Episodes 15 and 16 were an incredible pair. At the end of 16 when I saw I would get one more episode of Kierkegaard I shouted with joy. The virtues of patience and carefulness show themselves in this series. Chris said explicitly at one point that he wanted to “avoid shooting off in all directions.” I believe you both have done that successfully. In episode 16 I had an experience while listening that caused me to weep. Something struck a cord in my being that was like dam of emotion breaking apart. It wasn’t necessarily something either of you said, but an insight I had. It’s indescribable, something about my entire life was coming together and it was non-linguistic. The insight was not language. I am so grateful for “After Socrates”, and we are only half way through. Kierkegaard has always held a special place in my heart, as well as Spinoza. Thank you for spending so much time on him John.
This discussion has so far had great therapeutic value for me. A natural introvert who must always take an ironical stance in whatever role I must inhabit to the extent that commitment seems like an inauthentic sacrifice. Understanding social anxiety has a conflict between the aesthetic self and the ethical self that perhaps can only be resolved by a transcendence into the religious self. Had an experience in church recently that took this into the participatory. I was becoming anxious about how to engage with the church crowd after the service where participation goes from structured to unstructured and I could see polar sides of myself vying for control asking me to choose a strategy voiced by each character. The aesthetic prideful hold your own and defend and the ethical submissive play by the rules, don't rock the boat and be good boy. My awareness of this perpetual inner argument and the suffering induced by it may have become more keen because of the arena of worship of something transcendent. I found that there was at least one other character to choose from. Sorry if this doesn't make sense. Writing and talking helps me pull up from the depths into the glittering surfaces of the proposional.
"Since my earliest childhood a barb of sorrow has lodged in my heart. As long as it stays I am ironic - if it is pulled out I shall die." -Kierkegaard There were some really beautiful moments of silence shared between the two of you, pauses taken in appreciation or reflection. During one of those pauses I felt something like a wave of sorrow mixed with longing and hope wash over me. I realized that often what I interpret as depression or despair in myself is properly sorrow or grief if placed under the aspect of hope and faith. There has been such a crushedness in my heart when I look out at the unreality in the world. Perhaps I can be a bit more ironic toward it!
Christopher’s explication on the symbol of Christ was deeply touching. Christ transcends atonement for sin, affording metanoia, reconciliation of dichotomies & existential despair through intimate relationship with Christ, who understands and shares in the soul’s suffering. This is profound & adds such depth.
I'm going to have to rewatch your conversations several times. So rich and personally/generally relevant. These dialogues are an indescribable gift. Thank you!
And John, anyone in their right mind who has been watching you up untill now would be incapable of misinterpreting you as anything but loving and respectful to anyone you disagree with. You should know that!
I really enjoy this dialogue. It is getting more and more interesting every week. I feel very special being in the first hundreds of people listening to this. I think that professor Vervaeke's work will have a huge impacts on western culture in the years to come. I certainly hope so!! I wasn't aware of his work until last year so i had the pleasure of binge-watching Awakening from the Meaning Crisis when i discovered it since it was already all out but now, I really enjoy the anticipation and excitement that is building as i wait for a new episode every week! This series is really amazing and again, I feel very special being part of this from the beginning! 🙏Thanks to John for sharing his wisdom with the world and to everyone that participated in making all this possible🙏
I appreciate every profound word you both have to offer and teach. As a lay person and a lover of wisdom, this is a good home to go to. Thank you so much, John Vervaeke and Christopher Mastropietro.
John the manner in which you articulated your position on Jesus of Nazareth was thought provoking, carful and extremely helpful. Thank you 🙏 Chris, your response to John on that topic, and all topics, was beautiful. Thank you 🙏
Very profound and helpful. I found the discussion of Kierkegaard's aesthetic stage as being struck by the infinitude of possibility without wanting to commit to a definite stance and the ethical stage as a commitment to a finite and normative (but possibly too rigid on it's own) framework particularly thought provoking. Using this framework, I am struck how in my own life (and in the modern western context in general?) I often feel bewildered by the tension of making sense of and trying to choose from the wide variety of ethical frameworks on offer. In big and small ways I've experienced the vacillation between being dumbstruck by not knowing what framework to commit to while also seeking the meaning and positive impact of living by a framework that provides guidance and correction to my actions as well as supports ongoing positive character formation. I liked the idea of the wisdom of seeking a 'tonos' between the tension of finite-transcendence to create a stereoscopic vision but wonder whether others have experienced the difficulty/frustration I describe and how they may have navigated it to greater or lesser extents? Thanks as always John (and Christopher) for your work and insights.
Wonderful insight into the intended use of irony within Kierkegaard, thank you Both Vervaeke and Christopher 36:17 “Kierkegaard uses the eye of Socrates to look for Christ”
These dialogos sessions with Chris were exceptional. I'm trying to catch up on all your new content, but it's so rich I have to listen multiple times. Thank you for sharing!
Truth is a fire, which indeed catches the values outside of it and for that illuminates them. But truth is also something which creates a fire within us.
Two giants talking. John you are an amazing historian of our ontological evolution. You are helping trace lineages around our phenomenological ancestors. And by doing so you are unveiling new countries of ontologies, cultures of practices, rituals of enlightenment. You are tracing how wisdom had its own form of evolution. And together with so many bright minds such as Chris! Chris - your point around Kierkegaard co-existing with Socrates to get to Jesus was an unlock for me! My own pursuit of Buddha, Socrates, Jesus became a triangle. Yet the paradox of so many other simultaneous ideologies makes it so ironic. I really appreciate you two (and countless others) shedding light in a whole new map we need to familiarize with. You are doing great ontological archeology work!
I personally would love to have Jerry Seinfeld as a friend i am a big fan of the philosophers in the comedy world I acknowledge some comedians as real philosophers Dave Chapelle for example or the legend Dan carlin are unmistakably philosophers in regular clothing as i call them. there are more but yea i would love to have comedians as friends I respect the medicinal nature that comes from laughter alot in my life. But I understand what your laying down about the characters in the show not being good friends. jerry is my one exception though definitely want that guy as a friend his honesty would second to none being a comedian to tell you when you’re bullshitting yourself would be incredibly valuable in a friendship imo but that’s me personally. As always i appreciate your time JV ❤🍄 these conversations are wonderful 🙏
This episode pops off big time for me especially near the end when you start talking about the dark night of the soul precisely nailed my life this last year after my fathers death and i took mushrooms i had an contact with the oneness of everything opening me up to the suffering of the world and turned my own despair into this eros for everything living in this world like an alchemy happened in me.
Thank you John and Christopher! I'm working on my sermon for the local youth in a city near Chino Hills today on Doubting Thomas, and listening to you two having dialogos about irony has helped me put into words the feeling when Jesus tells Thomas to touch his hands and side where he was physically wounded, but then cheekily then tells Thomas that "blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed" whose language resembles that on the Sermon on the Mount, the best sermon which delivers aporia.
So I was walking on the street just today and was suddenly struck by a feeling of suffering, and although I'm not a christian I thought "I suffer like he suffered", and it made me smile. Now, I don't consider myself a christian, but I embrace the paradox by which I can have a relationship with something I don't have the grounds to profess. My question is: how can one dostinguish between arbitrary use of the absurd and use coming from guiding wisdom? What's the point in which irony turned aesthetic shifts and becomes pointed towards the good?
I just can't get over the idea that the self you are talking about Jung explained almost in the same way. Cool to see how much related these ideas are to different thinkers.
The first thing that struck me about the difference between Socrates and Hamlet is beauty! I would say that beauty draws one into embodiment powerfully, there’s a connection with appreciation of the gift of being in a Christian sense maybe too. Hamlet is a character whom I would not connect with having any sense of beauty whatsoever.
i think the problem john highlights at 49:00, with regards to nostalgia, is brought up again when he references the anti semitism in christianity, and is likewise answered the same. it looks (to me atleast lol) like you're confusing ontological levels. jonathan pageau's project i dont think is properly understood as one of nostalgia. looking 'thru the eyes of the early fathers' is a tool to understand that the ontology itself has not changed, despite the massively different world and signs that populate the current age. it's not a project to return the world and the signs to how they were 1800 years ago. more like re-attaching the signs to the symbols from which they were born. that then gets reflected in the later 'but what about the history of christianity in relation to the jewish people'. certainly should be paid attention to, not a matter of naively burying our heads in the sand as to the nature of symbolic and contextual drift, the failures of human institutions, the failures of humans in general, etc., but it's not actually an argument fundamental to the ontology revealed in christ that spurred the formation of a religion thru the account of christ's life. also, there is the very real issue that if you cant dissentangle this problem, then every philosophy and religion, including those offered by socrates, plato and buddhism, (and certainly any that may come) falls in the exact same manner. perhaps the frustration john is experiencing is the kind of 'hand waving' that many proponents of any given religion try and perform as to the failures of it's systems and practitioners, and less about what it actually 'is'.
I've fallen a bit behind on the lectures, but I am absolutely loving these dialogues! I feel drawn into them in a way different from the rest of the series, where instead of continually chasing after John's insights I'm instead bounced like a ping pong ball between John and Christopher. It's a bit of a shame that they are such a latter addition, since I feel like much of their content would be helpful to people who haven't followed the lectures or otherwise unfortunately didn't put in the work to get this far and were selected out, such as myself (a great hook for the lectures too, as reflected in the view numbers!)
