Pageau also, let me know if you meet St. Christopher at customs :)
Even things with out physical form exist.
He touched on that love exists. We can feel love. We can see the effects of love. Even when we can’t understand love, for example, when two people love each other and we can understand why they love each other, we can still see the love they share.
Love exist separate to those who share love. When a person you love dies, you can still feel and see the love they had for you and you can feel the love you have for them. The love two people have is felt for generations after two people die in their children and grandchildren.
Items can be imbued with love. When you look at a picture, a homemade sweater, a baseball glove, or even a something a trivial as a comb, you can feel the love, experiences, and memories emanating out of them.
Metaphysical things exist just as much and often last longer than physical things.
That's the best 1 min introduction yet hahaha love it
I do like that he is called "Santa Claus" and as I've been living in Greece "Agios Vasilis" that also is a saint. It makes the association with the message of Christmas and "goodness" better. In Sweden we call him "jul tomten" wich actually means something similar to the Christmas elf, but not exactly. People used to believe that it existed small grumpy figures (very small) that you had to please during the years in different ways. Otherwise the harvest might go wrong or you could have bad luck in other ways. Anyways, that is not of course the "tomte" that we tell our children about. He still stands for goodness joy and gifts. When I was a kid my grandmother used to tell me "if you are not nice "tomten" will not come. Only when I was up to something bad of course. It is not really "political correct" to tell your children something like that today. When I was younger I took a college course in Psychology. I read some theory that claimed something like to tell kids those things could cause deep trauma. I feel stupid to say, but I was young, insecure and had some issues, so for a brief period of time I actually belived that I was traumatized from it. Today I find it quite ridicoulos. Even if I never said it to my own kids, I certainly didn't take any damage of it. Quite the opposite I would say. Because it was a very effective way to teach me right from wrong.
I just love this brilliant video so much 💯😁
Here exactly on 25th July 2024 after 6 years
This is so profound to me. Wonderful video
This forces me to think more about something I haven't figured out, about how much utility there is in learning about and paying attention to the spirits of beings associated with paganism and idolatry.
100%. The magic is in the worldwide game being played for all the kids. And then when they grow up and figure out the game, THEY get to play the other side. It is so fun.
I figured out at age 6 that my mom was the one making presents and she told me to not tell my brother and to play along. And it was fun like I was part of the game! To make it a fun Christmas for the family.
It isn’t lying unless you think playing games and make believe is lying… in which case, I’m sorry you never had a childhood.
Brilliant video. Simple explanation for lots of metaphyisical misconceptions.
To me, this comes down to the question of why people say governments exist, but Santa Claus doesn’t. There are many similarities between them regarding their existence and non-existence, but I think what causes people to see them as existing differently lies in the presumed indivisible nature of each one.
While people often talk about the government as being an indivisible thing, they too frequently encounter its fractured nature to truly think of it that way. If you ask someone about the parts of government, they can immediately say something about how its made of different people, procedures, parts, locations, etc.
But the same thing won’t happen if you ask people about the parts/nature/make-up/etc. of Santa Claus. Confusion is going to be the most likely response because they imagine Santa Claus as a single human doing fantastical things entirely on his own. Some people will answer technically regarding the component parts of the Santa Claus myth/tradition, but most people are either going to ask, “What do you mean?” or they will take extra time to interpret the question (far more time than interpreting the same government question.)
If the working parts of something can be identified, people freely accept its existence because it’s merely made of parts doing a bunch of different things. However, if the working parts of something can’t be identified, it’s interpreted as an indivisible will that must either obey the constraints of other indivisible wills or have supernatural powers.
Normal indivisible wills are subject to the constraints of material logic while divisible wills aren’t. A government can be in multiple places simultaneously while an individual cannot. A government can “hear the prayers” of hundreds of people simultaneously, while an individual cannot. If we really wanted to be fantastical we could imagine the government being competent enough to deliver presents to everyone in the country in one night, but we couldn’t imagine an individual doing the same thing.
Santa Claus exists as much as any government exists. However, that statement only makes sense if you break Santa Claus down into distributed working parts similar to how a government can be broken down into distributed working parts.
You can imagine what would happen if people were told to believe in the government in the same way that children might believe in Santa Claus. If people were told we have “Big Brother” and not a government, there would only be three possible avenues of belief for people…
1. Big Brother is an indivisible will with supernatural powers exceeding normal wills.
2. Big Brother is propaganda and doesn’t actually exist.
3. Big Brother is a system made of parts.
If there’s one truest way to exist, number 3 ends up winning in many people’s mind because of its explanatory power. It explains the extent of Big Brothers power. It explains how Big Brother can exist while also being propaganda. It explains how the people themselves are Big Brother. And, finally, it shows people that a greater understanding of Big Brother can be achieved by studying its parts.
He is saying Santa exists as an embodied abstraction that everyone participates in and it is in this manner that the character exists similarly to a government. The government as a collective entity has a body a voice, a will ect, even in modern dialouge with the presence of this personification we understand what it means. So similarly
Santa exists as a result of a given individual participating in emulating Santa's essence through their action patterns. This comes down to the fact as he said that different phenomena exists on different levels of existence. A rock, a personality trait, a government, fear/love, and Santa have different modes of existence that can be understood and evaluated differently.
I thought this was a good presentation regarding the existence of being. Or how it exists and in what way. If anything I felt what Jonothan was saying was not trying to regress to pre-enlightenment perspectives but show the limitations of the paradigms we have now, and before us. But not rejecting previous either. I think the use of archetypes is very useful with the complexity of experience. Postmodernist and all predecessors limit themselves, in relation to where we are now, by reducing down to one perspective and at the same time rejecting others. ie reducing it down to materialism ignoring phenomenology or reducing it down to literal ignoring modern etc. Archetypes cannot be reduced and it does not mean rejecting others in the process. Nor does it stop either being real. They just manifest in different ways. So it is not postmodern either in sense of everything is relative. But does not reject alternative. If anything this reflects my own sense of making and the role myth plays in providing sense and mean, not just at face value, but at a deeper sense. In this case relationship between Jonathan as the storyteller, me listening and then sharing online.
I do believe in Santa because, when I was a kid, my parents were sleeping, I heard footsteps that woke me up, and then.. the next day, I went to check my storage room, and I saw a big box that was moved and the ventilation grill was open.. but that's not the first time...
Those were extraterrestrials, my guy.
Thank you so much for this video and for taking the time to make it. I watched it, and I suppose I'm a little confused about how the analogy applies to God or if it does. I understand that the spirit of Santa is real and at work in children's hearts and minds just as the image of Jesus and the spirit of God may be active. I suppose though there still comes a point where the rubber hits the road and either something is objectively real or not--unless the point is that anything we believe in strongly is as real as the natural world. I think many atheists would affirm that the spirit of 'God' has throughout time played a positive role in the minds of true believers. But to me at least it still seems critical that an actual person is on the other end of the line when we pray. Any thoughts are appreciated!