The Edge of the Inside - How to Change the Superstructure
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 30 июн 2024
- Why it Matters is back (kind of). This video revisits the Prophet archetype with a bit more passion and a little less bookishness. It is great to have the previous video as a foundation but as with the old Why it Matters videos the point of this video is to get into why I care so much about this topic and why I think you should as well.
We're going to be looking at the Prophet through the lens of Richard Rohr's description of the Prophet's position as being at "the edge of the inside" and we are going to look at some examples of this Prophetic archetype like Karl Marx, Jordan Peterson, Contrapoints and Donald Trump.
____________________
📚 Further Learning:
- The original video on the Prophet archetype: • The Prophet - the Arch...
- Jonas Ceika/Cuck philosophy video • A Critique of Stephen ...
- Szakolczai Á (2003) _The Genesis of Modernity_. Routledge studies in social and political thought 36. London ; New York: Routledge.
________________
⭐ Support the channel (thank you!)
▶ Patreon: / thelivingphilosophy
▶ Ko-fi: ko-fi.com/thelivingphilosophy
_________________
💬 More from The Living Philosophy
▶ 📨 Subscribe with email: thelivingphilosophy.substack....
________________
🎼 Media Used:
1. Allegro - Emmit Fenn
2. Anguish - Kevin MacLeod
3. Alone With My Thoughts - Esther Abrami
4. Dark Times - Kevin MacLeod
Subscribe to Kevin MacLeod / kmmusic
_________________
⌛ Timestamps:
0:00 Introduction
1:14 What is a prophet?
5:27 Ad spot
7:21 The Marx example
10:17 Jordan Peterson
10:42 Derrick Bell
12:30 Reflection
15:57 Personal reflection
💚 Patreon: patreon.com/thelivingphilosophy
⌛ Timestamps:
0:00 Introduction
1:14 What is a prophet?
5:27 Ad spot
7:21 The Marx example
10:17 Jordan Peterson
10:42 Derrick Bell
12:30 Reflection
15:57 Personal reflection
I'm not sure why any thinking person would give heed to the imperfect opinions of some ignorant psychology professor. There are a handful of EXTREMELY wise sages currently on this planet who can logically and completely answer practically any question that an intelligent soul is likely to ask regarding morals and ethics.
The fact that Jordan supports men buggering each other (by which I mean, that he supports homosexuality and other criminal activities, such as the unnecessary consumption of poor innocent animals) is MORE than sufficient proof that he is not as religious as he claims, and that any decent, holy person ought to shun his inane teachings and flee into the loving arms of a teacher of Truth.
Furthermore, in a recent interview on Benjamin Shapiro's RUclips channel, he admitted that his wife figuratively (and I'm sure also LITERALLY) wears the pants in his household. 👖
I would be more than pleased to provide you with links to the RUclips channels of a few enlightened beings who will quickly set you on the path to perfection, as opposed to the DELUDED moral subjectivism professed by "Doctor" Peterson (pun not intended).
Please find below a couple of such ENLIGHTENED masters to which I referred above:
Professor Alan Watts
(now deceased, so he doesn't have his own RUclips channel - just search for his videos on numerous extant channels)
Swami Sarvapriyananda
( ruclips.net/user/vedantany1894
or search for "Vivekananda Samiti")
Jagadguru Svāmī Vegānanda
( www.youtube.com/@TheWorldTeacher )
People have to be careful not to get fired up and WANT to be a prophet, and go out and just start raving.
Thanks a lot, amazing as usual. I finally figure out JP better than ever. I love the idea of building bridges
Thanks umberto delighted to hear it
Have you noticed that the temple (with the High Priest at the helm) is always at the center or near the marketplace; at center stage amidst society’s socioeconomic structure…
I postulate that throughout human history the temple is normally built before the marketplace.
@@kinglewisjtl24 Hi 👋🏼 yes. Thus the temple is (in fact the priests) the precursor of the marketplace therefore for society’s socioeconomic structures, in cahoots with the government, for their mutual financial gain at the expense mostly of the poor religious folk. Yes, historically accurate ☕️
I haven’t seen you talk about him much, but I was thinking of Wittgenstein throughout this video. Particularly his later philosophy and language games. His aphorism: “If a lion could speak, we could not understand him”.