John, Bishop Barron talks about the resurrection as important because of many reasons. I would look into those. But from my perspective, we find ourselves needing to explain the effects of this world. And many systems try this daunting task. But through the resurrection, I see nothing left behind. You talk about Derrida and the myth of the zombie. In which the narrative opens out to possibilities, robbing it of its narrative power. However, doesn’t the opening up of endless possibilities also open the possibility of the end of all possibilities? I love the many religions. The Jews give us the gift of contention, for they fight with God. Islam gives us the gift of submission, for they are those who submit to Him. But Christianity receives the final and greatest gift of them all, the gift of love. And this gift, is the gift I shall never let go. And if I do, I hope it will fly back to catch me.
I mean no disrespect, I am working through this as an exchristian, similar to John, and what I say might illuminate discrepancies. The conflict I see is more than just the Jewish and the Islamic. It manifests within Christianity itself against the Jews and against the Muslims and against atheists and pagans. The love that you speak of is certainly there, but it's embedded in something more. It doesn't abolish, it fulfills, and the fulfillment maintains the structures from which agape was birthed. This is what prevents me from finding home in Christianity. The corruption is something I perceive as inescapable. Even if the excellence dwells there, even if it is the most efficient manifestion of logos that human myth has ever produced, I cannot say that it outweighs the cost of participation. I do not know if becoming post-christian is for better or worse but I can say that it feels like the path I am obligated to.
@@He.knows.nothing Of course I take no offense. And I hope you take no offense to what I say also. You speak of corruption, but no man is free from corruption. Are we supposing that you are without corruption? All of us are broken. All of us divided amongst ourselves. Love is the promise that we shall be made whole again. To speak of corruption in others is to first to speak of it within ourselves. The Buddhist cannot love the world. For the Buddhist, all is one. The way the Buddhist loves the world is like loving a reflection in the mirror. But for the Saint, the world is wonderful, since he is apart from it and it calls out to him. The Christian finds the world beautiful like the man who sees beauty in a woman, and is seduced by her. That’s why it is true to say that he who begets love also begets hate. For there can be no love without there first being division. And there is no truth which is also not soaked in blood. “The Son was a sword separating brother and brother that they should for an aeon hate each other. But the Father also was a sword, which in the black beginning separated brother and brother, so that they should love each other at last.” (Chesterton) You speak of your path as an obligation. But an obligation to whom? To oblige the truth? Obligations, however, are only given to those who exist in themselves (persons). For, one cannot obey the rock or the waterfall but must obey he who commands the waterfall. In truth I say to you, that truth is a person, as all truth is bloody unto me. Is it an obligation to yourself? Such an obligation is a small one, as a man wrapped up in himself creates a small package indeed. Augustine described pride as an incurvatus in se (a caving into oneself). A project dedicated to oneself is like pollution to the soul, we can never gaze up to the stars. To be centered on oneself is to be the pusila anima (little soul) as opposed to the magna anima (great soul) who is drawn into the beauty outside of him. The value of beauty; like a window into another greater value. Such values lead you up into the heavens until terminating finally in the source of that value. And for this, our suffering is redeemed. From his wounds, our wounds healed and from his death, our death trampled. For suffering is what breakers us apart, but remember, love is the promise of being whole once again. For it, we are made more sublime by our suffering. As our suffering can often be a great gift and bridge for others.
@@mariog1490 Much of this is synchronistic with my own narrative. There are also more discrepancies that I will delve into, but first I must say that what I have beared witness to in the past 24 hours, the words said by Mastropietro in this video and the words written by yourself in this thread, has brought me the closest to conversion since having left the faith behind. This narrative as both of you have presented is breathtakingly beautiful and I have found my former Christian self and all of the suffering and trauma I had experienced interacting with the religion consistently healed through these expressions of deeper truths that continue to direct me further towards the Logos. First, I must agree and cannot deny that Christ absolves the biblical past of its own sin. I see Christ as salvation for the individual, and through the salvation of individuals I see absolution for the church and its history as well as for God and the violence of the old testament. I feel that I was unclear in my communication and it isn't that I don't believe that humanity can come into Logos without having first been corrupted or experienced suffering, rather that I am uncertain that the mythic narrative in which the Logos has been embedded fails or succeeds in the exaltation of the path towards absolution. In most of Protestantism, sola scriptura has murdered this path. In Catholicism and Orthodoxy I fear as though it is simply underwhelming. The saints who have touched upon this I feel must necessarily be considered with the same divine right as the testaments of the biblical corpus, but what I see is that these threads of truth are obscured and mysticism is all but ostracized. I do not believe that the extrapolations of Paul were sufficient enough to stimulate a healthy relationship between the religion and the world which will lead to a question that I will ask at the end of this. I am no Buddhist, but I can be described as a Taoist and such a narrative as mine is similar enough to zen and can be seen as pantheistic in nature. I can relate, but not agree to the perception that the love of a Buddhist is limited to the love that he can have for himself. Love is inherently transcendental, I think even true self love can be considered as such, and even though there is a Buddhist consideration of the self as an aspect of All, that is not a limiting factor in their experience or narrative. In Taoism, the understanding of the role of irony and absurdism are a crucial part of the narrative itself. Where Kierkegaard absolves his struggles with absurdity, dread, and angst through Christ, Lao Tzu reframes the understanding of absurdity such that the struggle is not in it, but in the resistance to it. The mind must be capable of what John Keats calls "negative capability," the ability to hold two or more contradicting truths in mind at any moment. This is because although we are rooted in the Tao, our consciousness forces us to dwell within the relative and perceive the unity as the multiplicity. Now, although I could be described as a Taoist, I do think that the Christian manifestation of the Tao in the Logos of Christ is superior to the relationship that Lao Tzu offers. Where Lao Tzu offers a capital "V" Virtue, Christianity offers a capital "L" Love in the form of agape and here lies another conflict I come into. I find that both are reduced to presuppositions that cannot be shared by everyone. Although I find that the Christian narrative is superior in its ability to relate the individual to the Logos, Taoism actually accounts for this discrepancy. One of the aspects of the greater mythos that Christ is embedded within mandates that the Logos must be exclusive to Christ and I agree with Mastropietro when he says that he doesn't believe it to be exclusive. I don't see how one cannot enter into a relationship with Christ outside of the new testament narrative, I find myself having done exactly that, even if you might disagree. In Taoism, there is an explicit rejection to the nature of exclusivity and I believe this to result from all aspects of the multiplicity having their roots in the unity such that one can enter from any domain. Moral obligation is my understanding of my relationship to the Tao through a collapsing of the computational explosion of the many into the One through flow. Again, I don't see how to reduce how I ought to behave beyond presuppositions, whether if it's in accordance to virtue or love, but I can say that those presuppositions must come from the transcendent because of precisely what you say in regards to the little soul and the greater soul. Acknowledging that Christianity contains within it the greatest manifestation of Logos through the myth of Christ, I come to the conclusion that the greater mythic narrative cannot be absolutely necessary and thus ultimately requires that we transcend it. That does not mean that we can't participate in its ritual, this is important to note. I don't know what that looks like in its entirety, but imagine for a moment that in a hypothetical reality where we can know the future with certainty, Christianity manages to thrive in human culture until the dawn of man, however, it continues to fail for the vast majority of its adherents. In this future, the Christian narrative continues to repeatedly produce violence and xenophobia to genocidal proportions that rival that of the Canaanites and the pre-flooded world, mirroring that of the crusades, holy wars, Nazis, and the Native American tribes. Given this potential, what is it, in your opinion, that would cause you to continue to put faith into Christianity, assuming that it is possible for humanity to attain the revelations of the Christ myth outside of the narrative? It seems before like you answered this by stating that the possibility of the end of violent potentiality is what sustains your decision, "hope" in other words, but my question is specifically related to the hypothetical that you know with certainty that only the opposite will occur.
