Mr. Bruce, I've found your channel two weeks ago, and from that time I'm watching too many videos you post, and you're really an educated man, and the videos are very interesting! ❤️❤️ Thanks
"One of the worst philosophies...." (??). Very subjective way to start a lecture. I would recommend everyone interested to read 'the essence of christianity' by Feuerbach and judge for yourself.
@@Sazi_de_Afrikan Ya think? This is a Christian school with a Christian viewpoint, not a public university. Parents are paying to have their children learn from this viewpoint. Such criticisms of "non-objectivity" on the lecturer's part are therefore unjust.
He was way ahead of his time with his thinking. Modern science is showing this trend in religion through each study we gain. The epistemological issues is merely because humans judge things off of averages; this is why we have a hard time conceptualizing "omni" qualities.
@Levi Brennan >Christ was raised from the dead Except there are no historical proofs for it except a Bible which on itself should be taken metaphorically only. Why? Simple, because no man is able to copy paste fish and bread like that, yet somehow Jesus did? Pfft, scientifically impossible.
@@ПросечниНемачкиСловен To add: After some more study on Feuerbach, it seems that Bruce didn't address some of his later natural-existentialist themes present in his *Lectures on the Essence of Religion*. Long quote from an article written by Van A. Harvey defending Feuerbach's analysis of religion: To argue that Feuerbach's interpretive principle leads to identify 'religion wholesale with a kind of wish-fulfilling childishness' is a misleading simplification because it ignores a) Feuerbach's distinction between religion generally anf Christianity particularly, and b) Feuerbach's extremely rich and complicated analysis of wish and desire, which, in turn, is rooted in his anthropology. Considered generally, Feuerbach believed religion is an overdetermined phenomenon; that is, it has many causes and grounds. But basically he believed that the self-conscious "I" emerges out of the relationship to the other "Thou's" and to nature. As an embodied human organism the I is in the grip of a Promethean drive to flourish but is confronted by a multitude of powers within and without (the not-I) that limit it but on which it is absolutely dependent. Wanting to feel at home in a universe that will ultimately kill it and desiring recognition by others, the I attempts to reduce the mysteriousness of these powers by personalizing them or by transforming the not-I into a superhuman power that fulfills this Promethean desire, the desire to transcend the necessities of nature and death.
@@ПросечниНемачкиСловен Van Harvey's take on Feuerbach's Sinnlichkeit: Feuerbach argues that the human body is the way in which the "I" is in the world. The body, moreover, is always situated in some specific time and place. "To be-there (Dasein) is the primary being, the primary determination. Here I am-this is the first sign of a real living being . . . The determination of place is the first determination of reason on which every subsequent determination can rest." Because the body is the way "Dasein" is in the world, its consciousness is constituted by its own species-specific organization of the senses that mediate the world to it. Moreover, each human sense has its own unique need for satisfaction. One might even say the body-consciousness is constituted in its more of being as feeling. Sinnlichkeit is the link between the body and psyche. It is this interpenetration of "Sinnlichkeit and consciousness that establishes what Feuerbach calls the "universality" of human being. "Man is not a particular being like the animal; but is a universal being," which means that any given sense is elevated by consciousness above its bondage to a particular need and attains "independent and theoretical significance."
I guess your philosophy is betrayed by your name. You must be some Hegel fan who believes in the Yin and Yang, the balance, the equilibrium, bla bla bla. Look buddy, it;s not that hard: something is either true or it is not true; that's the only dialectic there is. If you think "science" can lead you to some ultimate truth, then you are naive. Do you believe the corona narrative? Because if you do, you have no business lecturing people about philosophy. We live in satan's kingdom, and the only way out is through Jesus.
This is a Christian school with a Christian viewpoint, not a public university. Parents are paying to have their children learn from this viewpoint. Such criticisms of "non-objectivity" on the lecturer's part are therefore unjust.
I just saw a video by the guardian where they said Feuerback would not fit in with the new atheists of today because he was not hostile towards religion/Christianity. They said that he was more interested in studying religion as anthropology. What is your thought on this?
I think the same. Dr. Gore in the video seems to completely miss this point. He also never recognizes that Fauerbach was, seemingly, more open about religion as a whole. He does mention to a degree this sentiment but goes against it when he says that the reason Jesus died (for sin) goes against being good to your neighbor. The fact that the professor cannot synthesize these two aspects, to me, is if not for a better word, naive. What do you think?
@@brucegore4373 Thank you for the response. What then should be worshiped based on the premises: a) Feuerbach found a reason to worship man; b) that is right to contend against premise a? For what is the external thing from man to worship? In concrete terms?
@Levi Brennan that is philosophy too. 66 books, 40 authors, 1400 years - sounds like a piece of philosophy to me. Remember, philosophy is the love of wisdom, knowledge. Plus, I have heard or metaphysics, ethics, epistemology, but never 'vain' philosophy. Can you recommend an author?