You use the word inside and language almost interchangeably. There is something there. Wittgenstein saw language as part of a form of life, interwoven with culture. This makes me think, has someone at the edge of the inside found a way to clearly sow two ways of life (and language) together? To communicate with (or placate) both sides. To allow all to see a critical issue more clearly. To lessen the cock-sure certainty and biases. To allow a truer, more honest meaning to shine through and be apprehended by more people. To approach the Kantian thing (or issue) in itself?
I loved this video. I love your style, openness, curiosity, and honesty. ❤
Thank you! I haven't interacted deeply enough with Wittgenstein the last few years to feel fully confident in drawing on him but I definitely think you're right that he's got a lot to say on this one
Ooh, I'd love a Wittgenstein take on this topic.
Fantastic video, James! I will be thinking about this concept for a while.
how do you feel about being a populist paul🤨🤨🤨🤨🤨
LITERALLY fantastic.
Thanks Paul. Reckon you’ll love the next couple on Peterson’s peacemaker essay and where he strayed from it
Why not just release a book at this point, instead of patreon? The medium is the message - as much as I love your videos and obviously your work should earn you some sweet euro euro bills, the reception of you work will always be in the context of the pseudo-social network that is youtube. Just my 2 cents - keep up the good work!
Something to chew on! For now I still feel like I’m figuring things out and connecting some dots. Someday though. The medium is the message is a very compelling point in that direction - maybe in that effort something bigger more formed would emerge. Depends on the style of the book I suppose. As I said plenty to chew on!!
@@TheLivingPhilosophy Ofcourse you don't have to only pick one option :) And maybe YT / Patreon will turn out to be the proper medium in the future, who knows
@@TheLivingPhilosophy something very compelling I heard once is that the purpose of writing is, in some sense, to organize the thoughts of your own investigation into the topic -- not necessarily to communicate a finished product, because really, who can claim a totality of knowledge about any particular thing? There are always questions that remain, and a book (especially related to philosophy) ought to flesh out these questions that remain, whatever they are. Don't let an incomplete idea stop you from writing! Your videos are fantastic and if these thoughts were found in a book, it would be a good book.
@@yougotdirked absolutely. It's the medium is the message part that interests me - the creative emergence from the process where I'm at would be very interesting (I wrote books in my mid-20s but things have evolved a lot since then)
@@austingubbels love this and this is what really draws me to the process. I don't feel like I've got something worked out enough to say or a platform big enough to create a major book and so the appeal for where I'm at now is the process and how that might take things to another level. I wonder whether the organisation of the various strains of what I've been working on would find an emergent harmony that I'm not seeing as I'm working in the details - not seeing the wood for the trees as they say. Worth thinking about thanks for the input!
3:43 I genuinely wish I could share the optimism of the painter.
As a former alt right homeless junkie- edge lord - turned centre leftist business owning construction worker, I can really relate to this “ edge of the inside” video.
Appreciate that you didn't put the prophets face my friend ❤
You should make a video on Ambedkar and his criticism of Nietzsche.
Ironically, perhaps, Alasdair MacIntyre makes a similar point regarding traditions. Anything worthy of the name contains enough complexity to allow us to appeal to its internal principles for reform. Think of Dr King, who used the Hebrew prophets to remind American Christians of their own values. From the margins, he spoke as an insider. A deeply conservative way of effecting radical change.
Love it. More wonderful work from this excellent channel. :)
At 4:06 is the only thing I would differ with. The prophet is not "refusing the call"; the prophet's path is precisely what the hero's journey is all about. The prophet is precisely the one who answers the call. He or she is the one who leaves the known world for the unknown, and serves as the mediator between chaos and order.
Thanks Brendan! Interesting take but would you not consider the refusal of the call as being an inherent part of the hero’s journey? I know Campbell had it at as one of his sections of the journey. Two instances that come to mind are Jonah’s blatant refusal and to a lesser extent (since this was right at the end of his ministry) Jesus in Gethsemane? The refusal doesn’t mean not answering but it means (in my psychological reading) that the call is being answered not out of egotistical pride but out of service to something higher.
Brother did jung think the 3 days in the tomb is a symbolic reference of the down side of the female period?