@@He.knows.nothing I’ve been chewing on what you said for the past few days. Sorry for the late response. My friend, I have only seen the opposite. As we have moved away from Christianity, the world has become only more violent and more filled with blood shed. And I will weigh both sides any day. John speaks a lot about the violence religion creates in the east, but forgets the violence secularism creates around the world. I have studied many eastern religions, and they all seem to be about how everything is one, or how this world is an illusion. I find this troubling as our knowledge always begins in this world and no other. It is also worth noting in the encyclopedia of war, most wars are not religious and most religious wars are about Islam. To say that there is knowledge for the ages and we need a new knowledge without myth for the future (and I’m not a fan of the word myth) is a conclusion which warrants absurd conclusions. If we have knowledge for 400 years ago, but new knowledge now, you might as well say there is knowledge only for Tuesdays and Thursdays. I would not state the Christianity is exclusive in truth and illusive in thought. I would say the other worldly religions contain in them great truths. However, their truth is a participation in the higher truth. Such that I would say Christianity is the fullness of truth, or fountain from which all truth flows. For, as St. Maximus writes, Christ on the cross is creating the world. And the God of Christianity is not apprehended by the intellect, but not on account of His lack of being known, but on account of God being He who is supremely known. Thus, the particular intellect cannot fully comprehend Him as he is supremely above the intellect; as, for example, the sun, which is supremely visible, cannot be directly glanced by its beholder. The criticism of pure unity holds as love is inherently relational (which is why God is a trinity) and no relation can obtain without division. Another criticism is that logos is in this case created. Making this world an illusion (as these religions would hold). This is problematic however, because whatever reality the illusion has only comes from the logos. Which is itself a created effect. Thus, this world becomes a pure illusion. And then we must question how we are using illusions to come to the truth of the one. Thus, to know the source of reality from illusions requires the illusions have some reality to them. Their reality to them is from the logos. Therefore, the logos is uncreated. Lastly, in your questions of war, I began to contemplate the questions of death. To which, with Mircea Eliade (perhaps the greatest influence on my thought), I say death is uniquely a religious experience, which cannot be captured by the language of philosophy and its investigations. That’s why many theologians don’t use philosophical argüir the existence of God, but rather speak of limit experiences. As in the case of these limit experiences, the only appropriate language we use is that of religious language. Death, the horizon of our knowledge reflects the religious experience of God as the horizon which is alluring to the soul. Because we typically say things like “you’re going home now” or “you’re going to a better place” or “I’ll miss you when you’re gone” or “rest in peace”. People even talk about life in memory. We encounter death as a mystery. It doesn’t matter if you were an atheist you’re whole life. Religious people and psychologists and others come to watch its unfolding. The philosopher, Martin Heidegger, discussed the mystery as pure possibility. However, I would challenge Heidegger and say that we experience death as the ultimate possibility, which closed into the ultimate end. As infinite possibilities also makes possible the end of possibilities. The awe and wonder of the world, revealing in one fell swoop. It’s pulling you into what is unknowable to you. We ask ourselves, “what will be my final work or act?”. But man’s final act is death. As Heidegger says, when we are born, we are old enough for death. Death is an act of faith; “to lose one’s mind and to win God” (Kierkegaard). Ps don’t worry about the edits. I’m writing this on my phone so I’m sure I have many grammar errors as well
@@He.knows.nothing for some reason, your comment was deleted. Luckily I had written a response in my notes. What are the limits of willingness to have faith? This is like asking. what would a woman you truly love have to do for you to stop loving her? She could do nothing. For through her I see love itself. Nihilism is not a rational position, as it supposes the reason for nothingness is that we become nothingness in the end. To the future, we do not matter. However, if that is the case, than neither shall we care about it. If all there is, is nothingness, then it is nothing unto me. Everything you say is interesting, certainly. However, I feel as though I have already answered your objections, and my objections have not been addressed. For a reminder, here were my answers: God is unknown in account of him being supremely known, not not account of him being unknowable. Since what is known is known by form and act. God is himself actus purus. The infinity of matter not made perfect by form, is unknown in itself, because all knowledge comes by the form; whereas the infinity of the form not limited by matter, is in itself supremely known. God is Infinite in this way, and not in the first way. The second is from relations. Proportion is two fold, as it can speak of proportion by degree; example, double, triple quadruple, etc. But proportion is also relational, by potency to act, cause and effect, intellect and form. Thus no relation can obtain without there being division. To which love is inherently relational. The intellect is proportionate to love in this sense to know love. Next is from the uncreated logos. For, if the logos were created then this world would be an illusion. As the reality of this world is derived from the reality of the logos. Thus the logos must be uncreated for Gods logical relation to the world to obtain. As, if the logos were created, then the intelligibility of this world would be derived from something which is unintelligible or has made God intelligible. Both of these conclusions are absurdity. (The religions discussed in the conversation all affirm the created logos; example, the Neoplatonists describe the second hypostases as the divine intellect.) Finally, the experience of death is not only the experience of pure possibilities, but also the end of all possibilities. And those things are the same. For, as Kierkegaard states, God is the impossible who makes all things possible. Thus, no religion is on its face false, but is less true, good and beautiful than Christianity. We must not forget that scripture is not a myth, but a cosmogony, which comprehends the creation of the world. As the center, and it’s establishment is an analogy for the foundation of a new world, and thus is the birthplace of a cosmos, or world order. Christianity is not just a myth, but the center of the world, by which all things are thrown toward. A quick reply against the general Christian. All predications of God are by the analogia entis (the analogy of being). Where what is predicted by reason is from negation and what is predicted by faith is affirmation. Thus, when the common Christian says something which is imprecise propositionally, we say that the term being predicted to God is only an analogy of his being. Which is why St. Maximus will say both, God is the Good, and God is beyond the good. Since the created intellect argues from effect to cause, it understands that God is the cause of goodness in man, but affirms through faith that God is a trinity. Thus the predication of the term “wise” to God shares both similarity and dissimilarity. This follows as the contents of being are of their very nature, unlimited. I remember falling in love with a woman long ago. She wasn’t such a good philosopher. But her beauty for me was a window into a higher beauty. Her charity was a window for me into its cause. She was so great, she was like judge unto me. Love has made an aspiration in me. An aspiration for? An aspiration to? Well, what man aspires to eternally; love. For the heart is restless until it’s final rest in love. And this love surpassed whatever proposition which could be scrutinized. Has this ever happened to you? If it has, then you will know I’m not so concerned if a Christian is as profound as Kierkegaard.
1:08 around here , I experienced a few tears come out my eyes, as I know what this is like . And have a testimony for it in my life experience. I exist today because of it. If I didn't die , I would have never become alive nor lived this far.
So, Socrates and Kierkegaard have a back and forth friendship? i.e "remember me to you", but also with the birth symbols of Moses and Jesus and Mary? ... And the ancient history of where they are from still exists in modern Christianity, Muslim and Jewish faith. Exist is not the same as living and thriving, unlike the relationship Kierkegaard had with Socrates. Hmm i once was captivated by the casting of lines. I still am when time is needed to ponder things over with nature. It's hard to know what we are in that image. The river, the rocks, the rainbow trout, the line, the rod, the old man, the reel, the sparkle glistening back a morning glow. It's calm, quiet, as peaceful as being under a deep sea trance. Hey...Im a faithful student of the arts 🙆🏽♀️ glue and drama don't mix well. 👏 Wonderful thank you all for another open philosophical class!
You know what. After so much work and the physical, mental, spiritual, familial sacrifice given to show up to the call. It hurts man. To see it be pulled down by a societal delusa strain... I sometimes want it to hurt as I do and I want it to think and remember how close it came to be no more. But I also feel the compassion too because simply not knowing is not really a denial. It's comforting to continue the work with that thought kept close to home.
Your concerns with the historical implications of Christianity in relation to Judaism might be at least partially rectified in Kierky’s thoughts on “contemporaneity with Christ” in his late work, “Practice in Christianity.”
I would like to listen to a podcast featuring a conversation between you, and Seyyed Hossein Nasr, who is an Iranian philosopher, theologian, and Islamic scholar.
During my sitting this morning, it occurred to me that what you are referring to as "relevance realization" is the "now", "nen", or "waking up to this moment", and which is the result of some unconscious, automatic process in the brain of selecting a particular combination of sense impressions to "light up", and which has nothing to do with "choice" or "free will".
This video is great! Intellectual people are great for (int i = 0; i < sizeof(scale); i++) great!! I have read some christian science man admired about Kierkegaard, I think this video is starting point to think about it. I am neutral in admiration or criticism, this video is one of the references done by intellectual Dr.Vervaeke, one of my contemporary science professional I trust for. Thank you for recording and sharing~!!
Excellent work, John and Chris. If I had one wish to ask, it'd be to be present in one of your conversations/dialogues, just listening in and trying to catch just a glimmer of the logos you're taking part of.
I’m Christian terms perhaps Only God could say what this new spirit gradually forming within you will be. Give Our Lord the benefit of believing that his hand is leading you, and accept the anxiety of feeling yourself in suspense and incomplete. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin
The solution, like he said, “participation,” in “higher immediacy,” which is paradoxical-lower to go higher-that one “must become like little children” to “enter the Kingdom of Heaven.”
Has ChatGPT internalized humanity through reading the entire internet? Is that what internalizing mean? Predicting was what one would say (or something they would reasonably say) in front of this or that idea? The other night I was reading a psychoterapeutic classic work and it was like John was automatically speaking through me in my head, responding to what I was reading (I've listened to so much of John in the past few months!). My brain was ''predicting'' what he would say when exposed to this or that idea. John is now part of my ''inner tribe'' as some would put it. That's what made me think of this.
Our ability to throw beyond ourselves; to project into the future, allows us to throw the idea of ourselves beyond the body’s demise. God and the metaphysical in general can be explained anthropologically.
why should the ethical and the esthetic create a paradox which has to be superseded ? There is a "direct " way from both of these domaines of human experience to wonder or in your language "the ultimate", the "Good" etc..;
Please take whatever I say as coming from a good place and also not as my final thoughts. As beautiful and eloquent as Chris's language is, being so steeped in Kierkegaardian thought, and as much as what a lot of he says resounds in myself too, I find him and other Christian apologists too ethnocentric, unconvincing and lacking in an intellectual integrity and humility, almost to the point of smugness, to some extent. Of course, I'm not saying that's the case. Maybe I'm just too easily triggered when absolutes are spoken of so nonchalantly? Not that I'm a relativist, to whatever extent that makes sense. I've felt the same mental and visceral uneasiness when listening to Pageau too, even though I do, like Chris, enjoy listening to what they have to say. They seem to provoke me for some reason, which is why I listen to them but it doesn't seem to be because I'm resisting their thoughts in any way as that was my first response to how I was thinking and feeling. I have my reasons but more importantly it doesn't align with my own encounters with my being/Being. Anyway, I'm always grateful for the content and will probably watch both episodes again. Sincerest regards, Jason.