You have your own right to dislike Feuerbach. Thank you for expressing your position with the "one of the worst" comment. Knowing the teacher's position helps understand his lectures better.
Yeah, I found that interesting to say the least. From there it only gets worse. Like when he tries to present the virtues of “god” as always having been concrete and fixed and man having received them from “god”. Only that’s the furthest thing from an accurate representation of the whole christian epic. “god” somehow seeming evolves his values and in the new covenant the followers are supposed to “love thine enemy”, which oddly enough is rare. However I guess it’s only necessary to be critical of the side you’re trying to smear and not one’s own leanings.
His approach to Feuerbach as a thinker that is fundamentally theological is interesting. I imagine most Christian professors would dismiss him as an atheist.
Feurebach is more a forerunner for thinkers like Nietzsche and Carl Jung than Marx; if you think of philosophy in terms of the similarity of ideas and methods of analysis; Feurebach is probably who Nietzsche got genealogical analysis from, see the essence of Christianity and the essence of Religion.
This is a Christian school with a Christian viewpoint, not a public university. Parents are paying to have their children learn from this viewpoint. Such criticisms of "non-objectivity" on the lecturer's part are therefore unjust.
I'll tell you what's pathetic: Luciferianism. It's nothing new; you can find it on page 3 in the Bible. Perhaps you are a freemason who is taught all kinds of Luciferian doctrine, but that doesn't mean that it holds some kind of higher truth. What it actually does is to deceive humans.
![Blox Fruits Dragon Rework Update [Full Stream]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EqDAp8udhm0/mqdefault.jpg)
Mr. Bruce, I've found your channel two weeks ago, and from that time I'm watching too many videos you post, and you're really an educated man, and the videos are very interesting! ❤️❤️ Thanks
Explained in simple terms.
"One of the worst philosophies...." (??). Very subjective way to start a lecture.
I would recommend everyone interested to read 'the essence of christianity' by Feuerbach and judge for yourself.
Exactly! I bought three studies on him after reading EoC. This guy is just inserting his Christianity into it. Everyone should read his work.
@Levi Brennan Or you can realize that the dialectical inversion present in Feuerbach's later works shits on Christian Theism
@Levi Brennan Afraid of reading a challenging viewpoint?
@@Sazi_de_Afrikan Ya think?
This is a Christian school with a Christian viewpoint, not a public university. Parents are paying to have their children learn from this viewpoint. Such criticisms of "non-objectivity" on the lecturer's part are therefore unjust.
He was way ahead of his time with his thinking. Modern science is showing this trend in religion through each study we gain.
The epistemological issues is merely because humans judge things off of averages; this is why we have a hard time conceptualizing "omni" qualities.
Vox Dialectica indeed, and he was pretty based lad.
@Levi Brennan >Christ was raised from the dead
Except there are no historical proofs for it except a Bible which on itself should be taken metaphorically only. Why? Simple, because no man is able to copy paste fish and bread like that, yet somehow Jesus did? Pfft, scientifically impossible.
@@ПросечниНемачкиСловен To add: After some more study on Feuerbach, it seems that Bruce didn't address some of his later natural-existentialist themes present in his *Lectures on the Essence of Religion*.
Long quote from an article written by Van A. Harvey defending Feuerbach's analysis of religion:
To argue that Feuerbach's interpretive principle leads to identify 'religion wholesale with a kind of wish-fulfilling childishness' is a misleading simplification because it ignores a) Feuerbach's distinction between religion generally anf Christianity particularly, and b) Feuerbach's extremely rich and complicated analysis of wish and desire, which, in turn, is rooted in his anthropology.
Considered generally, Feuerbach believed religion is an overdetermined phenomenon; that is, it has many causes and grounds. But basically he believed that the self-conscious "I" emerges out of the relationship to the other "Thou's" and to nature. As an embodied human organism the I is in the grip of a Promethean drive to flourish but is confronted by a multitude of powers within and without (the not-I) that limit it but on which it is absolutely dependent. Wanting to feel at home in a universe that will ultimately kill it and desiring recognition by others, the I attempts to reduce the mysteriousness of these powers by personalizing them or by transforming the not-I into a superhuman power that fulfills this Promethean desire, the desire to transcend the necessities of nature and death.
@@ПросечниНемачкиСловен Van Harvey's take on Feuerbach's Sinnlichkeit:
Feuerbach argues that the human body is the way in which the "I" is in the world. The body, moreover, is always situated in some specific time and place. "To be-there (Dasein) is the primary being, the primary determination. Here I am-this is the first sign of a real living being . . . The determination of place is the first determination of reason on which every subsequent determination can rest."
Because the body is the way "Dasein" is in the world, its consciousness is constituted by its own species-specific organization of the senses that mediate the world to it. Moreover, each human sense has its own unique need for satisfaction. One might even say the body-consciousness is constituted in its more of being as feeling. Sinnlichkeit is the link between the body and psyche.