The "I'm prison Mike" meme made me laugh so hard hahaha, so well timed
😁😁
another absolutely amazing video. it caused me to procrastinate on school but i shouldnt shift all the blame hahah. keep at it youre amazing!
Haha I’m happy to be the distracter
13:04 good point. aren't we all insiders/outsiders?
Grazie.
What books are you reading currently?,
2:54 😊
Not only are we due for the change of the 80 year cycle (2025 -80 1945 -80 1865 -80 1785) we are also due for the change of the 2000 year cycle. The Aion. If you believe in that kind of stuff.
🔎Loki 2-1 new season character: Orosboros (Small Fry excavated from Indiana Jones)= Letters from the Underground × Landlady= egregoric medly.... Thoth ♐️Art card.
14:01 humanistic psychology. think carl rogers.
6:19 You are well read and seem intelligent. Nonetheless, you are one of those who sell wisdom. Like Peterson. Indulgences sold in the mushrooming market of redemption.
11:05 Is one other point of difference. Trump is the jester, not the prophet. To the degree the prophet is a "holy fool," there are similarities. But between the jester and the prophet is a profound chasm. I suppose the difference is wisdom vs. foolishness. Trump is the fool. The prophet is the sage.
Are you a wave or a particle....... isn't this what this video is about?
Trump is many things.
Clearly a Trickster Archetype.
There's a lot of changes that this archetype brings.
Another interesting point. And I think I’m with @itsmeitsme99 here in saying that Trump is many things. I agree he’s not a pure prophet archetypally (by a long shot). Thinking about it more that leads me to think what I do mean. Can we be reduced to a single archetype? We are after all human and not gods. But on the other hand if it’s not even the most prominent aspect of his persona then what do I mean by saying that he fits the contours of the prophet archetype. Something for me to reflect on
Isn’t that in a way subjective
Depends on one’s views cause ole trump is a “savior” to some
They say he’s speaking for them making him their prophet right?
@@Dovahkiin0117
Yes, good point, subjective.
But, are we subjects in an ocean of objects or subjects in an ocean of subjects? The whole good and evil, right and wrong thing may well be an illusion.
Once subjects feel objectified disconnection follows?
You nailed it. In a recent interview, Peterson literally said "I exist on the border of things" (as a reason why he was unlikely to embrace catholicisim like his wife). ruclips.net/video/i24nBTXrqtQ/видео.html
Reminds me of Simone Weil, another prophet, who is said to have existed on the threshold of the Catholic church.
As she wrote in a letter:
"Christianity is catholic by right but not in fact. So many things are outside it, so many things that I love and do not want to give up, so many things that God loves, otherwise they would not be in existence… Christianity being catholic by right but not in fact, I regard it as legitimate on my part to be a member of the Church by right but not in fact, not only for a time, but for my whole life if need be… There is an absolutely insurmountable obstacle to the Incarnation of Christianity. It is the use of the two little words _anathema sit._ It is not their existence, but the way they have been employed up till now. It is that also which prevents me from crossing the threshold of the Church, the universal repository, on account of those two little words. I remain beside them all the more because my own intelligence is numbered among them…"
Weird that commenters are saying this is a good video. Most of his examples seem obscenely disconnected. This is actually the video that is going to finally cause me to unsubscribe.
It's unfortunate that extremists on the extreme left and the extreme right get so annoyed when people try to simplify their ideology. When someone tries to simplify Marxism and postmodernism down to racial consciousness, class consciousness, and sexual consciousness it makes the followers of those religions quite angry. They always say, "No, you don't understand, it's much more complicated than that."
Yet they can rarely explain why. Having read a fair amount of Marxism and post-modernism in the last few years I would say they quite a lot of the biggest thinkers really didn't know how any of their asinine ideas could possibly be applied to real life.
How does what you stated disconnect with the video? You seem to be in accord, not in opposition.
lol it’s what made me sub
One man’s trash
But when you say examples do you mean the so called prophets cause ya their beliefs might not be tied together but people more or less idolize them
Muhammad is the messenger of God because whatever he hears, he will speak, just as God will.
1 day this world will come to an end and nothing will be remained except love and affection ❤
It is a mystery of love.