From a Christian perspective, Chris is eminently humble and unbelievably restrained in these conversations. Also, nowhere in any of these discussions is there a even a hint of apologetics, quite the contrary, Chris seems extremely reluctant to push the issue even when he could do so via Kierkegaard himself. Perhaps it might help for you to try and understand that from the perspective of a Christian (a genuine one in the Kierkegaardian sense) there is no question as to the existence of God, he is real to us, more real than the material realm, so that might be why they seem to be nonchalant about absolutes, especially if one is in an absolute relation to the absolute. Hope that helps some.
Dichotomous parts of you riving your sense of coherence as you are the measure of all things. Too much contradiction leading to Christ as image, allows for the 'outside of you' to emerge. Suffering as a way to relation with moreness (to metanoia)
Notes: Breathing as aspiration and expiration as a movement visavis opponent processing, can extend to other domains like limited and unlimited of Neoplatonism Despair comes from thinking you are self made, your own ground Self transformation requires both extending oneself but also being created by the other outside of oneself, because you cannot do it all, paradoxical. Must transcend aesthetical and ethical (fated) transformations Irony - passing through finite and limited and recognising these to get to unlimited If you question too much, you lose contact to agent-arena relationship (hamlet) - this is not irony. Reflectiveness gap Virtuous lie - propositional untrue but participatory perspectively true
Aesthetic - bound by unreality like beards of women The throughljne that brings depth, not just ascent. Think symposium by Plato, each idea isnt necessarily an ascent but a deepening Eros: sexual union but more than verticality. The union, connection, admiration, joining allows for truth to come into the world, gathering logos, and to be nourished by this union Neither nostalgia or utopia By using the Jesus symbol, we are able to come into contract through it into a reality that exceeds ours, and be known by this reality as it offers us love and knowing Suffering - dark night of soul - exhaust its boundaries as measured of its own salvation, beyond all rational limits, has to look outside of itself. Your (absurd existential) suffering becomes his (Jesus) at the limit of suffering - take on identity of Christ Flow as a way to get over reflectiveness gap
So when you access the "really real" somehow, bloodshed which is just humanely real ( no quotation marks on real here) doesn't matter ! Any ontology which does not take into consideration or subordinates Ethics and or Morality which is not checked by the "ethically good" in one's way to the "Good" is, in my humble and human opinion, is misconceived and dangerous.
The idea is that a love for what is most real motivates one to overcome self deception and to enhance one’s ability to see thorough illusion and into realty. This is to cultivate wisdom. Each virtue is how one is wise in a particular situation. So the is an inherent connection between the normativity of seeking the most real and the cultivation of virtue. I do share you concerns about the religious having priority over the ethical for K. But consider someone being super ethical in a dream. Would that make then a good person? Probably not because they are not facing real limitations or helping real people. So the connection to reality has a primacy. I do think the Platonic proposal i just gave us a better answer than K’s but I also respect our relationship to the ultimate has to transcend our expectations and codes if it is ultimate. Making humans the ultimate standard is also fraught with danger. I hope this helps.
@@johnvervaeke Thank you but I am sorry to say this doesn't help, but perhaps it doesn't because I am wrong. So I might say it doesn't help "yet". Few points: °i do agree that "there is an inherent connection between the normativity of seeking the most real and the cultivation of virtue " although I would put real stress on the word "seeking "here.And I do agree making humans the ultimate standard is dangerous too. ° I consider being super ethical in dream and I invite you to consider you are endowed with a super ability to see into reality also in a dream. As we are both dreaming, this does not settle the question. When we are not in a dream, I am more on the reality side than you because virtue can only be practiced in this ordinary world as we know it. °I do not agree at all that our relationship to the ultimate has to transcend, as you say, our "codes" if by code you mean ethics /morality. I am not religious but for me the best part of religions is their stress on morality. The everyday morality of the ordinary man in concrete situations. Wasn't it Plotonius who said "without virtue, God is just but a name"? ° One notorious philosophical example of occlusion of ethics is Heidegger, self proclaimed "metaphysical anti-semite" and non repentant, high order practical nazi. In ordinary human understanding, each of the millions of persons who perished in gas chambers (compared to mechanized agriculture by Heidegger !) was a HUMAN being before being a manifestation of Being. ( which in any case was denied to them, and not being a part of Being, they could not in a sense , even die!) One can also be leured without criminal intent. Take the case of Nishitani who philosophically defended ( his enthusiasm has been described as "manic")the Pacific War in the name of"overcoming modernity, and making imperial japan "the focal point of history" as a nation of "non ego", a master race ( herrenvolk) who possessed "moral energy". In this view Japanizing ethic groups in Asia was a matter of spiritual revolution. The suffering and devastation inflicted by imperial Japan through massacres (Nanjing), slavery, forced labor, sexual enslavement of "comfort women", starvation, human experimentation... is counted in millions. I haven't yet read NIshitani's book so I am not sure about the role of Ethics with respect to his ontology, but a cursory look on pages 273- 280 of "Religion and Nothingness" makes me think that morality is not thought as a check on Ontology. He writes: "without ceasing to be a human being, the self comes to a mode of being where it gets rids of the human". And I suppose here, Kant's treating beings as ends, is superseded. ° I think we should be careful with ideas. They do have power. I was born and raised in Istanbul, so I come from a country where an Islamo-opressive, anti-democratic regime has changed institutions and minds. "Modernity" is not a monolithic phenomenon and all his shortcomings should certainly not be attributed to the philosophers of Enlightenment. So many people in the worlds dominated with one kind idea of the "ultimate" or the other can't find " the courage to use their own understanding" let alone "make public use of it". Sometimes, if they do, they are killed. It is evident that this understanding is relational, sometimes non-dual etc. but in the end we are what we understand ourselves to be.
@@ruhdandoujon6310 First I share your concerns about Heidegger as I have repeatedly said elsewhere. So I will not respond to those point you made. You shifted the dream example to an epistemological point which loses the central point. My example was ethics is undermined if is not grounded in realness. Your version shows that contact with realness in undermined when there is no contact with realness which is a tautology. It is clear that our codes evolve. This is not driven but what is immanent in such codes but what transcends them. I think facing reality and being challenged to change (maturation and growth) are presupposed by any moral code. You seem to advocate a moral check on ontology but no ontological check on morality. Why not both.? After all the prioritization of morality over ontology is ultimately an ontological claim. I think the argument that meaning is as valuable as morality and is not reducible to it, as has been argued by Susan Wolf in her book Meaning in Life and why it matters, and is supported by all the psychological research on meaning life and belonging. Since Nishitanii is specifically addressing nihilism I think his statements about morality should be read in that context. I appreciate you situation and I grew up in a fundamentalist Christianity so I also know about oppressive religion. I hope I am respecting this point. As a scientist I explicitly accept that there was much good in the Enlightenment. I have no nostalgia for the pre-Enlightenment world. I propose we have three poles One is mastery (not political) which is about our ability to exercise our agency in the world, morality which is about our responsibility, and meaning which is about our connectivity. I think there is optimally in a three way system of checks and balances with each other. Wisdom is about realizing this dynamic optimality. Thanks for the engagement.
@@johnvervaeke Not having a religious upbringing so as to have a taste of the "religious", I suppose that ,my way of conceiving the "ultimate" has been through morality, so thank you for helping me open to the other pole and to see better through a shared passion for understanding.
Episodes 15 and 16 were an incredible pair. At the end of 16 when I saw I would get one more episode of Kierkegaard I shouted with joy.
The virtues of patience and carefulness show themselves in this series. Chris said explicitly at one point that he wanted to “avoid shooting off in all directions.” I believe you both have done that successfully.
In episode 16 I had an experience while listening that caused me to weep. Something struck a cord in my being that was like dam of emotion breaking apart. It wasn’t necessarily something either of you said, but an insight I had. It’s indescribable, something about my entire life was coming together and it was non-linguistic. The insight was not language.
I am so grateful for “After Socrates”, and we are only half way through. Kierkegaard has always held a special place in my heart, as well as Spinoza. Thank you for spending so much time on him John.
This discussion has so far had great therapeutic value for me. A natural introvert who must always take an ironical stance in whatever role I must inhabit to the extent that commitment seems like an inauthentic sacrifice. Understanding social anxiety has a conflict between the aesthetic self and the ethical self that perhaps can only be resolved by a transcendence into the religious self. Had an experience in church recently that took this into the participatory. I was becoming anxious about how to engage with the church crowd after the service where participation goes from structured to unstructured and I could see polar sides of myself vying for control asking me to choose a strategy voiced by each character. The aesthetic prideful hold your own and defend and the ethical submissive play by the rules, don't rock the boat and be good boy. My awareness of this perpetual inner argument and the suffering induced by it may have become more keen because of the arena of worship of something transcendent. I found that there was at least one other character to choose from. Sorry if this doesn't make sense. Writing and talking helps me pull up from the depths into the glittering surfaces of the proposional.
Christopher’s language is like poetry
"Since my earliest childhood a barb of sorrow has lodged in my heart. As long as it stays I am ironic - if it is pulled out I shall die."