It is this interpenetration of "Sinnlichkeit and consciousness that establishes what Feuerbach calls the "universality" of human being. "Man is not a particular being like the animal; but is a universal being," which means that any given sense is elevated by consciousness above its bondage to a particular need and attains "independent and theoretical significance."
I guess your philosophy is betrayed by your name. You must be some Hegel fan who believes in the Yin and Yang, the balance, the equilibrium, bla bla bla. Look buddy, it;s not that hard: something is either true or it is not true; that's the only dialectic there is. If you think "science" can lead you to some ultimate truth, then you are naive. Do you believe the corona narrative? Because if you do, you have no business lecturing people about philosophy. We live in satan's kingdom, and the only way out is through Jesus.
This Feuerbach was ahead of his time. This nominal materialism he describes is basically AI pattern recognition, and pattern extrapolation.
This is a Christian school with a Christian viewpoint, not a public university. Parents are paying to have their children learn from this viewpoint. Such criticisms of "non-objectivity" on the lecturer's part are therefore unjust.
I just saw a video by the guardian where they said Feuerback would not fit in with the new atheists of today because he was not hostile towards religion/Christianity. They said that he was more interested in studying religion as anthropology. What is your thought on this?
I think the same. Dr. Gore in the video seems to completely miss this point. He also never recognizes that Fauerbach was, seemingly, more open about religion as a whole. He does mention to a degree this sentiment but goes against it when he says that the reason Jesus died (for sin) goes against being good to your neighbor. The fact that the professor cannot synthesize these two aspects, to me, is if not for a better word, naive. What do you think?
Feuerbach was a very religious man. He argued, however, that we should worship 'Man' rather than 'God.'
@@brucegore4373 Thank you for the response. What then should be worshiped based on the premises: a) Feuerbach found a reason to worship man; b) that is right to contend against premise a?
For what is the external thing from man to worship? In concrete terms?
@Levi Brennan that is philosophy too. 66 books, 40 authors, 1400 years - sounds like a piece of philosophy to me. Remember, philosophy is the love of wisdom, knowledge. Plus, I have heard or metaphysics, ethics, epistemology, but never 'vain' philosophy. Can you recommend an author?
You have your own right to dislike Feuerbach. Thank you for expressing your position with the "one of the worst" comment. Knowing the teacher's position helps understand his lectures better.
Yeah, I found that interesting to say the least. From there it only gets worse. Like when he tries to present the virtues of “god” as always having been concrete and fixed and man having received them from “god”. Only that’s the furthest thing from an accurate representation of the whole christian epic. “god” somehow seeming evolves his values and in the new covenant the followers are supposed to “love thine enemy”, which oddly enough is rare. However I guess it’s only necessary to be critical of the side you’re trying to smear and not one’s own leanings.
Anyone knows what is the title for the little preclude music?
bach invention in f major, i think number 8
“Truth is that which makes a hole in knowledge.” -Theresa Giron, _Umbr(a)_
His approach to Feuerbach as a thinker that is fundamentally theological is interesting. I imagine most Christian professors would dismiss him as an atheist.
So is it Feuerback or Feuerbach?
Ludwig Feuerbach
I cant take a philosophy professor seriously if he can't even pronounced Nietzsche correctly.
Neechee
He’s not a philosophy professor, he’s a theology professor. That becomes clear pretty quickly.
30:01
Feurebach is more a forerunner for thinkers like Nietzsche and Carl Jung than Marx; if you think of philosophy in terms of the similarity of ideas and methods of analysis; Feurebach is probably who Nietzsche got genealogical analysis from, see the essence of Christianity and the essence of Religion.
So this professor begins by exposing the ideological chip on his shoulder; curious and pathetic at the same time.
This is a Christian school with a Christian viewpoint, not a public university. Parents are paying to have their children learn from this viewpoint. Such criticisms of "non-objectivity" on the lecturer's part are therefore unjust.
I'll tell you what's pathetic: Luciferianism. It's nothing new; you can find it on page 3 in the Bible. Perhaps you are a freemason who is taught all kinds of Luciferian doctrine, but that doesn't mean that it holds some kind of higher truth. What it actually does is to deceive humans.
How dare you not provide the conversation lol elucidation the key to learning and understanding
Sounds like the false gospel of the transhumanists
Davis Steven Allen Kimberly Thompson George
Just like Augustine became the forerunner for Dr.Martin Luther , Ludwig became the forerunner for Markx. Thanks for the lecture professor Gore.
How so....Augustine was centuries away from Luther.
@@tevitamotulalo3909Luther was heavily inspired by Augustine's theology.
fail. go back to school and retake german idealist theory/philosophy
Hegel? Dominate lol.
Yes. Western philosophy is _inescapably_ Hegelian. Read Slavoj Zizek/Todd McGowan, listen to Michael Sugrue/Rick Roderick..