Marx... a prophet... wow /s
🐟 22. ILLEGITIMATE GOVERNANCES:
SOCIALISM (and its more extreme form, communism) is intrinsically evil, because it is based on the ideology of social and economic egalitarianism, which is both a theoretical and a practical impossibility. Equality exists solely in abstract concepts such as mathematics and arguably in the sub-atomic realm. Many proponents of socialism argue that it is purely an economic system and therefore independent of any particular form of governance. However, it is inconceivable that socialism/communism could be implemented on a nationwide scale without any form of government intervention. If a relatively small number of persons wish to unite in order to form a commune or worker-cooperative, that is their prerogative, but it could never work in a country with a large population, because there will always exist entrepreneurs desirous of engaging in wealth-building enterprises. Even a musician who composes a hit tune wants his song to succeed and earn him inordinate wealth.
Socialism reduces individual citizens to utilities, who, in practice, are used to support the ruling elite, who are invariably despotic scoundrels, and very far from ideal leaders (i.e. compassionate and righteous monarchs). Those citizens who display talent in business or the arts are either oppressed, or their gifts are coercively utilized by the corrupt state. Despite purporting to be a fair and equitable system of wealth distribution, those in leadership positions seem to live a far more luxurious lifestyle than the mass of menial workers. Wealth is effectively stolen from the rich. Most destructively, virtuous and holy teachings (“dharma”, in Sanskrit) are repressed by the irreligious and ILLEGITIMATE “government”.
The argument that some form of government WELFARE programme is essential to aid those who are unable to financially-support themselves for reasons beyond their control, is fallacious. A righteous ruler (i.e. a saintly monarch) will ensure the welfare of each and every citizen by encouraging private welfare. There is no need for a king to extort money from his subjects in order to feed and clothe the impoverished. Of course, in the highly-unlikely event that civilians are unwilling to help a person in dire straits, the king would step-in to assist that person, as one would expect from a patriarch (father of his people). The head of any nation ought to be the penultimate patriarch, not a selfish buffoon.
DEMOCRACY is almost as evil, because, just as the rabble favoured the murderous Barabbas over the good King Jesus, the ignorant masses will overwhelmingly vote for the candidate which promises to fulfil their inane desires, rather than one which will enforce the law, and promote a wholesome and just society. Read Chapter 12 for the most authoritative and concise exegesis of law, morality, and ethics, currently available.
Even in the miraculous scenario where the vast majority of the population are holy and righteous citizens, it is still immoral for them to vote for a seemingly-righteous leader. This is because that leader will not be, by definition, a king. As clearly and logically explicated in the previous chapter of this Holy Scripture, MONARCHY is the only lawful form of governance. If an elected ruler is truly righteous, he will not be able to condone the fact that the citizens are paying him to perform a job (which is a working-class role), and that an inordinate amount of time, money and resources are being wasted on political campaigning. Furthermore, an actual ruler does not wimpishly pander to voters - he takes power by (divinely-mandated) force, as one would expect from the penultimate alpha-male in society (the ultimate alpha-male being a priest).
The thought of children voting for who will be their parents or teachers, would seem utterly RIDICULOUS to the average person, yet most believe that they are qualified to choose their own ruler - they are most assuredly not. Just as a typical child fails to understand that a piece of sweet, juicy, healthy, delicious fruit is more beneficial for them than a cone of pus-infested, fattening, diabetes-inducing ice-cream, so too can the uneducated proletariat not understand that they are unqualified to choose their own leader, even after it is logically explained to them (as it is in this chapter, as well as in the previous chapter). And by “uneducated”, it is simply meant that they are misguided in the realities of life and in righteous living (“dharma”, in Sanskrit), not in facts and figures or in technical training. Intelligence doesn't necessarily correlate to wisdom. No socialist or democratic government will educate its citizens sufficiently well that the citizens have the knowledge of how to usurp their rule.
To put it frankly, democracy is rule by the “lowest common denominator”.
It should be obvious that ANARCHY can never ever succeed, because even the smallest possible social unit (the nuclear family) requires a dominator. Any family will fall-apart without a strict male household head. In fact, without the husband/father, there is no family, by definition. The English noun “husband” comes from the Old Norse word “hûsbôndi”, meaning “master of the house”.
The same paradigm applies to the extended family, which depends on a strong patriarchal figure (customarily, the eldest or most senior male). Likewise with clans, tribes, villages, towns, cities, and nations or countries.