-Kierkegaard
There were some really beautiful moments of silence shared between the two of you, pauses taken in appreciation or reflection. During one of those pauses I felt something like a wave of sorrow mixed with longing and hope wash over me. I realized that often what I interpret as depression or despair in myself is properly sorrow or grief if placed under the aspect of hope and faith. There has been such a crushedness in my heart when I look out at the unreality in the world. Perhaps I can be a bit more ironic toward it!
Christopher’s explication on the symbol of Christ was deeply touching. Christ transcends atonement for sin, affording metanoia, reconciliation of dichotomies & existential despair through intimate relationship with Christ, who understands and shares in the soul’s suffering. This is profound & adds such depth.
I'm going to have to rewatch your conversations several times. So rich and personally/generally relevant. These dialogues are an indescribable gift. Thank you!
And John, anyone in their right mind who has been watching you up untill now would be incapable of misinterpreting you as anything but loving and respectful to anyone you disagree with. You should know that!
I really enjoy this dialogue. It is getting more and more interesting every week. I feel very special being in the first hundreds of people listening to this. I think that professor Vervaeke's work will have a huge impacts on western culture in the years to come. I certainly hope so!! I wasn't aware of his work until last year so i had the pleasure of binge-watching Awakening from the Meaning Crisis when i discovered it since it was already all out but now, I really enjoy the anticipation and excitement that is building as i wait for a new episode every week! This series is really amazing and again, I feel very special being part of this from the beginning!
🙏Thanks to John for sharing his wisdom with the world and to everyone that participated in making all this possible🙏
I found this discussion very valuable gentlemen, thanks for your honesty and clarity 🙏
I appreciate every profound word you both have to offer and teach. As a lay person and a lover of wisdom, this is a good home to go to. Thank you so much, John Vervaeke and Christopher Mastropietro.
John the manner in which you articulated your position on Jesus of Nazareth was thought provoking, carful and extremely helpful. Thank you 🙏 Chris, your response to John on that topic, and all topics, was beautiful. Thank you 🙏
This was utterly brilliant! Every discussion between you guys lights the path a little more, but this was exceptional. Thank you both 🙏
Your guest is remarkably well-spoken. Such rich vocabulary combined with smooth, approachable delivery.
Very profound and helpful. I found the discussion of Kierkegaard's aesthetic stage as being struck by the infinitude of possibility without wanting to commit to a definite stance and the ethical stage as a commitment to a finite and normative (but possibly too rigid on it's own) framework particularly thought provoking. Using this framework, I am struck how in my own life (and in the modern western context in general?) I often feel bewildered by the tension of making sense of and trying to choose from the wide variety of ethical frameworks on offer. In big and small ways I've experienced the vacillation between being dumbstruck by not knowing what framework to commit to while also seeking the meaning and positive impact of living by a framework that provides guidance and correction to my actions as well as supports ongoing positive character formation. I liked the idea of the wisdom of seeking a 'tonos' between the tension of finite-transcendence to create a stereoscopic vision but wonder whether others have experienced the difficulty/frustration I describe and how they may have navigated it to greater or lesser extents? Thanks as always John (and Christopher) for your work and insights.
I love to see the brotherly love and the dialogos that flows between you two.
Wonderful insight into the intended use of irony within Kierkegaard, thank you Both Vervaeke and Christopher
36:17 “Kierkegaard uses the eye of Socrates to look for Christ”
These dialogos sessions with Chris were exceptional. I'm trying to catch up on all your new content, but it's so rich I have to listen multiple times. Thank you for sharing!
a rather selfless dialog
This is art and you were singing some beautiful poems there.
Thank u both and good day to you
Truth does not create value, it illuminates value.
Truth is a fire, which indeed catches the values outside of it and for that illuminates them. But truth is also something which creates a fire within us.
Then what is it that illuminates truth?
@@lexiconartist5004 Value is separate from truth. A dangerous truth can get you killed.
How is that valuable?
@@lexiconartist5004 maybe values reflect the light by which truth illuminates them. 🤷♂️ just waxing poetic.
It is amazing and enlightening that this dialogue is public.
Utterly Magnificent. Thank you both so much.
Two giants talking. John you are an amazing historian of our ontological evolution. You are helping trace lineages around our phenomenological ancestors. And by doing so you are unveiling new countries of ontologies, cultures of practices, rituals of enlightenment. You are tracing how wisdom had its own form of evolution. And together with so many bright minds such as Chris! Chris - your point around Kierkegaard co-existing with Socrates to get to Jesus was an unlock for me! My own pursuit of Buddha, Socrates, Jesus became a triangle. Yet the paradox of so many other simultaneous ideologies makes it so ironic. I really appreciate you two (and countless others) shedding light in a whole new map we need to familiarize with. You are doing great ontological archeology work!
Great job audio team, absolutely perfect this time :) Thank you all. I approve this message.
I personally would love to have Jerry Seinfeld as a friend i am a big fan of the philosophers in the comedy world I acknowledge some comedians as real philosophers Dave Chapelle for example or the legend Dan carlin are unmistakably philosophers in regular clothing as i call them. there are more but yea i would love to have comedians as friends I respect the medicinal nature that comes from laughter alot in my life. But I understand what your laying down about the characters in the show not being good friends. jerry is my one exception though definitely want that guy as a friend his honesty would second to none being a comedian to tell you when you’re bullshitting yourself would be incredibly valuable in a friendship imo but that’s me personally.
As always i appreciate your time JV ❤🍄 these conversations are wonderful 🙏
This episode pops off big time for me especially near the end when you start talking about the dark night of the soul precisely nailed my life this last year after my fathers death and i took mushrooms i had an contact with the oneness of everything opening me up to the suffering of the world and turned my own despair into this eros for everything living in this world like an alchemy happened in me.
Thank you John and Christopher! I'm working on my sermon for the local youth in a city near Chino Hills today on Doubting Thomas, and listening to you two having dialogos about irony has helped me put into words the feeling when Jesus tells Thomas to touch his hands and side where he was physically wounded, but then cheekily then tells Thomas that "blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed" whose language resembles that on the Sermon on the Mount, the best sermon which delivers aporia.
So I was walking on the street just today and was suddenly struck by a feeling of suffering, and although I'm not a christian I thought "I suffer like he suffered", and it made me smile. Now, I don't consider myself a christian, but I embrace the paradox by which I can have a relationship with something I don't have the grounds to profess. My question is: how can one dostinguish between arbitrary use of the absurd and use coming from guiding wisdom?
What's the point in which irony turned aesthetic shifts and becomes pointed towards the good?
I just can't get over the idea that the self you are talking about Jung explained almost in the same way. Cool to see how much related these ideas are to different thinkers.
The first thing that struck me about the difference between Socrates and Hamlet is beauty! I would say that beauty draws one into embodiment powerfully, there’s a connection with appreciation of the gift of being in a Christian sense maybe too. Hamlet is a character whom I would not connect with having any sense of beauty whatsoever.
Y'all are like two jazz cats trading 4s and I'm here for it
i think the problem john highlights at 49:00, with regards to nostalgia, is brought up again when he references the anti semitism in christianity, and is likewise answered the same. it looks (to me atleast lol) like you're confusing ontological levels. jonathan pageau's project i dont think is properly understood as one of nostalgia. looking 'thru the eyes of the early fathers' is a tool to understand that the ontology itself has not changed, despite the massively different world and signs that populate the current age. it's not a project to return the world and the signs to how they were 1800 years ago. more like re-attaching the signs to the symbols from which they were born.
that then gets reflected in the later 'but what about the history of christianity in relation to the jewish people'. certainly should be paid attention to, not a matter of naively burying our heads in the sand as to the nature of symbolic and contextual drift, the failures of human institutions, the failures of humans in general, etc., but it's not actually an argument fundamental to the ontology revealed in christ that spurred the formation of a religion thru the account of christ's life. also, there is the very real issue that if you cant dissentangle this problem, then every philosophy and religion, including those offered by socrates, plato and buddhism, (and certainly any that may come) falls in the exact same manner.
perhaps the frustration john is experiencing is the kind of 'hand waving' that many proponents of any given religion try and perform as to the failures of it's systems and practitioners, and less about what it actually 'is'.
Thanks John, and Thanks Chris. :)
1:06:25 Christopher doing what he does best gives a new meaning to "My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?"
I've fallen a bit behind on the lectures, but I am absolutely loving these dialogues! I feel drawn into them in a way different from the rest of the series, where instead of continually chasing after John's insights I'm instead bounced like a ping pong ball between John and Christopher. It's a bit of a shame that they are such a latter addition, since I feel like much of their content would be helpful to people who haven't followed the lectures or otherwise unfortunately didn't put in the work to get this far and were selected out, such as myself (a great hook for the lectures too, as reflected in the view numbers!)
Guys this is awesome and so glad you mentioned Mark Vernon. Being in the UK he really needs to be a part of this.
John, Bishop Barron talks about the resurrection as important because of many reasons. I would look into those. But from my perspective, we find ourselves needing to explain the effects of this world. And many systems try this daunting task. But through the resurrection, I see nothing left behind.
You talk about Derrida and the myth of the zombie. In which the narrative opens out to possibilities, robbing it of its narrative power. However, doesn’t the opening up of endless possibilities also open the possibility of the end of all possibilities? I love the many religions. The Jews give us the gift of contention, for they fight with God. Islam gives us the gift of submission, for they are those who submit to Him. But Christianity receives the final and greatest gift of them all, the gift of love. And this gift, is the gift I shall never let go. And if I do, I hope it will fly back to catch me.
I mean no disrespect, I am working through this as an exchristian, similar to John, and what I say might illuminate discrepancies.
The conflict I see is more than just the Jewish and the Islamic. It manifests within Christianity itself against the Jews and against the Muslims and against atheists and pagans. The love that you speak of is certainly there, but it's embedded in something more. It doesn't abolish, it fulfills, and the fulfillment maintains the structures from which agape was birthed. This is what prevents me from finding home in Christianity. The corruption is something I perceive as inescapable. Even if the excellence dwells there, even if it is the most efficient manifestion of logos that human myth has ever produced, I cannot say that it outweighs the cost of participation. I do not know if becoming post-christian is for better or worse but I can say that it feels like the path I am obligated to.
@@He.knows.nothing Of course I take no offense. And I hope you take no offense to what I say also.
You speak of corruption, but no man is free from corruption. Are we supposing that you are without corruption? All of us are broken. All of us divided amongst ourselves. Love is the promise that we shall be made whole again. To speak of corruption in others is to first to speak of it within ourselves. The Buddhist cannot love the world. For the Buddhist, all is one. The way the Buddhist loves the world is like loving a reflection in the mirror. But for the Saint, the world is wonderful, since he is apart from it and it calls out to him. The Christian finds the world beautiful like the man who sees beauty in a woman, and is seduced by her. That’s why it is true to say that he who begets love also begets hate. For there can be no love without there first being division. And there is no truth which is also not soaked in blood. “The Son was a sword separating brother and brother that they should for an aeon hate each other. But the Father also was a sword, which in the black beginning separated brother and brother, so that they should love each other at last.” (Chesterton)
You speak of your path as an obligation. But an obligation to whom? To oblige the truth? Obligations, however, are only given to those who exist in themselves (persons). For, one cannot obey the rock or the waterfall but must obey he who commands the waterfall. In truth I say to you, that truth is a person, as all truth is bloody unto me. Is it an obligation to yourself? Such an obligation is a small one, as a man wrapped up in himself creates a small package indeed. Augustine described pride as an incurvatus in se (a caving into oneself). A project dedicated to oneself is like pollution to the soul, we can never gaze up to the stars. To be centered on oneself is to be the pusila anima (little soul) as opposed to the magna anima (great soul) who is drawn into the beauty outside of him. The value of beauty; like a window into another greater value. Such values lead you up into the heavens until terminating finally in the source of that value. And for this, our suffering is redeemed. From his wounds, our wounds healed and from his death, our death trampled. For suffering is what breakers us apart, but remember, love is the promise of being whole once again. For it, we are made more sublime by our suffering. As our suffering can often be a great gift and bridge for others.
@@mariog1490 Much of this is synchronistic with my own narrative. There are also more discrepancies that I will delve into, but first I must say that what I have beared witness to in the past 24 hours, the words said by Mastropietro in this video and the words written by yourself in this thread, has brought me the closest to conversion since having left the faith behind. This narrative as both of you have presented is breathtakingly beautiful and I have found my former Christian self and all of the suffering and trauma I had experienced interacting with the religion consistently healed through these expressions of deeper truths that continue to direct me further towards the Logos.
First, I must agree and cannot deny that Christ absolves the biblical past of its own sin. I see Christ as salvation for the individual, and through the salvation of individuals I see absolution for the church and its history as well as for God and the violence of the old testament. I feel that I was unclear in my communication and it isn't that I don't believe that humanity can come into Logos without having first been corrupted or experienced suffering, rather that I am uncertain that the mythic narrative in which the Logos has been embedded fails or succeeds in the exaltation of the path towards absolution. In most of Protestantism, sola scriptura has murdered this path. In Catholicism and Orthodoxy I fear as though it is simply underwhelming. The saints who have touched upon this I feel must necessarily be considered with the same divine right as the testaments of the biblical corpus, but what I see is that these threads of truth are obscured and mysticism is all but ostracized. I do not believe that the extrapolations of Paul were sufficient enough to stimulate a healthy relationship between the religion and the world which will lead to a question that I will ask at the end of this.
I am no Buddhist, but I can be described as a Taoist and such a narrative as mine is similar enough to zen and can be seen as pantheistic in nature. I can relate, but not agree to the perception that the love of a Buddhist is limited to the love that he can have for himself. Love is inherently transcendental, I think even true self love can be considered as such, and even though there is a Buddhist consideration of the self as an aspect of All, that is not a limiting factor in their experience or narrative. In Taoism, the understanding of the role of irony and absurdism are a crucial part of the narrative itself. Where Kierkegaard absolves his struggles with absurdity, dread, and angst through Christ, Lao Tzu reframes the understanding of absurdity such that the struggle is not in it, but in the resistance to it. The mind must be capable of what John Keats calls "negative capability," the ability to hold two or more contradicting truths in mind at any moment. This is because although we are rooted in the Tao, our consciousness forces us to dwell within the relative and perceive the unity as the multiplicity. Now, although I could be described as a Taoist, I do think that the Christian manifestation of the Tao in the Logos of Christ is superior to the relationship that Lao Tzu offers. Where Lao Tzu offers a capital "V" Virtue, Christianity offers a capital "L" Love in the form of agape and here lies another conflict I come into. I find that both are reduced to presuppositions that cannot be shared by everyone. Although I find that the Christian narrative is superior in its ability to relate the individual to the Logos, Taoism actually accounts for this discrepancy. One of the aspects of the greater mythos that Christ is embedded within mandates that the Logos must be exclusive to Christ and I agree with Mastropietro when he says that he doesn't believe it to be exclusive. I don't see how one cannot enter into a relationship with Christ outside of the new testament narrative, I find myself having done exactly that, even if you might disagree. In Taoism, there is an explicit rejection to the nature of exclusivity and I believe this to result from all aspects of the multiplicity having their roots in the unity such that one can enter from any domain.
Moral obligation is my understanding of my relationship to the Tao through a collapsing of the computational explosion of the many into the One through flow. Again, I don't see how to reduce how I ought to behave beyond presuppositions, whether if it's in accordance to virtue or love, but I can say that those presuppositions must come from the transcendent because of precisely what you say in regards to the little soul and the greater soul.
Acknowledging that Christianity contains within it the greatest manifestation of Logos through the myth of Christ, I come to the conclusion that the greater mythic narrative cannot be absolutely necessary and thus ultimately requires that we transcend it. That does not mean that we can't participate in its ritual, this is important to note. I don't know what that looks like in its entirety, but imagine for a moment that in a hypothetical reality where we can know the future with certainty, Christianity manages to thrive in human culture until the dawn of man, however, it continues to fail for the vast majority of its adherents. In this future, the Christian narrative continues to repeatedly produce violence and xenophobia to genocidal proportions that rival that of the Canaanites and the pre-flooded world, mirroring that of the crusades, holy wars, Nazis, and the Native American tribes. Given this potential, what is it, in your opinion, that would cause you to continue to put faith into Christianity, assuming that it is possible for humanity to attain the revelations of the Christ myth outside of the narrative?
It seems before like you answered this by stating that the possibility of the end of violent potentiality is what sustains your decision, "hope" in other words, but my question is specifically related to the hypothetical that you know with certainty that only the opposite will occur.
@@He.knows.nothing I’ve been chewing on what you said for the past few days. Sorry for the late response.
My friend, I have only seen the opposite. As we have moved away from Christianity, the world has become only more violent and more filled with blood shed. And I will weigh both sides any day. John speaks a lot about the violence religion creates in the east, but forgets the violence secularism creates around the world. I have studied many eastern religions, and they all seem to be about how everything is one, or how this world is an illusion. I find this troubling as our knowledge always begins in this world and no other.
It is also worth noting in the encyclopedia of war, most wars are not religious and most religious wars are about Islam.
To say that there is knowledge for the ages and we need a new knowledge without myth for the future (and I’m not a fan of the word myth) is a conclusion which warrants absurd conclusions. If we have knowledge for 400 years ago, but new knowledge now, you might as well say there is knowledge only for Tuesdays and Thursdays.
I would not state the Christianity is exclusive in truth and illusive in thought. I would say the other worldly religions contain in them great truths. However, their truth is a participation in the higher truth. Such that I would say Christianity is the fullness of truth, or fountain from which all truth flows. For, as St. Maximus writes, Christ on the cross is creating the world. And the God of Christianity is not apprehended by the intellect, but not on account of His lack of being known, but on account of God being He who is supremely known. Thus, the particular intellect cannot fully comprehend Him as he is supremely above the intellect; as, for example, the sun, which is supremely visible, cannot be directly glanced by its beholder.
The criticism of pure unity holds as love is inherently relational (which is why God is a trinity) and no relation can obtain without division. Another criticism is that logos is in this case created. Making this world an illusion (as these religions would hold). This is problematic however, because whatever reality the illusion has only comes from the logos. Which is itself a created effect. Thus, this world becomes a pure illusion. And then we must question how we are using illusions to come to the truth of the one. Thus, to know the source of reality from illusions requires the illusions have some reality to them. Their reality to them is from the logos. Therefore, the logos is uncreated.