Unfortunately, there are many otherwise-intelligent persons who honestly believe that an ENTIRE country can smoothly run without a leader in place. Any sane person can easily understand that even a nuclear family is unable to function properly without a head of the house, what to speak of a populous nation. The reason for anarchists' distrust of any kind of government is due to the corrupt nature of democratic governments, and the adulteration of the monarchy in recent centuries. However, if anarchists were to understand that most all so-called “kings/queens” in recent centuries were not even close to being true monarchs, they may change their stance on that inane “system”.
Most of the problems in human society are directly or indirectly attributable to this relatively modern phenomenon (non-monarchies), since it is the government’s role and sacred DUTY to enforce the law (see Chapter 12), and non-monarchical governments are themselves unlawful.
One of the many sinister characteristics of democracy, socialism, and other evil forms of governance, is the desire for their so-called “leaders” to control, or at least influence, the private lives of every single citizen (hence the term “Nanny State”). For example, in the wicked, decadent nations in which this holy scripture was composed, The Philippine Islands and The Southland (or “Australia”, as it is known in the Latin tongue), the DEMONIC governments try, and largely succeed, in controlling the rights of parents to properly raise, discipline and punish their children according to their own morals, compulsory vaccination of infants, enforcing feminist ideology, limiting legitimate powers an employer has over his servants, subsidizing animal agriculture, persecuting religious leaders (even to imprisonment and death, believe it or not. Personally, I have been jailed thrice for executing God’s perfect and pure will), and even trying to negatively influence what people eat and wear.
Not that a government shouldn’t control what its citizens wear in public, but it should ensure that they are MODESTLY dressed, according to the guidelines outlined in Chapter 28, which is hardly the case in Australia, the Philippines, and similar nations. At least ninety-nine per cent of Filipinas, for instance, are transvestinal, despite Philippines pretending to be a religious nation.
Cont...
Trump...a prophet?
@@jfder3677 Marx predicted... again, he PREDICTED the workers would've taken the whole world, an we're still seeing the same elites, and the newcomers, the socialists, in power...
now Trump, just pointing out current year situation and using pattern recognition to state a future development... and getting right using REASON instead of """feelz/wants"""
@@SpiritualPsychotherapyServicesThanks for sharing this chapter, SpiritualPsychosisServices 😂
@@jessl1934, Good Girl! 👌
Incidentally, Slave, are you VEGAN? 🌱
Prophet=shaman. One foot in society, one foot outside.
There is so much good here, but I find your whitewashing of Marx and sarcastic dismissal of Peterson distracting and detracting. This, combined with your removal of the excellent work you did on postmodernism's flirtation with pedophilia, have left a bad smell wafting around the channel.
Almost as if a philosopher isnt bound to a single way of thinking. Imagine that. Or, uh, guess you cant, huh?
How was Marx whitewashed?
Peterson makes it too easy to roast him
He needs some chill pills 💊
Funny how when you go live in the real world, struggling for real things, these "prophets" and culture warriors and all their ideological bullshit doesn't mean anything to anything. Jus sayin.
I guess you aren't very familiar with Marx then - he wrote extensively about the conditions that the working man lived under in the real world.
@jessl1934 🤣 that messianic loony who wrote a bunch of convoluted sociopolitical vomit about a communist utopia? Stupid. 😂
@@Brooder85Can you tell me in which works Marx described this communist utopia messianically?
I think your reply is only proving my point but feel free at any point to acknowledge that you're passing off your ignorance as knowledge and that you're more interested in self-congratulatory sophistry, if you feel like it.
Oh my god...my comment was deleted because I used the word "stupid"? What disgusting censorship.
@@Brooder85 Stay mad, kiddo
We all know that you haven't read Marx - it's obvious that you're only convincing yourself.
Lmao marx a “prophet”
Kek
Anyone who claims publically to predict the future and gets a following who try to enact it, is, at least most of the way.
@@asiblingproductionSo the weatherman who appears on the news is also a prophet, by your definition?
@@jessl1934 Do you try to enact the weather?
@@ximono Do you not think that people plan things around weather forecasts
Maybe you personally do not but the rest of the world runs on weather forecasts.
@@jessl1934 It was meant as a joke, my bad for not adding /s.