Lastly, in your questions of war, I began to contemplate the questions of death. To which, with Mircea Eliade (perhaps the greatest influence on my thought), I say death is uniquely a religious experience, which cannot be captured by the language of philosophy and its investigations. That’s why many theologians don’t use philosophical argüir the existence of God, but rather speak of limit experiences. As in the case of these limit experiences, the only appropriate language we use is that of religious language. Death, the horizon of our knowledge reflects the religious experience of God as the horizon which is alluring to the soul. Because we typically say things like “you’re going home now” or “you’re going to a better place” or “I’ll miss you when you’re gone” or “rest in peace”. People even talk about life in memory. We encounter death as a mystery. It doesn’t matter if you were an atheist you’re whole life. Religious people and psychologists and others come to watch its unfolding. The philosopher, Martin Heidegger, discussed the mystery as pure possibility. However, I would challenge Heidegger and say that we experience death as the ultimate possibility, which closed into the ultimate end. As infinite possibilities also makes possible the end of possibilities. The awe and wonder of the world, revealing in one fell swoop. It’s pulling you into what is unknowable to you. We ask ourselves, “what will be my final work or act?”. But man’s final act is death. As Heidegger says, when we are born, we are old enough for death. Death is an act of faith; “to lose one’s mind and to win God” (Kierkegaard).
Ps don’t worry about the edits. I’m writing this on my phone so I’m sure I have many grammar errors as well
@@He.knows.nothing for some reason, your comment was deleted. Luckily I had written a response in my notes.
What are the limits of willingness to have faith? This is like asking. what would a woman you truly love have to do for you to stop loving her? She could do nothing. For through her I see love itself.
Nihilism is not a rational position, as it supposes the reason for nothingness is that we become nothingness in the end. To the future, we do not matter. However, if that is the case, than neither shall we care about it. If all there is, is nothingness, then it is nothing unto me.
Everything you say is interesting, certainly. However, I feel as though I have already answered your objections, and my objections have not been addressed. For a reminder, here were my answers:
God is unknown in account of him being supremely known, not not account of him being unknowable. Since what is known is known by form and act. God is himself actus purus. The infinity of matter not made perfect by form, is unknown in itself, because all knowledge comes by the form; whereas the infinity of the form not limited by matter, is in itself supremely known. God is Infinite in this way, and not in the first way.
The second is from relations. Proportion is two fold, as it can speak of proportion by degree; example, double, triple quadruple, etc. But proportion is also relational, by potency to act, cause and effect, intellect and form. Thus no relation can obtain without there being division. To which love is inherently relational. The intellect is proportionate to love in this sense to know love.
Next is from the uncreated logos. For, if the logos were created then this world would be an illusion. As the reality of this world is derived from the reality of the logos. Thus the logos must be uncreated for Gods logical relation to the world to obtain. As, if the logos were created, then the intelligibility of this world would be derived from something which is unintelligible or has made God intelligible. Both of these conclusions are absurdity. (The religions discussed in the conversation all affirm the created logos; example, the Neoplatonists describe the second hypostases as the divine intellect.)
Finally, the experience of death is not only the experience of pure possibilities, but also the end of all possibilities. And those things are the same. For, as Kierkegaard states, God is the impossible who makes all things possible. Thus, no religion is on its face false, but is less true, good and beautiful than Christianity. We must not forget that scripture is not a myth, but a cosmogony, which comprehends the creation of the world. As the center, and it’s establishment is an analogy for the foundation of a new world, and thus is the birthplace of a cosmos, or world order. Christianity is not just a myth, but the center of the world, by which all things are thrown toward.
A quick reply against the general Christian. All predications of God are by the analogia entis (the analogy of being). Where what is predicted by reason is from negation and what is predicted by faith is affirmation. Thus, when the common Christian says something which is imprecise propositionally, we say that the term being predicted to God is only an analogy of his being. Which is why St. Maximus will say both, God is the Good, and God is beyond the good. Since the created intellect argues from effect to cause, it understands that God is the cause of goodness in man, but affirms through faith that God is a trinity. Thus the predication of the term “wise” to God shares both similarity and dissimilarity. This follows as the contents of being are of their very nature, unlimited. I remember falling in love with a woman long ago. She wasn’t such a good philosopher. But her beauty for me was a window into a higher beauty. Her charity was a window for me into its cause. She was so great, she was like judge unto me. Love has made an aspiration in me. An aspiration for? An aspiration to? Well, what man aspires to eternally; love. For the heart is restless until it’s final rest in love. And this love surpassed whatever proposition which could be scrutinized. Has this ever happened to you? If it has, then you will know I’m not so concerned if a Christian is as profound as Kierkegaard.
1:08 around here , I experienced a few tears come out my eyes, as I know what this is like . And have a testimony for it in my life experience. I exist today because of it. If I didn't die , I would have never become alive nor lived this far.
the passionate participation in the paradox...as i watch from behind a screen
Beautiful guys thank you. Your discussion of suffering was profoundly Buddhist!
So, Socrates and Kierkegaard have a back and forth friendship? i.e "remember me to you", but also with the birth symbols of Moses and Jesus and Mary? ... And the ancient history of where they are from still exists in modern Christianity, Muslim and Jewish faith. Exist is not the same as living and thriving, unlike the relationship Kierkegaard had with Socrates. Hmm i once was captivated by the casting of lines. I still am when time is needed to ponder things over with nature. It's hard to know what we are in that image. The river, the rocks, the rainbow trout, the line, the rod, the old man, the reel, the sparkle glistening back a morning glow. It's calm, quiet, as peaceful as being under a deep sea trance. Hey...Im a faithful student of the arts 🙆🏽♀️ glue and drama don't mix well.
👏 Wonderful thank you all for another open philosophical class!
You know what. After so much work and the physical, mental, spiritual, familial sacrifice given to show up to the call. It hurts man. To see it be pulled down by a societal delusa strain... I sometimes want it to hurt as I do and I want it to think and remember how close it came to be no more. But I also feel the compassion too because simply not knowing is not really a denial. It's comforting to continue the work with that thought kept close to home.
Another Kierkegaard! Thank for cheering up my friday night.
Your concerns with the historical implications of Christianity in relation to Judaism might be at least partially rectified in Kierky’s thoughts on “contemporaneity with Christ” in his late work, “Practice in Christianity.”
I would like to listen to a podcast featuring a conversation between you, and Seyyed Hossein Nasr, who is an Iranian philosopher, theologian, and Islamic scholar.
During my sitting this morning, it occurred to me that what you are referring to as "relevance realization" is the "now",
"nen", or "waking up to this moment", and which is the result of some unconscious, automatic process in the brain of
selecting a particular combination of sense impressions to "light up", and which has nothing to do with "choice" or "free will".
This video is great! Intellectual people are great for (int i = 0; i < sizeof(scale); i++) great!! I have read some christian science man admired about Kierkegaard, I think this video is starting point to think about it. I am neutral in admiration or criticism, this video is one of the references done by intellectual Dr.Vervaeke, one of my contemporary science professional I trust for.
Thank you for recording and sharing~!!
Excellent work, John and Chris.
If I had one wish to ask, it'd be to be present in one of your conversations/dialogues, just listening in and trying to catch just a glimmer of the logos you're taking part of.
I think we can arrange that for the patrons.
That'd be fabulous. I'm happy to help with whatever may be needed.
Wonderful
I’m Christian terms perhaps
Only God could say what this new spirit
gradually forming within you will be.
Give Our Lord the benefit of believing
that his hand is leading you,
and accept the anxiety of feeling yourself
in suspense and incomplete.
Pierre Teilhard de Chardin
The solution, like he said, “participation,” in “higher immediacy,” which is paradoxical-lower to go higher-that one “must become like little children” to “enter the Kingdom of Heaven.”
what a wonderful cresendo to the last 2 episodes.
could use a youtube iv-drip of christopher on a more regular basis.
😄
First!
lol
will return after grading some papers ...can't hardly wait!
Has ChatGPT internalized humanity through reading the entire internet?
Is that what internalizing mean? Predicting was what one would say (or something they would reasonably say) in front of this or that idea? The other night I was reading a psychoterapeutic classic work and it was like John was automatically speaking through me in my head, responding to what I was reading (I've listened to so much of John in the past few months!). My brain was ''predicting'' what he would say when exposed to this or that idea. John is now part of my ''inner tribe'' as some would put it. That's what made me think of this.
Hallelujah
Oh man, this is so useful and beautiful. I think I am ironic.
Our ability to throw beyond ourselves; to project into the future, allows us to throw the idea of ourselves beyond the body’s demise. God and the metaphysical in general can be explained anthropologically.
The link they speak about, was it ever posted?
I'd love to check out the interfaith dialouge they reference.
Hamda? Hamla?
Halp?
What is meant by the paradox of Jesus? I couldn’t really put a pin on it. Thanks!
36:15. The eye of sauron looking for the ring?
Marvellous
I've watched this twice now
Is every experience of the Logos an experience of Christ? (John 1:1 and 14)
excellent. where is the link to the talk with the Muslim? thank you!
If there is one philosopher who has "epistemic humility" it is Kant.
The Syntactic, Symantec and Symbolic.
30:26 irrelevance realization. The final Boss.
Christopher you have so expressed the way I inhabit Christianity
👏👏👏👏👏
why should the ethical and the esthetic create a paradox which has to be superseded ? There is a "direct " way from both of these domaines of human experience to wonder or in your language "the ultimate", the "Good" etc..;
Looking for Jesus through Socrates eyes.
John 14:6 (KJV) Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me
❤
More on Jesus pls. I'm not insulted at all, if possible try to dig deeper.
The tragedy of your bliss is double think cascading into the event horizon.
The book ought to be read, so it is red. What form may Socrates finish the 7th with his sun; there’s i’s to (C)hris here 😉
Our chts 🐈⬛ name is Fenris 🐺haha
Please take whatever I say as coming from a good place and also not as my final thoughts. As beautiful and eloquent as Chris's language is, being so steeped in Kierkegaardian thought, and as much as what a lot of he says resounds in myself too, I find him and other Christian apologists too ethnocentric, unconvincing and lacking in an intellectual integrity and humility, almost to the point of smugness, to some extent. Of course, I'm not saying that's the case. Maybe I'm just too easily triggered when absolutes are spoken of so nonchalantly? Not that I'm a relativist, to whatever extent that makes sense. I've felt the same mental and visceral uneasiness when listening to Pageau too, even though I do, like Chris, enjoy listening to what they have to say. They seem to provoke me for some reason, which is why I listen to them but it doesn't seem to be because I'm resisting their thoughts in any way as that was my first response to how I was thinking and feeling. I have my reasons but more importantly it doesn't align with my own encounters with my being/Being. Anyway, I'm always grateful for the content and will probably watch both episodes again. Sincerest regards, Jason.
From a Christian perspective, Chris is eminently humble and unbelievably restrained in these conversations. Also, nowhere in any of these discussions is there a even a hint of apologetics, quite the contrary, Chris seems extremely reluctant to push the issue even when he could do so via Kierkegaard himself. Perhaps it might help for you to try and understand that from the perspective of a Christian (a genuine one in the Kierkegaardian sense) there is no question as to the existence of God, he is real to us, more real than the material realm, so that might be why they seem to be nonchalant about absolutes, especially if one is in an absolute relation to the absolute. Hope that helps some.
Thanks, that helped.
Dang Mr. JV you should complement your fit with a thick golden chain and an off white nyc hat, would look sick!
Logic is the idea of pixelating a hologram.
Dichotomous parts of you riving your sense of coherence as you are the measure of all things. Too much contradiction leading to Christ as image, allows for the 'outside of you' to emerge. Suffering as a way to relation with moreness (to metanoia)
Notes: Breathing as aspiration and expiration as a movement visavis opponent processing, can extend to other domains like limited and unlimited of Neoplatonism
Despair comes from thinking you are self made, your own ground
Self transformation requires both extending oneself but also being created by the other outside of oneself, because you cannot do it all, paradoxical. Must transcend aesthetical and ethical (fated) transformations
Irony - passing through finite and limited and recognising these to get to unlimited
If you question too much, you lose contact to agent-arena relationship (hamlet) - this is not irony. Reflectiveness gap
Virtuous lie - propositional untrue but participatory perspectively true
Uses the eyes of Socrates to look for Christ
Some people use irony if not taking up social positions or not grown up in these
Irony hidden truths behind appearances
Humility not humiliation - there is so much I do not know exercise
Aesthetic - bound by unreality like beards of women
The throughljne that brings depth, not just ascent. Think symposium by Plato, each idea isnt necessarily an ascent but a deepening
Eros: sexual union but more than verticality. The union, connection, admiration, joining allows for truth to come into the world, gathering logos, and to be nourished by this union
Neither nostalgia or utopia
By using the Jesus symbol, we are able to come into contract through it into a reality that exceeds ours, and be known by this reality as it offers us love and knowing
Suffering - dark night of soul - exhaust its boundaries as measured of its own salvation, beyond all rational limits, has to look outside of itself.
Your (absurd existential) suffering becomes his (Jesus) at the limit of suffering - take on identity of Christ
Flow as a way to get over reflectiveness gap
So when you access the "really real" somehow, bloodshed which is just humanely real ( no quotation marks on real here) doesn't matter ! Any ontology which does not take into consideration or subordinates Ethics and or Morality which is not checked by the "ethically good" in one's way to the "Good" is, in my humble and human opinion, is misconceived and dangerous.
The idea is that a love for what is most real motivates one to overcome self deception and to enhance one’s ability to see thorough illusion and into realty. This is to cultivate wisdom. Each virtue is how one is wise in a particular situation. So the is an inherent connection between the normativity of seeking the most real and the cultivation of virtue. I do share you concerns about the religious having priority over the ethical for K. But consider someone being super ethical in a dream. Would that make then a good person? Probably not because they are not facing real limitations or helping real people. So the connection to reality has a primacy. I do think the Platonic proposal i just gave us a better answer than K’s but I also respect our relationship to the ultimate has to transcend our expectations and codes if it is ultimate. Making humans the ultimate standard is also fraught with danger. I hope this helps.
@@johnvervaeke Thank you but I am sorry to say this doesn't help, but perhaps it doesn't because I am wrong. So I might say it doesn't help "yet". Few points:
°i do agree that "there is an inherent connection between the normativity of seeking the most real and the cultivation of virtue " although I would put real stress on the word "seeking "here.And I do agree making humans the ultimate standard is dangerous too.
° I consider being super ethical in dream and I invite you to consider you are endowed with a super ability to see into reality also in a dream. As we are both dreaming, this does not settle the question. When we are not in a dream, I am more on the reality side than you because virtue can only be practiced in this ordinary world as we know it.
°I do not agree at all that our relationship to the ultimate has to transcend, as you say, our "codes" if by code you mean ethics /morality. I am not religious but for me the best part of religions is their stress on morality. The everyday morality of the ordinary man in concrete situations. Wasn't it Plotonius who said "without virtue, God is just but a name"?
° One notorious philosophical example of occlusion of ethics is Heidegger, self proclaimed "metaphysical anti-semite" and non repentant, high order practical nazi. In ordinary human understanding, each of the millions of persons who perished in gas chambers (compared to mechanized agriculture by Heidegger !) was a HUMAN being before being a manifestation of Being. ( which in any case was denied to them, and not being a part of Being, they could not in a sense , even die!) One can also be leured without criminal intent. Take the case of Nishitani who philosophically defended ( his enthusiasm has been described as "manic")the Pacific War in the name of"overcoming modernity, and making imperial japan "the focal point of history" as a nation of "non ego", a master race ( herrenvolk) who possessed "moral energy". In this view Japanizing ethic groups in Asia was a matter of spiritual revolution. The suffering and devastation inflicted by imperial Japan through massacres (Nanjing), slavery, forced labor, sexual enslavement of "comfort women", starvation, human experimentation... is counted in millions. I haven't yet read NIshitani's book so I am not sure about the role of Ethics with respect to his ontology, but a cursory look on pages 273- 280 of "Religion and Nothingness" makes me think that morality is not thought as a check on Ontology. He writes: "without ceasing to be a human being, the self comes to a mode of being where it gets rids of the human". And I suppose here, Kant's treating beings as ends, is superseded.
° I think we should be careful with ideas. They do have power. I was born and raised in Istanbul, so I come from a country where an Islamo-opressive, anti-democratic regime has changed institutions and minds. "Modernity" is not a monolithic phenomenon and all his shortcomings should certainly not be attributed to the philosophers of Enlightenment. So many people in the worlds dominated with one kind idea of the "ultimate" or the other can't find " the courage to use their own understanding" let alone "make public use of it". Sometimes, if they do, they are killed. It is evident that this understanding is relational, sometimes non-dual etc. but in the end we are what we understand ourselves to be.
@@ruhdandoujon6310
First I share your concerns about Heidegger as I have repeatedly said elsewhere. So I will not respond to those point you made.
You shifted the dream example to an epistemological point which loses the central point. My example was ethics is undermined if is not grounded in realness. Your version shows that contact with realness in undermined when there is no contact with realness which is a tautology.
It is clear that our codes evolve. This is not driven but what is immanent in such codes but what transcends them. I think facing reality and being challenged to change (maturation and growth) are presupposed by any moral code. You seem to advocate a moral check on ontology but no ontological check on morality. Why not both.? After all the prioritization of morality over ontology is ultimately an ontological claim. I think the argument that meaning is as valuable as morality and is not reducible to it, as has been argued by Susan Wolf in her book Meaning in Life and why it matters, and is supported by all the psychological research on meaning life and belonging. Since Nishitanii is specifically addressing nihilism I think his statements about morality should be read in that context.
I appreciate you situation and I grew up in a fundamentalist Christianity so I also know about oppressive religion. I hope I am respecting this point. As a scientist I explicitly accept that there was much good in the Enlightenment. I have no nostalgia for the pre-Enlightenment world.
I propose we have three poles One is mastery (not political) which is about our ability to exercise our agency in the world, morality which is about our responsibility, and meaning which is about our connectivity. I think there is optimally in a three way system of checks and balances with each other. Wisdom is about realizing this dynamic optimality.
Thanks for the engagement.
@@johnvervaeke Not having a religious upbringing so as to have a taste of the "religious", I suppose that ,my way of conceiving the "ultimate" has been through morality, so thank you for helping me open to the other pole and to see better through a shared passion for understanding.
Feels like two xNTJs' talking lol or at least one! John for sure!